Between vision and
delusions:
The upcoming trilateral meetings between the US, Israel and the Palestinians
Aref Assaf, February 18
,2006, Op-ed published in the Daily Record
The
Palestine Israel problem is finally getting some attention from the Bush
Administration. It was Bush‘s doctrine to allow Israel to contain the
Palestine problems by giving Israel almost free hand in dealing with
Palestinian concerns. However,
the Iraq Report concluded that the issue of
Palestine is crucial to the vision of a stable and democratic Middle East.
Now that the Palestinian factions have concluded the Mecca Accord to form a
unity government, composed of members of Fatah and Hamas, one would hope the
upcoming visit by US secretary of State Rice to the region, followed by the
expected meeting between Israel's Ehud Olmert and Palestine’s Mahmoud Abbas,
would produce a more engaged
and sincere effort in defining the political horizons of a lasting
agreement between the warring parties.
While it is true that the
litmus test lies with the ability of the Palestinians: whether the Accord
can put an end to the factional bloodletting of the last few months and
whether it can lead the beleaguered Palestinian National Authority out of
its international isolation. Much, it needs to be stated, has to happen on the Israeli side to
enable a successful agreement. We should be asking Israel to honor the prior
agreements it signed with the PLO, the United States and the
International community. Israel has accelerated its land grab of Arab
lands on which the future Palestinian state is supposed to be built.
But the Accord is the
latest manifestation of a more visible and assertive Saudi role in the
region. As America’s traditional ally in the Arab world, notwithstanding the
hurdles of 911 implications, a high level US role in bringing the
Palestinians and the Israelis to the table will be seen by the Saudis as an
endorsement of their efforts. This price, symbolic as it may seem, is
pivotal to the Saudis reemergence as they must now reassess their role in the region
after the Iraq was, and the yet unpredictable but potentially volatile
future which may result from a nuclear Iran.
James
Zogby of AAI said it best: "What is needed now is leadership that solves
real problems, reinforcing and rewarding steps made toward moderation and
strengthening the role of the Palestinian presidency. Reigning in the
Israelis and restoring some degree of normalcy to the Palestinian situation
are prerequisites for any future progress."
The agreement which the
Saudis recently brokered between Hamas and Fatah opened the way for a
government of national unity in the Palestinian territories, ending months
of violent confrontations between the two movements. That unified leadership
could now, in theory, begin talks with the Israelis. However, the words on
the status of Israel to which Hamas assented in Mecca - that it respects
existing agreements with Israel - go no further than previous formulations.
Hamas has already moved as far as can be expected, pushing the issue of
Israel's right to exist into the future. But Israel and the United States
insist on an explicit recognition of Israel and a permanent renunciation of
violence.
These, they know full well, will not be forthcoming. Whether this insistence
is a matter of principle, a consequence of the limits of what is politically
possible in Israel and America, or, as many suspect, a means of avoiding
negotiations which neither Israel or the United States really wants, the
result is the same. The only talks possible are between Israel and Fatah, or
the Palestinian president, alone, and they are of limited value. There is,
it is true, now the possibility of some restoration of the funding whose
suspension has caused much suffering. That is to be welcomed.
After six years of
inactivity, the Accord is also the latest mark on the road to America's
re-engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I believe there
exists a cautious optimism in Washington that a renewed effort for peace in
Palestine might improve both America's battered global image and its
military position in Iraq.
But if we are really
honest about restarting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, then why is
Secretary of State is headed for the region without a key tool: clear and
unequivocal presidential mandate? American secretaries of
state are at their zenith when they are viewed to be pursuing the agenda of
an engaged and concerned president.
Three
important factors that will define the parameters of the next round of talks
between the Israelis and the Palestinians. First,
the US should expand on its recently coined "political horizon" by
outlining the end result of any future peace: to agree officially that
the solution is two states on the basis of 1967 borders. Such an approach
would reduce the tension between the two sides that we have witnessed in
past missions and diffuse the time factor, which was previously trumpeted
by one party against the other. Many parties including America Arab
organizations such as the
American task force on Palestine, have recently advocated this
approach, especially on the Arab side as witnessed by the Arab Initiative.
Others distressed by Israel' continued unilateral actions have doomed the
Two-State solution in favor of a
One-State
one.
The second way is a to
conclude a clear agreement on freezing all kinds of unilateral Israeli
practices in the occupied territories that aim to consolidate the occupation
and violate the political, national and human rights of the Palestinian
people. especially the settlement expansion
regime. No other factor has contributed to
the failure of the peace process than the Israeli settlements on Arab lands.
Another major factor to stress, drawn from previous experience, is the
need for a neutral third party mediator. One of the main shortcomings of previous
peace efforts has been the almost instinctual and institutional American bias in favor of
Israel. This bias must end, especially on issues where international law is
compromised. Arguably, if George Bush
is committed to resolving the Israeli-Palestine problem, he needs to make
his resolve clear to all concerned, and he needs to do so before Rice
departs for the region.
Skeptics and political
pundits would be quick to ask why Bush should want to get involved in such
talks after years of doing his best to avoid them. Because, in many ways,
this is an historic moment for Bush, I believe.
Bush is entering a phase
when US presidents traditionally turn their focus to international matters
and embark on defining their place in history. Few will look for the Iraq as
shinning example of Bush’s presidency. One may argue that this is a
fundamentally self-serving rationale having little or nothing to do with the
Palestinians and their plight.
One might also argue that
a more loathsome agenda is at work. In an odd twist some of the president's
neoconservative supporters - people generally known for their unquestioning
support of Israel's political right wing - are backing the drive to restart
Israeli-Palestinian talks.
Unfazed by the disaster of
Iraq many neocons are now eager to go after Iran. In this equation a renewed
peace drive in the Middle East serves as a rallying point for moderate Sunni
governments, bringing them back into "our" camp ahead of the looming
confrontation with Tehran.
President Bush stands to
make history look back at his reign with much kindness, if he would pursue
his dream of establishing a Palestinian state. After all he has begun the
most important step when he became the first and only American leader ever
to envision of the establishment of a Palestinian state. He should remind
himself and everyone else of that vision.
