The current peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians
is yet another reminder that nothing is certain or predictable in
Middle East politics. Previous peace negotiations began with hope
and ended in disappointment. The current effort to achieve a peace
agreement began in Annapolis last November [2007]. Six months
later, there are no indications that this attempt will be any
different. The longest and most ruthless conflict in Middle East
history appears once again to be resisting a successful
conclusion.
Despite the fact that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have held
more meetings than in any previous negotiations, there is little
room for optimism. Hundreds of hours have been spent at the
negotiating table. There have been bi-weekly meetings between
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) and Israeli Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert, but, thus far, the talks offer no sign that
the two sides can reach a peace agreement by the end of this
year.
One of the Palestinian negotiators has flatly stated: "There is no
significant progress on any of the six core issues the two sides
agreed to discuss: Settlements, water, security, Jerusalem, borders
and refugees. The one area where progress has been made is
security. The negotiator asks, "Why security? The answer is
obvious; security is the only issue that is of interest to
Israel."
In contrast to the Palestinian negotiator's bleak view, Israeli
negotiators paint a far more optimistic picture of their
negotiations with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)
leadership, an optimism which is designed to direct the world's
attention away from what is happening on the ground in both the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The truth is, to date, there is no
progress. Time is running out for the three leaders, U.S. President
George W. Bush, Abbas, and Olmert, each of whom promised a
successful conclusion to these negotiations by the end of this
year.
Negotiations but Not Implementation
After nearly 18 years of peace talks between Israel and the PLO, it
becomes clearer each day that Israel is interested in negotiating,
not implementing, agreements. Israel is content to participate in
an endless peace process with the Palestinians, so long as that
process is limited to words without action. Palestinians, on the
other hand, cannot afford an endless peace process that comes to no
definitive action by the end of 2008.
Israel and its supporters deny the assertion that Israel does not
want peace, pointing to many peace offers Israel made to the
Palestinians in the past, all of which were rejected. They also
insist that the Palestinians do not want peace. A closer look at
recent history reveals that the Israelis have never made the
Palestinians an offer they expected the Palestinians to accept. Nor
has Israel ever accepted any Palestinian offers.
Why the absence of successful offers to either side? The answer is
simple: Israel does not want to sign a peace agreement with the
Palestinians because many Israelis continue to believe that the
dream of "Greater Israel" - a land extending well beyond the
historical borders of Palestine - can still be realized. No Israeli
leader wants to be the one who gives up this dream for a peace
agreement.
United by a Common Enemy
Israeli society is broken into many factions: American Israelis,
Russian Israelis, African Israelis, Middle Eastern Israelis,
European Israelis, and others. A large majority of Israeli citizens
are secular, which means they do not have a common religious bond.
One thing that unifies these factions, besides their Jewish
ethnicity, is that they share a common enemy. Their unity is rooted
in a common enemy, and no Israeli leader wants to risk giving up
that single unifying bond by reaching a peace agreement with the
Palestinians.
In May, Israel celebrated its 60th anniversary. Less noticed by the
outside world, Palestinians marked the 60th year of the Nakba, the
catastrophe that struck them in 1948, when the creation of Israel
in western Palestine drove Palestinians from their homes and towns.
These people became refugees, and many of them are still alive.
Under international law, any peace agreement reached between Israel
and the Palestinians would obligate Israel, at the very least, to
allow refugees born in what was called Palestine before 1948 to
return to their home area.
Israel stands strongly against this right of return, primarily for
demographic reasons. The population balance between Israeli
Palestinians and Israeli Jews is shifting strongly toward the
Palestinian citizens of Israel; returning refugees would add to
this shift. It is difficult to believe that any Israeli leader
would be willing to increase the number of Palestinians living
inside Israel in exchange for a peace agreement with a Palestinian
leadership currently weakened by internal divisions.
Unquestioning Western Support
If a peace agreement were to be reached, leading to a new
Palestinian state, Palestinians would immediately enjoy
international legitimacy. With that legitimacy, the outside world
would become aware of stories the Western media has ignored for
decades. These stories would reveal the truth about the true nature
of the Israeli occupation and the Nakba of the Palestinian
people.
Israel has always dreaded the creation of a Palestinian state,
which Israelis see as a threat to Israel's security. The unexamined
truth about the current occupation and the Nakba is that a failure
to end the occupation and to resolve the problems created by the
Nakba poses a far greater threat than any future military threat to
Israel's security. The Israeli leader who signs a peace agreement
giving the Palestinians a state and worldwide legitimacy would
expose the 60-year Israeli propaganda denying the occupation and
the Nakba. This would bring a scrutiny that the Israeli public is
unwilling to accept.
Israel has enjoyed tremendous Western support over the past 60
years, especially American support, which has expanded since 1967.
The support focuses on the pretext of protecting Israel's "right to
exist." From the perspective of the Western world - a perspective
created by Israel and promulgated by a compliant Western media -
Israel has been under constant threat since it achieved its
independence in 1948. This danger, as perceived by the Western
world, led to a strong conviction, especially in the United States,
that the world is morally obligated to provide Israel with
unconditional and unlimited support.
Israeli leaders are fully aware that if they sign any peace
agreement with the Palestinians, they would almost certainly lose
this unparalleled level of support. They are not willing to trade
that support away by reaching a peace agreement with a divided
Palestinian population. The Western media's version of the conflict
between Israel and the Palestinians leaves an impression that life
is almost unbearable for Israelis. The truth is that life is good
inside Israel. Many Israelis live in complete ignorance of what is
happening in the occupied territories, where daily life is filled
with injustices. Life for all Palestinians in the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip is extremely hard.
Rockets launched into Israel from Gaza affect very few of the
citizens of Israel, but because the attacks represent a danger to
Israeli civilians, they should be deplored and stopped immediately.
The Western media report on these attacks as a great danger to
Israel, but the truth is that Israel remains the most secure
country in the world. Israelis do not need a peace agreement to
make them feel more secure.
Facing the Possibility of Failed Negotiations
Given these assessments, it is time for the three leaders involved
in these peace negotiations, especially Abbas, to face reality and
start preparing for what will happen when the peace process
collapses. Preparations are needed to confront a cycle of violence
like the one that erupted in the aftermath of the failure of the
2000 Camp David negotiations.
According to sources close to the Palestinian president's office,
the Palestinian leadership has been looking into options to deal
with the potential failure of the peace process. They are
considering "radical decisions" to deal with the ramifications of
yet another "no agreement." Options for the Palestinian leadership
are limited, and they are diminishing daily.
Two Options for the Palestinians
Two of the most drastic decisions facing the Palestinian president
are: 1), the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority (PA),
established after the 1994 Oslo Accords; and 2) declaring a new
non-violent popular uprising in the Palestinian territories and
Diaspora. These actions would obligate Israel to assume
responsibility for its continued role as the occupying power in the
West Bank and Gaza. Israel would also be forced to face the harsh
implications of the apartheid system that it has created in the
occupied territories. With no significant accomplishments or
changes on the ground after 18 years of failed negotiations,
Palestinians would have no choice but to consider a new non-violent
uprising in order to protect the unity of the Palestinian people
and the future of Palestinian identity.
These actions carry high risks. They should be used only as a last
resort. Since the death of the former Palestinian President Yasser
Arafat, the PLO and, more specifically, the Fateh movement has
suffered from a lack of leadership and the growing popularity of
Hamas in both the West Bank and Gaza.
Without a strong and unified Palestinian leadership, the
possibility exists that Hamas could take over the West Bank,
placing all of the occupied areas under Hamas leadership. This
could turn a non-violent uprising into a violent one. If Israel
continues with its excruciating policy of procrastination, denying
the Palestinian people their rights, confiscating Palestinian land,
demolishing Palestinian homes, uprooting Palestinian trees,
exploiting Palestinian resources, invading and shelling Palestinian
neighborhoods, and starving and oppressing an entire population,
the eventual takeover by Hamas could become the only option
remaining for Palestinian leaders.
A Possible Hamas Takeover
The takeover of the West Bank by Hamas may be legally inevitable.
According to the Palestinian Basic Law, when the president's term
ends, the head of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) could
become - under certain circumstances such as resignation,
incompetence, and death - a transitional president for three months
until a new president is elected directly by the entire population.
Currently the PLC is controlled by Hamas, including the
speaker.
If there is no agreement by the end of this year, Abbas will resign
or be asked to step down, because his term will be up by the end of
this year, and Hamas will be in total control of the entire
Palestinian territories, at least for three months. During this
time, the interim Hamas president will have full authority to even
dismantle the government led by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and
supported by the West.
The Fateh party, led by Abbas, will confront a dangerous stalemate.
If the Fateh leadership refuses to go ahead with the transition
according to the law, a civil war and the darkest time for the
Palestinian people and the Palestinian liberation movement would
follow, most likely before the end of this year. If the Fateh
leadership agrees that a Hamas member should become the country's
president for three months, no one can predict what decisions he
will make to seize power and remove Fateh as a viable political
entity.
Needed: "Radical and Painful Decisions"
No one can predict what the coming six months will hold for
Palestinians and Israelis, but these next six months will
definitely be crucial for the future of the region. If no agreement
is reached by the end of this year, the consequences will be felt
beyond the borders of 1948 and 1967. The entire region will be
affected by the failure of the current peace process. Radical
groups in the region will grow; internal conflicts in Lebanon, Gaza
and the West Bank will spread; a regional war will become more
likely; and violence between Israel and the Palestinians will
intensify.
Recently, Israeli officials have stated that Israel will have to
make "painful decisions" to make peace with the Palestinians. So
far, we haven't seen anything but pain for the Palestinians. It is
time for both sides to make "radical and painful decisions" if they
expect to find peace by the end of this year.