Thursday, September 23, 2010

Exclusive peace talks are easier to arrange, but is the result durable?

East Meredith, NY:





EAST MEREDITH, NY - The ongoing peace talks in the Middle East may bring an agreement. But more is needed - a lasting peace. In 1983, Lebanon signed a peace treaty with Israel under similar pressure-cooker conditions. During the civil war, the Lebanese were divided into two main political camps, one friendly to the West and the other distrustful. The 1983 US mediated agreement lasted only a few weeks.



To succeed, the current Mideast peace talks should include three missing, albeit hard-line stakeholders: Hamas, Syria and Iran. It may sound strange to suggest bringing in Iran, but Tehran's relevance to peace is justified by its close connection to the Palestine question through Hamas, which it funds, and to Lebanon - with 400,000 Palestinian refugees - through its ally and ideological partner Hizbullah.



Israel's peace talks with the Palestinian Authority (PA), without Hamas, leave a large segment of the Palestinians without representation. Hamas is a political party; it legitimately won the last national elections and has controlled Gaza since the split with the PA in 2007. Such an omission reduces the credibility of the PA, especially among the 4.5 million Palestinian refugees in the Arab world.



Ironically, Israel's three-year siege of Gaza continues to benefit the political image of Hamas. Gaza has turned into a large "refugee" camp through sustained and harsh isolation; there is some degree of bonding through suffering between Gazans and the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. Despite the counterproductive ways in which Hamas resists the occupation, Hamas offers many Palestinians catharsis. Hamas's rhetoric communicates inflexibility; nevertheless it is still possible to engage the Damascus and Gaza-based Hamas leaders in peace talks, but only if Syria joins the process.



In fact, excluding Syria from the peace talks is detrimental to any long term agreement because it is perceived by Syrian and other Arabs as an acceptance by the international community of Israel's occupation and annexation of the Golan Heights. Syria's desire to exchange land (the Golan) for peace remains strong. Among the Arab states, Syria has the largest number of power chips in the peace game. Damascus hosts Hamas' political leadership; it is an ally and vital supporter of Hizbullah and Iran has had a strong partnership with Damascus for years.



With Syria excluded from an agreement, Iran would be free to continue pushing many political and strategic buttons to make life difficult for Jerusalem and Washington. Iran supports Hizbullah, the strongest political faction in Lebanon, whose ability to wage asymmetric war against Israel has been strengthened since the 2006 conflagration. It reinforces Hamas' intransigent stand and cultivates an alliance with Syria. Can peace be achieved when two strategic states in the region, Syria and Iran, are shunned, sanctioned and threatened? How can Washington, aiming for a successful outcome, involve Egypt and Jordan but leave these two players out of the game?



Time is running out for both Palestine and Israel. There is a danger that both Israelis and Arabs opposed to a peaceful resolution in the form of a two-state solution would find effective means to obstruct peace and wait as long as it takes to realize maximalist dreams that would be destructive to both sides



Currently, these actors do not have a stake in a successful process; integrating them into the process increases the chances of a long term resolution to the Israeli-Arab conflict. To motivate Syria, the return of the Golan Heights must be on the agenda in exchange for pressure on the Damascus-based Hamas leadership. To bring in Hamas, the siege of Gaza must be lifted while border security re-arranged to satisfy both Israelis and Palestinians; an overdue Palestinian national election could result in a unity between Fateh and Hamas. When the Arab world, especially Syria, rallies around the peace process, Iran is very likely to soften towards Israel and the West, both regarding "Palestine" and the nuclear issue: Sanctions are already affecting Ahmedinejad's grip on power; the wider Muslim world would move in the Arab direction and Iran would then feel too isolated to maintain its present position.



Washington needs help in shepherding Mideast peace. The United States must work very closely with Europe to promote and enforce peace while ensuring Israel's security. Israel has recently joined the OECD and is asking for closer ties with the EU. Brussels and Washington could jointly formulate and publicly re-announce the parameters of a peace product: restoration of 1967 borders - with adjustments for consolidated settlements, a shared Jerusalem, massive human and economic empowerment of refugees, return of the Golan Heights, multinational forces, normalisation with all Arab states and regional cooperation.



If peace is to take place the reconciliation process has to widen as soon as possible to include all major stakeholders. Lasting peace requires an inclusive bargaining table. It would not be easy but it would be lasting.



This article was published first in Common Grounds News Service on September, 16, 2010

Netanyahu has room for a U- turn

East Meredith, NY:


Ironically, a negotiated peace agreement is expected to legitimize Israeli ownership of consolidated settlements within limited occupied Palestinian space. Standards of social justice erode with time. A mere decade ago, building Israeli houses on the West Bank or in East Jerusalem was considered grave international violation of Palestinian property rights. Today expanding this extensive web of construction for half a million Israelis is labeled an “issue”; stopping such construction has become a “radical idea”; banning it temporarily has turned into a “concession”.

In the ongoing Middle East peace talks, Prime Minister Netanyahu can afford to make a U- turn away from the impasse on the settlement freeze. He has the power to yield on this inflated procedural issue. However, his counterpart in the peace talks, President Abbas, has entered the peace process politically handicapped. Many, among Palestinians and the wider Arab world, consider Abbas too weak to negotiate a fair deal. For some Palestinians, his acceptance of a temporary ban on settlements, instead of calling for their dismantling, is a premature and unauthorized concession.

In Israel, the Prime Minister has enough backup to withstand public pressure from those who advocate settlement expansion. Two thirds of the Israeli population and the majority of the Diaspora support him as he considers measured steps in risk taking in the interest of peace. The US offers him encouragement; and to the extent that he shows flexibility and good will in negotiation, he would improve his international image, as a maximalist hard liner.

By Sunday, when the ban expires, Netanyahu should, with courage, extend the 10-month settlements freeze, to save the peace process from a premature and disgraceful ending. If the opposition to a continuation of the settlement freeze becomes belligerent, Netanyahu may have to change his cabinet to share power with more moderate politicians.

Netanyahu may be able to avoid this cabinet shuffle by seeking public feedback on conditions of peace. Through a referendum, Israeli society can express its wide range of opinions on any peace product.

Perspective should not be lost: extending the freeze is a minor turn in procedure that would allow a major change in substance - making peace without dismantling all settlements.

Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Will fear of failure rescue Mideast negotiations?

East Meredith:

Is the Obama Administration able today to mediate conflict resolution between Arabs and Israelis?

The White House is hosting this week the launch of a new round of direct Mideast peace talks. Without hesitation, the Administration conveys new signs of hope and assumes the presence of regional readiness for peace making.

The honored guests in Washington are Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Palestinian Authority President Abbas. Invited officials include the two heads of Arab states which have signed separate peace agreements with Israel, President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan.

Not unusual, the process starts with mutual threats: Israel won’t promise to extend the settlement freeze when the ten-month construction- ban expires at the end of September. Reciprocally, if the Israeli illegal building continues in October the Palestinian Authority is determined to withdraw from the talks.

Is the region currently in the mood for peace?

The anticipated peace talks demand of Israel to divert its attention from Iran.

In Israel, people are extremely worried about Iran. Currently, Israelis talk more about feasibility of war than about prospects of peace. The announced change in the leadership of the military - as of next February- indicates that Israel may be mulling a “pre-emptive” strike on Iran sometime next year. According to a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, 65 % of Americans would support such wild military action.

For Israel, the immediate source of national insecurity is no longer in Palestinian territories. The West Bank had been relatively quiet and busy in economic activity for two years, and Gaza’s Hamas had been isolated.

But for how long would Hamas stay in the cold outside the peace process? Hamas has already targeted the peace talks by ruthlessly murdering four Israeli West Bank settlers on Tuesday. Hamas will pay dearly for this act of terror, but it is used to play martyrdom. However, isolating Hamas is counterproductive.

The Israeli prime minister has emerged as the most important decision maker. But Netanyahu‘s deep distrust of Palestinians and other Arabs diminishes his commitment to peace, dilutes his leadership and narrows his negotiation skills. And his ultra conservative partners in the cabinet mistakenly consider peace-making the road to the unraveling of the Jewish state.

The mood among Arabs and Palestinians is also very skeptical, but the desire for a peace deal with Israel remains strong. Palestinians have a clear inferior position in their bargaining position with the occupier. They are asked to ignore settlement building and plunge into negotiation with blind faith. While Palestinian violence against innocent people is easy to condemn, Israeli violence in the form of illegal land appropriation is not. The late Edward Said reminds us that the victor writes history.

Palestinians lack representation by excluding Hamas and Syria from the negotiations. Palestinians are a split community, ideologically, politically and geographically. Arab diplomatic cover for the Palestinian negotiators is weak, with Damascus being shunned.

The economy, not world peace is what Americans are thinking of today. American public opinion is not encouraging for the Arabs; Islamophobia is at an historic high. Moreover, Americans do not appear highly supportive of the Obama Administration in its new grand policy initiatives at home or abroad. Obama’s charisma is gradually waning; in his battle with Netanyahu over the settlement issue, the US president has yielded.

The mainline Jewish community in America is lukewarm about peace. For many American Jews, the focus of concern is over Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, not peace with the Palestinians of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Is this round of peace negotiations doomed to failure? Not necessarily. Miracles do happen when failure would bring war, a risky adventure in which America will have to reluctantly take sides with Israel. Moreover, Obama needs a policy victory for November mid-term elections. Enabling a peace deal in the Middle East would give the Democrats a strong electoral boost. With Afghanistan and Iraq remaining a US burden, and with Iran likely to become a new war front if peace fails, the Obama administration will try their utmost to mediate some imperfect, programmed peace agreement. Will it succeed?

Those looking for signs of hope might consider the wide latitude of the Palestinian Authority for compromise a great asset in the search for common ground. And Netanyahu’s known hard line stance in dealing with Arabs may position him in the role of “Nixon in China”, a prospective norm-breaker.

To succeed the peace plan must tackle end-game issues with speed, widen the agenda to include Syria and Iran and involve the US as a strong central broker - not merely a diplomatic convener.

The striking advantage of the current peace talks maybe the fear of failure. The alternative to peace is a new regional war. No party can afford a new round.