Israeli-Palestinian conflict: we can, we must, and we will.

Photos

gaza | Photo 44

see larger image

uploaded by 158

• 

  uploaded by 158 | add comment

• 

  uploaded by 158 | add comment

• 

  uploaded by whateverblg | add comment

• 

  uploaded by 158 | add comment

With Obama in the White House, possibly Netanyahu heading the Israeli Knesset and George Mitchell in between, now is a good time to pursue the peace process again.  Yet the prospects have never looked dimmer. 

Peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians has always been full of such paradoxes.  After both Clinton and Bush put the conflict on the back burner till the end of their presidencies, the disagreements over a final resolution deteriorated almost to a point of no return!

Agreement is impossible at present.  Yet the outlines of a final agreement "are well known and have been more or less agreed..... for the past decade". This week's edition of The Economist spelt them out.  Israel would return to the 1967 borders  (with minor adjustments and land swaps, including the three biggest settlement blocks), Jerusalen would be carefully divided so that both countries could use it as their capital, there would be international oversight of the main religious sites, and a symbolic  right of return for refugees (with a small number returning) while the rest would receive compensation.  Palestine would be demilitarised but sovereign, with an international force (probably NATO) securing borders, and a road and railway to link between Gaza and the West bank. 

Agreement is possible:

It is ironic that both sides to the conflict have informally agreed to these. Both sides are willing to overcome these so called sticking points.  The BBC some time ago pointed out that Hamas' rejection of Israel, enshrined in its so called Charter, is a mirage!  The Charter was written by a senior maverick Hamas official who never had the confidence of its rulers and, in fact,  the Charter was never ratified. It acts as a useful 'windup' to Israeli supporters.  The Guardian and The New York Times both recently covered interviews with two of  Hamas' most prominent leaders,  Khaled Meshaal (secretary-general) and Ismail Haniyeh (prime minister).  They pointed out that the two have "edged towards meeting"  (The Economist's words) the three basic conditions required of Hamas (Israel's right to exist, accepting the PLO signed agreements, and the two-state solution).  The Financial Times has always advised Hamas to hold out recognition of Israel as a bargaining counter, just as Fatah did when it negotiated the dropping of the PLO Charter earlier.

Ironically, seventy-five per cent of Israelis and most Palestinians still support the notion of a two-state solution.  As The Economist says:  " Hamas' popularity is based not on its call for Israel's annihalation but on its reputation for honesty in contrast to Fatah's for corruption"! Most Palestinians, too,  want unity between Fatah and Hamas so a broad government comprising of both parties can be created.

What we all need to do (and George Mitchell has the skills and sensitivity to do this) is to get behind the posturing and political rhetoric to what all sides are really prepared to do to achieve a lasting peace. Of course it will not be easy.  The sticking point in all conflicts is loss of face:  both sides have stuck their necks out in the past.  They will have to climb down over these issues, and that is never easy. Colin Rubenstein, writing in yesterday's The Australian, points out that the "Israeli public has has always strongly supported a resolution to the conflict as long as it leads to genuine peace.... Most analysts agree that Netanyahu, who has explicitly refused to rule out a future Palestinian state, would make such a deal if he could. But Israelis are increasingly disillusioned as to the feasibility of any such agreement".

Rubenstein concludes that  the differences for the peace process between Netanyahu's Likud Party and  Livni's Kadima Party is more about perception and tactics than substance.

Sticking point:

The real sticking point, until now, has been the power and thinking of the Jewish lobby in the United States.  That  has changed dramatically over the past six months.  Previously, in Jewish-American circles, the idea of talking to Hamas was taboo.  But it is no longer the case.

The Economist reminds readers of an influential but so far unpublished letter, written by  a group of senior bipartisan foreign-policy veterans (Zbigniew Brazezinski, Breant Scowcroft and Lee Hamilton among others), demanding that Obama  appoint an even handed special envoy (done), spell out a clear vision for Palestine (coming soon), and draw Hamas into the talks (not so easy).

In the past, it has been the powerful, old pro-Israel lobby group,  the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), that has backed Israel whatever the circumstances.  It is still powerful.  But things are changing.  A new group has appeared on the block, calling the shots now.  Called J Street, it is vigorously "pro-Israel, pro-peace", is backed by younger American Israelis and Palestinians and is much more likely to see things from the Palestinian point of view.  J Street has outspokenly called for Israel and its supporters to engage with Hamas, and is supported by other groups such as Americans for Peace. I personally think this break with the old past of unthinking support for whatever the Israelis did, regardless of the consequences, is a real breakthrough.  Almost as dramatic as the demolition of the wall would be!

Tough love:

David Milliband, the UK Foreign Minister, on the BBC this week, pointed out that there is a large swathe of both Arabs and Jews who now support the basic parameters agreed at the Beirut Summit in 2002.  Our own senior foreign-policy veteran, Chis Patten (formerly the last Governor of Hong Kong) has called on Obama to finally be tough with Israel over the illegal settlements (as was the senior George Bush) by "squeezing it into giving the Palestinians a fair deal"  (Economist's words). Certainly, someone needs to call a stop to these illegal settlements and to make it clear to the Israelis they will no longer get away with such infringements of Palestinian rights.

But many gloomsters think the two state solution is too late already.  Yet as The Economist points out,  in the US, there is "a new president, with a new team, new tactics, and a different set of pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian backers, including Jewish ones, back home". I believe Obama has the courage and the capacity to be blunt with Israel, at last. That is the way to get the two state solution.

"Now is the time for all good people (especially in the US) to come to the aid of the party!"