Despite reported disagreements between the US administration and the Israeli Prime Minister on the issue of settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the apparent parameters of the US peace plan are currently easy to digest for Israel’s right leaning government. This might prove beneficial for Israel’s shaky Likud-led coalition but will seriously hamper the prospects of peace in the Middle East.
Faced with enormous internal pressure against his plan for health-care reform and a deflated economy, Obama’s approval rating has dipped rapidly. His reduced popularity has made it easier for members of Congress from his own party to criticize his focus on a complete Israeli settlement freeze and weakened his ability to fully implement his original foreign policy agenda. The US administration now seems ready to backtrack on previous demands which had given rise to euphoric expectations amongst local and international observers alike.
The new US approach for peace is now expected to call on Arab states to initiate normalization gestures towards Israel in exchange for a temporary and partial settlement freeze. Such a settlement halt would be restricted to areas outside of the Holy City of Jerusalem and would not ban what the Israeli Prime Minister has labeled “natural growth” in West Bank settlements. In addition, homes currently being built in the West Bank and those that were approved for construction by Netanyahu’s government on Monday will be exempt from a settlement freeze.
This suite of preconditions will be difficult for Palestinian and Arab negotiators to accept. Again this week, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas reiterated that negotiations with Israel depend on a complete halt of settlement expansion. His view is backed by key Arab leaders who have reiterated that peace-negotiations with Israel should be based on international law, stipulating a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories, as specified in the Arab Peace Initiative from 2002.
For the majority of Arab decision-makers, Obama’s apparent acquiescence on the construction of settlements is hard to digest as it takes traditional and largely uncompromising positions of the Israeli right as the point of departure for a revitalized peace process.
Essentially, the new US approach conforms to an uncompromising agenda of the Israeli Likud party which contributed to the failure of comprehensive peace negotiations during Netanyahu’s first stint as Prime Minister from 1996 and 1999. Likud’s Charter unambiguously states that Jerusalem is the “unified and eternal capital of only the State of Israel” and consequently “flatly rejects Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem.” The Charter also dictates that the party “will prevent the uprooting" of settlements and instead pledges to “strengthen and develop” them.
While one could argue that Netanyahu’s latest rhetorical acceptance of a Palestinian state signifies a real change in the Prime Minister’s agenda, the Likud Charter, more recent statements by Netanyahu, and the facts on the ground hint at the opposite. In an August meeting with local heads of West Bank settlements, Netanyahu assuaged his audience by pointing out that “ultimately”, the Government and the settler movement are “interested in the same thing”. Likewise, at a Likud party meeting this week, Netanyahu declared that “united Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people, and it will remain so forever.” At the same time, “natural growth” in the West Bank and uninhibited growth and house demolitions in East Jerusalem are continuing at a steady pace.
These realities make it abundantly clear that crafting a just solution for Jerusalem via negotiations is completely off the table for the current Israeli government. For the Palestinian side, however, sovereignty over the Islamic holy sites and Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem is paramount for a final agreement based on “two states for two peoples”. A process based on an outright rejection of the partitioning of Jerusalem and acceptance of continued Israeli settlement activities will fail to end decades of bloodshed and will likely pave the way for a prolonged no-state-solution.
This is particularly disappointing in view of current developments in Palestinian politics. For the first time in the history of the conflict, all major Palestinian factions have committed to the formula of “two states for two peoples.” The secular Fatah movement of Abbas recently elected a largely pro-peace leadership during its sixth party convention, while even the leader of the Islamist Hamas, Khaled Mashal, openly called for the creation of a Palestinian state “in the borders of 1967” which includes East Jerusalem and thus implicitly accepted a two-state solution.
Rather than recognizing these developments and striking a balance between Palestinian political aspirations and legitimate Israeli security concerns, a new round of negotiations for the sake of negotiations, starting with trilateral meetings during this month’s UN General Assembly session, would hardly prove helpful. While true negotiations leading to historical compromises are as needed as ever, a further round of ultimately unsuccessful talks accompanied by continued Israeli settlement expansion in Jerusalem and the West Bank would further undermine moderate forces in the Palestinian Territories and drastically hinder sincere peace efforts.
Although a new “peace process” based on Netanyahu’s preconditions will likely sell well on international news networks, it will certainly not lead to a comprehensive solution of the conflict. Both, peace-loving Palestinians and Israelis deserve better.
Jason Hicks is a regular commentator on Middle-East affairs and is currently visiting scholar at The Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA) in East Jerusalem.
Michael Bröning is director of the East Jerusalem office of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, a political foundation affiliated with Germany’s Social Democratic Party.
No comments:
Post a Comment