American Ambitions forPeace in the Near East
Published in Le Figaro
(France) on May 23, 2009
by Adrien Jaulmes (link to original)
Obama wants to "vigorously" revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. More ambitious than all his predecessors in the White House, he is preparing to ask both sides to cross their respective “red lines” in order to achieve peace.
Obama is weighing his immense international popularity and the new credibility of his administration in the Arab world. He is not certain his partners are up to his ambitions, that they have the ability to accept important concessions for their respective camps, or simply, that the conflict can be resolved in the absence of the will of those concerned. The peace plan Obama is expected to present next June 4, in his speech in Cairo, differs from numerous, earlier initiatives in immediately establishing the status of the 1948 refugees and the Jerusalem question, rather than getting bogged down in endless negotiations.
Developed in cooperation with King Abdullah II of Jordan, the American proposals would return, on key points, to those of the Arab League of 2002, which recommended the recognition of Israel in exchange for the creation of a Palestinian sovereign state in the territories occupied in 1967, and a fair ruling on the question of Palestinian refugees. This plan should have been modified to make it more acceptable to the Israelis, who saw it, at the time, as an ultimatum from the Arab world rather than a peaceful proposition.
According to the Palestinian newspaper based in London, Al-Quds-al-Arabi, the future Palestinian state will be demilitarized, without control of its airspace or borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital. The holy places, situated in the Old City, will be placed under international jurisdiction, as in the mandatory partition plan of Palestine of 1947, refused at the time by the Arabs. A territorial exchange would be anticipated, for addressing the issue of large Israeli settlements on the West Bank.
Unthinkable concessions
The Palestinians would, in turn, abandon the right of return of refugees. The latter could settle in the new state, where they would be granted the nationality of the respective Arab counties in which their groups have settled since 1948.
These points represent concessions, which, until now, have been unthinkable for Israelis and for Palestinians. Israelis reconquered Jerusalem in 1967, and since 1980, have made it the unified capital of the State of Israel. The fact that it is not internationally recognized does not subtract from its strength as a symbol for Israel. Netanyahu reminded us on Thursday, on the occasion of the ceremony marking the 42nd anniversary of the conquest of the eastern party of the city, that "unified Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Jerusalem was and will always be ours. It will never be divided and split,” he added.
Also problematic on the Palestinian side could be the abandonment of the right of return of the refugees of 1948, whose descendants still live in the same camps, piously saving the keys to their homes, which have long since disappeared. “Even if he accepts renouncement of the right of return, it is not certain that Mahmoud Abbas will have the political power necessary to ensure acceptance of such an agreement by his population,” explained a diplomat. With his government increasingly challenged, even in the ranks of Fatah, and supported at arm’s length by international financial aid, the Palestinian president may be a leader too weakened to engage all Palestinians in such crucial concessions.
Especially, because another group has been added to the Palestinian Authority since the development of the Arab League peace plan: supporter of a Palestinian state in Gaza, Hamas, which - in advance - refuses any concessions.
Obama is weighing his immense international popularity and the new credibility of his administration in the Arab world. He is not certain his partners are up to his ambitions, that they have the ability to accept important concessions for their respective camps, or simply, that the conflict can be resolved in the absence of the will of those concerned. The peace plan Obama is expected to present next June 4, in his speech in Cairo, differs from numerous, earlier initiatives in immediately establishing the status of the 1948 refugees and the Jerusalem question, rather than getting bogged down in endless negotiations.
Developed in cooperation with King Abdullah II of Jordan, the American proposals would return, on key points, to those of the Arab League of 2002, which recommended the recognition of Israel in exchange for the creation of a Palestinian sovereign state in the territories occupied in 1967, and a fair ruling on the question of Palestinian refugees. This plan should have been modified to make it more acceptable to the Israelis, who saw it, at the time, as an ultimatum from the Arab world rather than a peaceful proposition.
According to the Palestinian newspaper based in London, Al-Quds-al-Arabi, the future Palestinian state will be demilitarized, without control of its airspace or borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital. The holy places, situated in the Old City, will be placed under international jurisdiction, as in the mandatory partition plan of Palestine of 1947, refused at the time by the Arabs. A territorial exchange would be anticipated, for addressing the issue of large Israeli settlements on the West Bank.
Unthinkable concessions
The Palestinians would, in turn, abandon the right of return of refugees. The latter could settle in the new state, where they would be granted the nationality of the respective Arab counties in which their groups have settled since 1948.
These points represent concessions, which, until now, have been unthinkable for Israelis and for Palestinians. Israelis reconquered Jerusalem in 1967, and since 1980, have made it the unified capital of the State of Israel. The fact that it is not internationally recognized does not subtract from its strength as a symbol for Israel. Netanyahu reminded us on Thursday, on the occasion of the ceremony marking the 42nd anniversary of the conquest of the eastern party of the city, that "unified Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Jerusalem was and will always be ours. It will never be divided and split,” he added.
Also problematic on the Palestinian side could be the abandonment of the right of return of the refugees of 1948, whose descendants still live in the same camps, piously saving the keys to their homes, which have long since disappeared. “Even if he accepts renouncement of the right of return, it is not certain that Mahmoud Abbas will have the political power necessary to ensure acceptance of such an agreement by his population,” explained a diplomat. With his government increasingly challenged, even in the ranks of Fatah, and supported at arm’s length by international financial aid, the Palestinian president may be a leader too weakened to engage all Palestinians in such crucial concessions.
Especially, because another group has been added to the Palestinian Authority since the development of the Arab League peace plan: supporter of a Palestinian state in Gaza, Hamas, which - in advance - refuses any concessions.
Sooner or later the matter will be resolved … sooner if forces outside the area back off and let the principals tackle the issues and come to their own resolution. Without outside interference, peace would have broken out long before this time. These outside forces have mostly tried to help – I do recognize this to be a hugely debatable conundrum – but the Palestinians are determined to rid themselves of an onerous occupation, achieve control of their own destination in their own country, and are determined not to bow down, kowtow or give any more ground than that which has already been taken away from them; or at the very least, what by hook or by crook they can hold on to until they win the day. Starving them out hasn’t worked, and nor will it. All evidence points to demographics favouring the Palestinians, so in the end they will likely prevail. Years down the road, maybe, and it will get tougher before it gets any easier. Basically it’s a matter of one side trying to beat the other into submission whilst the other has to be willing to risk life and limb in order to hang on. I wouldn’t be one bit surprised to learn that this factor is one of the more important considerations in gaming strategies for interested parties on both sides of the conflict.
In the meantime, Prime Minister Netanyahu is doing what politicians from the first world are quite good at, i.e., using/creating a crisis/issue to pursue the objective of the moment. Following on the heels of the need for recognition of a Jewish state (erstwhile phrased as recognition of the state of Israel), now it’s the issue of whether or not the Palestinians can hold public remembrances of Nabka. It’s a shell game, a matter of the hand moving quicker than the eye, keeping one’s eye on the ball, et cetera and so forth and so on. Manage, Control, Divert – Manage the rhetoric, Control the flow (heat up the dialogue to drown dissent, cool down/back off when necessary or advantageous) and Divert, i.e., a variation of one kind or another on your basic bread and circuses theme.
Pursue MCD, keep pointing an accusing finger at Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Chavez, Bolivia, Syria, the Arabs, whoever, and keep on building the settlements. That’s the ticket, the strategy the Israelis hope will win them time to complete the facts-on-the-ground that will strengthen their hand when push eventually comes to shove.