Kerry's Failure and the Possibility To Salvage His Work

Negotiations remain the only way to end conflict, whether there is a crushing military victory or an unconditional surrender. In either case, representatives of the two conflicting sides must sit around the negotiating table to lay down the foundations of their future relationship, be it a relationship of equals or one based on surrendering and yielding to the victorious side’s conditions. If we are still suffering from the effects of the 1967 war, then this war hasn’t yet ended. It is still going on in different ways: Israel’s ongoing control over Palestine’s land and people, the subjugation of this people to all forms of oppression, and the ongoing accumulation of the plunders of this war, whether that is the seizure of land or its resources. This war will not end unless we sign a peace accord or surrender document with the Israelis.

Anyone following the course of events notices that the Palestinian negotiators try in vain to sign a peace accord with Israel, while Israel, on the other hand, tries in vain to force the Palestinians to sign a surrender document. Matters will continue fluctuating between these two irreconcilable positions until one side can resolve them in its favor.

The Arabs lost the battle in 1967, but we, the Palestinian people, did not accept that the Arabs pay us as the price for losing the war. Even though they withdrew from the battlefield, we are still struggling, resisting and refusing to concede defeat.

Even though we have not conceded defeat and have not signed a surrender document, at times our performance in this conflict approaches a point that makes our adversary believe that we are resigned to admitting defeat. At other times, it approaches a point that disappoints our adversary and makes it realize that we have not surrendered.

The Oslo process was a murky phase that deluded the Israeli side into believing that we had tired and were on the verge of signing the surrender document, but the legendary resilience of late president Yasser Arafat shattered this illusion. The result was that the martyred president paid his life as the price for his resilience and refusal to surrender.

We remember well the war of character assassination that was launched against the martyr Yasser Arafat to portray him as an obstacle on the path to peace instead of a partner, the pressure on him to step down from the presidency, and the search for an alternative to him that was more compatible and compliant with Israeli demands and preferences. Their choice at the time fell on our brother Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, whom they believed would be more agreeable and responsive to their plans.

Today, they are afflicted by disappointment after discovering their miscalculation: President Abbas differs from the late president Yasser Arafat only in method. He is clearer and more flexible, but he cannot forsake the rights of his people. Nor can he forget that he laid down red lines for himself, lines that he will not cross, and they must deal with these lines or the conflict will continue until whatever God has ordained takes place.

The problem does not lie on the Palestinian side, but in the failure to understand that our people, even if they exhibit — through a leadership like that of Mahmoud Abbas — the largest amount of flexibility, cannot and will not concede surrender and bow down in front of the occupation’s greedy ambitions, to which there is no limit.

Certainly, the current balance of mediation and conflict does not signal that it is possible to reach a peaceful settlement to the conflict any time soon. That is because America, the mediator, is unable to put pressure on Israel, its spoiled child, and move it away from the chasm into which it is on the verge of falling. Similarly, this spoiled child suffers from a superiority complex, from arrogance and dominance, of which it will not allow itself to be rid, just as we cannot go along with this child’s whims and submit to them.

The question remains: What is to be done? The answer remains uncertain because we are halfway along the path between having and not having a state, because we do not have the option of returning to the path of rebellion given the current leadership and the facts surrounding it and because the outcomes of continuing along the current path are uncertain. All Palestinian instruments — both human and material — must be changed if we want the results to change; repeating the same action with the same instruments and expecting different results is the height of stupidity.

Some people were delighted by the motivation John Kerry exhibited at the beginning of his assignment, but he disappointed because he did not learn the lesson of the American mediators that preceded him. He sought the help of Martin Indyk, a Jew known for belonging to centrist politics in the Labor Party — politics that failed to present any position or offer that meets the Palestinians at the lowest level they can accept. Similarly, Kerry deliberated with Netanyahu on everything, small and large, before conveying it to the Palestinian side, thereby adhering to the American principal of not proposing anything that Israel does not accept. Hence, Kerry’s initiative was based on putting forward whatever Netanyahu wants, no more and no less, which changed the negotiations into a demand for us to submit and accept what is wanted by Netanyahu, who cares more about the right-wing coalition governing under his presidency than any progress in the negotiations (not to mention the fact that he himself belongs ideologically, emotionally and historically to this right wing). Therefore, there was no reason to believe that Kerry’s work would bring about anything new.

With one month remaining before the end of the nine-month extension, and given America’s statements that Washington has not washed its hands of the process yet, the following can be said.

Washington’s last chance in this negotiation attempt is to admit that the steps the Palestinian Authority has taken to join 15 international organizations do not harm Israel — as long as Palestine has not yet approached the International Criminal Court with a claim or begun the campaign to demand boycotting Israel, just as South Africa was boycotted during apartheid — and that if America wants to save Israel from itself, it must launch an initiative based on the following foundations:

First, Israel must commit to completely freezing the settlements in all of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including Jerusalem, until the negotiations end and a settlement is reached or their failure is announced and the idea of looking for a political settlement to the conflict is abandoned for good.

Second, Palestinian sovereignty over the territories classified A and B must be acknowledged, and Israel must commit to not entering these territories and to not encroaching the Palestinian Authority’s right to conduct development work in the residential and agricultural areas of zone C. Israel must commit to ceasing demolitions, bulldozings and military actions of a settlement nature in these areas.

Third, the Palestinians must commit to not advancing with any new requests to join international organizations until the American initiative has finished and to exercising self-control and not taking any unilateral steps likely to harm the negotiation process.

Fourth, in light of the points mentioned above and after they have been implemented and adhered to, the negotiations are to be extended for a period of one year, with the condition that no Palestinian prisoner is to remain in prison or exile when an agreement to end the conflict is reached and signed.

Unfortunately, I do not believe that the Israel can accept the recommendations made above, just as I do not believe that America can make Israel accept them. If this is true, then the conflict will remain open to all possibilities.