You are here

Is a Palestinian-Israeli deal possible?

May 23,2017 - Last updated at May 23,2017

I am writing while US President Donald Trump is on his way to Israel, where he will discuss with Israeli leaders, as well as with the Palestinians, the possibility of resuscitating the stalled peace process.

The question is whether the president’s mission will prove possible.

Trump did not need to convince Arab and Muslim leaders in Riyadh, while there at the beginning of his tour in the region, of the benefits of settling the historic conflict. They are all convinced.

The Arab League and its member states had long adopted peace as a strategic choice. The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative — later adopted by the Islamic Cooperation Organisation’s 56 member states, remains on the table.

It offers Israel peace, recognition and normalisation in return for allowing the Palestinians to have their own state nearby, along the 1967 lines, in accordance with many internationally approved peace formulas.

The Palestinian Authority, although part of this Arab-Islamic peace matrix, is even more eager for serious negotiations to reach a settlement.

Hardly anyone, except the Israelis of course, sees the Arab or the Palestinian terms for the envisaged settlement unreasonable, let alone excessive.

The reality is that most peacemakers find it tough on the Israeli side. This has been the case since 1967 when the concerned Arab states agreed for the first time to accept Israel and reconcile with it on the basis of the, yet, to be implemented Security Council Resolution 242.

Since then, Israel has been blocking any effort to reach a settlement. They keep coming up with new excuses for rejecting proposals even from their most solid supporters, including in Washington, or with renewed terms, often designed to be rejected by the other side for being blatantly prohibitive.

Trump, like every other American president before him, did declare his intention, indeed his commitment, to deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict, describing a possible settlement as an historic deal.

The president is right. This conflict has been a major source of compounded political instability, violence, wars, rise of extremist trends and terrorism in our region — now spreading well beyond — since its early beginnings a century ago.

His Majesty King Abdullah has been sounding one warning after the other that the region will enjoy neither peace nor stability while the Palestinian problem remains unresolved peacefully, fairly and comprehensively.

The question is whether Trump’s effort will succeed where all his predecessors failed.

Not only is Trump’s noble quest for an Arab-Israeli peace armed with sincerity and commitment, it, most importantly and very clearly, is also reinforced by stronger commitment to protect Israel’s best interests.

But that may not be sufficient to guarantee progress.

Israel welcomed Trump’s many generous gestures made during the election campaign. But rather than see such gestures as assurance that they are in good hands and that in any future negotiations they would not be let down by the main peace sponsor and strong Washington ally, they take it as an opportunity to demand more, unmindful of consequences that may topple the entire peace-making effort.

So far, Trump is clear about not endorsing the expansion of Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land.

That is a very mild demand, which may, if accepted, facilitate the resumption of negotiations with the Palestinians, but it will not address the major colonisation issue which left more than half of the West Bank showered with illegal Israeli settlement inhabited by no less than 600,000 Jewish settlers.

This specific issue, minor as in fact it is, was enough to block the Obama administration’s peace efforts.

It is hard to imagine that Israel would agree to halt real settlement construction if this, again, is going to be the demand for allowing fresh talks with the Palestinians to resume.

Most likely, Trump’s Israeli hosts would come up with their own demands rather than just decline any of his.

The prevailing chaotic situation in the region is the right moment for Israel to be persistent, adamant and ambitious, particularly when assured that its hardline positions are risk free, that they lead to no consequences.

One last observation relates to Trump’s repeated affirmation that in the end, the two sides alone have to agree on the terms of ending their conflict.

That, of course, is impossible.

The two sides are not equal. The Palestinians have no power of their own to qualify as an equal counterpart in any future negotiators.

How can the sheep negotiate with the wolf?

That is why Israel insisted on not allowing any UN role in dealing with the conflict from the very beginnings.

The Israelis neither want the Palestinians to have the benefit of international law to support their legitimate quest for justice nor do they allow even their best allies to mediate once such allies make any hint against Israel’s stiff positions, even if on the side of legality, international law and justice, and even if such hints are made in the best interests of the Israelis.

 

Let us hope Trump’s peace quest will surprise us and end with a viable breakthrough.

up
29 users have voted.


Newsletter

Get top stories and blog posts emailed to you each day.

PDF