Will peace talks resume on the Middle East crisis?

---

Zaglul Ahmed Chowdhury
Israel seems to be stubborn in going ahead with the new settlements in East Jerusalem and occupied Arab territories, and consequently, this intransigence continues to scuttle the prospects of resumption of the Middle East peace talks. The dialogue that was re-lunched in early September following painstaking efforts by the United States by bringing Israel and Palestinians on the negotiating table, is uncertain because of Tel Aviv's approach and the stand-off that persists with scant likelihood that the stalemate would be broken in the immediate future. In short, whatever hopes had earlier been generated about the chances of a thaw in the Middle East crisis is now evaporating fast because of the refusal of Israel to halt the new settlements. Indeed, this is once again a big setback for efforts towards peace in the region even though the task of stability and tranquility in such a volatile region is a Herculean one - albeit not impossible.
United States president Barack Obama, during his visit to Indonesia, deplored Tel Aviv's failure to extend the moratorium on construction of new settlement and once again sought to implore upon the Jewish state to heed to the causes of peace by removing the bottlenecks thwarting the resumption of the talks. Washington, close ally of the Israel, is disappointed that the dialogue has collapsed. However, it appears that the only superpower of the world is falling short of expectations in building pressure on Tel Aviv to stop new settlements and thereby facilitate the dialogue. On the other hand, Israel is showing no sign of willingness to respond to Washington's plea and this has become more pronounced in the aftermath of the reverses suffered by the Democrats in the midterm elections.
Needless to say, Republicans are known to be closer to Tel Aviv than the Democrats in the Middle East crisis. Democrat presidents Bill Clinton and now Barack Obama took great efforts towards easing tensions and finding a settlement of the vexed Palestinian crisis while no meaningful movement was discernible in this direction during immediate past president George W. Bush. There was no headway as such about the conflict in Republican Bush' eight years rule and succeeding Obama administration's fresh efforts are now floundering because of Israel's one-sided attitude.
After nearly two years, Palestinian authority president Mahmood Abbas and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanehayu met in Washington on September 2 in the difficult exercise of finding a solution of their lingering conflict. The talks did not produce any breakthrough as such -- neither were expected -- but did create a congenial ambience for two sides to discuss the issues concerned. The dialogue was followed up with another summit level meeting in Egypt. Although there was no tangible progress on the complex subjects involved, the dialogue at least kept hopes alive for better relations between two sides and in the process for substantial progress.
But Israel failed at the Litmus test when it declined to extend the moratorium on freeze of new Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and occupied Arab territories. Mahmood Abbas had made it clear that the Palestinian side would not take part in any talk if the construction of these settlements was allowed by Tel Aviv authorities. He stuck to his ground as Israel's hard line prime minister endorsed construction of the new settlements and this policy has dimmed the future of the dialogue much to the frustration of those who wanted to see peace in the Middle East.
Earlier, last year, president Obama in a significant speech at the Cairo university had spelt out his Middle East policy and called upon Israel to accept and work for the sovereign Palestine state while reaffirming Washington's "unbreakable" relations with Tel Aviv. Israel's present right-wing government responded favourbly, but attached such conditions to the new state which made such acceptance a mockery. It said new Palestine state can not have its own defence system, which Mahmood Abbas rejected outright describing as ridiculous.
Here, it may be mentioned that Abbas, whose "Fatah" controls the West bank favours talks with Israel for a settlement of the Middle East problem. The hardline "Hamas" that controls the Gaza strip and enjoys support from Iran and Syria opposes such talks with Tel Aviv. Evidently, hard liners on both sides want the parleys to run into rough weather or "no-talk" at all so that the stalemate persists.
Under this situation, is the Israeli government doing the right thing by not halting the construction of new settlements? Is the overall peace arrangement not much bigger than construction of few hundred new settlements? Since the Tel Aviv government says it is keen for peace, should it not act pragmatically to facilitate the peace efforts? US secretary of state Hillary Clinton has called for removing the impediments standing on the way of the dialogue.
At the moment, only way to resume the stalled talks is a change in Israel's stubbornness and at the same time greater American pressure and persuasion to make it happen. Otherwise, the Middle East peace talks will remain mired in total uncertainty.
zaglulbss@yahoo.com