Peaceful solution eludes Palestine, Israel and the USA

FE Team | Published: May 12, 2014 00:00:00 | Updated: November 30, 2026 06:01:00

It appears that the efforts of US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry towards a peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestine question have run out of steam. It is also becoming clear that Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right colleagues never believed in the on-going peace process. This is a demonstration of nuclear-armed Israel's overwhelming power within the context of the shifting sands of the Middle East.
The US-brokered peace talks that resumed amid optimism in July last year, now appears to be officially over. The deadline has ended without an agreement being reached. Direct talks had resumed after a three-year hiatus. Kerry had 34 meetings with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and almost twice as many with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to the New York Times. He had hoped to broker a peace deal when he brought the two sides back together last year.
Latest events have demonstrated again that Israel does not have to heed UN Security Council resolutions or world opinion regarding its continued expansion of illegal settlements in occupied territory. This assumes special significance when seen against the backdrop of the comments made by Jonathan Power: '…although Palestinians have conceded fully half the territory assigned to them in the UN's Partition Plan of 1947, a move Israel's President Shimon Peres has hailed as unprecedented, they are not demanding a single square foot of Israeli territory beyond the 6 June, 1967, armistice line drawn at the end of the first Arab-Israeli war."
The US-brokered peace dialogue veered towards collapse once Israel refused to release the fourth batch of Palestinian prisoners, as previously agreed upon as a condition of the talks. Israel said the prisoners would not be released unless it had assurances the Palestinians would continue negotiations beyond their scheduled deadline on April 29.
After Israel refused to release the Palestinian prisoners, the situation moved downhill at a fast pace. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, signed a request to join several UN agencies. He also reported that "the Palestinian leadership had unanimously approved a decision to seek membership of 15 UN agencies and international treaties, beginning with the Fourth Geneva Convention." Abbas later signed the demand during a meeting at his Ramallah headquarters in the occupied West Bank. "The demands for membership will be sent immediately" to the relevant agencies, he said. He also explained that this was not a move against America, or any other party - but an expression of the right of Palestinians that they had agreed to suspend it for nine months. This step by the Palestinians was bitterly criticised by the Israeli government, especially its rightist political groups.
The second development came about with reports of reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah - the two Palestinian opposing factions. It was announced on April 23 that top Fatah and Hamas officials had hammered out the final details of the Beach Refugee Camp Agreement without any Arab mediation. Both parties have claimed that all major grievances have purportedly been smoothed over, differences have been abridged and other sensitive issues have been referred to a specialised committee. It is believed that this committee will be trying to find a way whereby Hamas and the Islamic Jihad can be brought within the fold of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). As expected, such a move was condemned by the Israeli government and Netanyahu commented that the Palestinians had chosen Hamas over peace. Israel has said that it would refuse to negotiate with any party that includes Hamas as a partner, a party that refuses to recognise Israel. The Israeli left led by the Meretz party has however blamed Netanyahu for pushing moderate Abbas into the hands of the Hamas.
It would be important to remember that previous reconciliation deals among Palestinian factions announced amid much fanfare in Cairo in 2011 and Doha in 2012, were warmly welcomed by the Palestinian public but they were never implemented. Consequently, there is caution and scepticism about the latest announcement that a Palestinian unity movement will be agreed in the next five weeks with plans for new elections to be drawn up in the following six months. It is also being pointed out that Hamas's efforts appear to have come forth due to its desire to end its regional isolation after falling out with Egypt, Syria and Iran in the wake of the Arab uprisings.
The Palestinian Authority knows that Israel, along with the US and the EU, view the Islamist Hamas group as a terrorist organisation. They have nevertheless taken this step and explained that "what we've managed to do is to open the road to regain back what we've lost - our democracy, our right to have a legislative council and parliament, and our right to have free and democratic elections and a pluralistic system rather than a one-party rule in the West Bank and another one-party rule in the Gaza Strip".
Palestinian officials have retorted Israeli criticism by stating that uniting their factions would empower the leadership to make more credible negotiations with Israel and implement any future peace agreement. In a statement, chief negotiator Saeb Erekat expressed "severe disappointment" at Israel's response. "National reconciliation is imperative in order to achieve a just and lasting peace. We hope that we will be able to successfully close this dark chapter of our history," he said.
The Palestinians, however, need to remember that they must tread carefully as they determine the details of any future unity government. Most Western governments forbid foreign aid going to Hamas, and the debt-ridden Palestine Authority, which relies on international donors, should not jeopardise its funding.  
Jeremy Bowen of the BBC has made a pertinent comment with regard to the current situation. He has summarised the disappointing scenario: "both sides say they want peace, and there is no reason to doubt them. But they can't agree what peace looks like, what would happen in Jerusalem, where the borders would be, the future of Israeli settlers and Palestinian refugees."
Debate was also created within this unexpected evolution of the talk's paradigm with John Kerry's reported comment that without a peaceful resolution of the Palestine question, there was the eventual possibility of "an apartheid state" within Israel which would be similar to what had happened with the creation of Bantu entities (as a result of expanding Jewish settlements within the Occupied territories) in apartheid South Africa. John Kerry however later denied stating publicly or privately, that Israel was an apartheid state or that it intended to become one.
After the latest measures Benjamin Netanyahu has compounded the problem even further by raising the ante. He has hinted that his government will introduce a racist law defining Israel as a Jewish state, giving high-level support to a controversial idea that has long been a demand of the Israeli right. Israel has never before officially defined itself as Jewish, though legislators have introduced bills to that effect over the past few years. In a statement Netanyahu called Israel's Jewish identity "the most basic ingredient of our national life" and pointed out "It is my intention to submit a Basic Law to the Knesset that would provide a constitutional anchor for Israel's status as the national state of the Jewish people."
Israel has surprisingly never had a constitution. Instead it has created a series of "Basic Laws," which are meant to be incorporated someday into a formal charter. It's unclear what practical impact such a racist law would have 66 years after independence of that country. Israelis still disagree sharply on how such a "Jewish state" should be governed. Analysts feel that Netanyahu's proposed measure could simply be a symbolic declaration. But it could also go much further, requiring Israeli courts, for example, to interpret the law according to Halakha, Jewish religious law. Regardless of Netanyahu's intent, the law would however provide a basis for future governments to pass illiberal legislation. Netanyahu's proposal has already received strong support from the right. Uri Ariel, the housing minister and a member of the conservative Jewish Home party, was quick to praise the initiative and has said that if presented in the Israeli Parliament this proposal would be approved with the support of the Rightist parties. Vocal opposition has however come from Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, who said that she would oppose the law.
Tzipi Livni has also made another important suggestion that, the US should change its role in the peace process, allowing for more direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians. In Her comment - "American involvement - yes, but as facilitators of bilateral negotiations"- needs to be noted by the US as they monitor developments for resumption of talks.
 Muhammad Zamir, a former Ambassador    and Permanent Representative to the                   EU, is specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance. mzamir@dhaka.net