For the newly
re-elected US President Barack Obama the plan was clear; to be the president
that ended all the wars, withdrawing most of the American soldiers from the
Middle East. Like in his first presidency, he targeted to expand America's
military in the Asia Pacific as a top priority, and he declared the intention
to shift America’s focus from the Middle East. To achieve this, he needed to
solve the one problem that according to him is the mother of all problems; the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Obama wanted to
focus on the peace process between Israel and Palestinians, and Secretary of
State John Kerry was eager to take full responsibility for the job. At the
time, Obama’s tension with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu became a
known fact. Analysis on the future of American-Israeli relations had started
circulating already. Obama preferred to be in the shadow in this matter and he
left the spotlight to his secretary of state.
Kerry was
determined to resolve the conflict. His energy and determination was the main
engine of the whole process. Israel and the Palestinian Authority on the other
hand seemed to be content with the status-quo and they were not too
enthusiastic to start another round of talks with the same, familiar,
predictable ending.
In 2011,
then-President Shimon Peres had conducted secret, unofficial peace negotiations
with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Netanyahu’s behalf. The
main purpose was to advance the possibility of restarting official talks by
agreeing on a framework document. We knew that the last meeting was canceled.
But what is new in this story was revealed last week. According to a report
published in February 13, 2015 in The Times of Israel, during these talks which
were held far from public eye for over a year, the sides had nearly reached an
understanding but in the last minute Netanyahu changed his mind about the
agreement. So once again nobody had the urge to start a new round of talks.
Kerry’s peace process
came when both parties were weary from ineffective and fruitless negotiations.
But both Israel and the Palestinians played along to not be seen as the one who
wants to ruin America’s latest initiative. Of course few people were surprised
when the negotiations ended. On the contrary, it was Kerry’s endurance that was
astonishing.
Abbas’ unilateral moves
Kerry declared
his intention to revive the peace talks several times but the war between
Israel and Hamas during the summer and the tension raised by Al Aqsa did not leave
room for optimism. The last couple of months were not promising for a new round
of talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authorities.
Obama
administration says that it is still serious about pursuing new negotiations
but it seems like this train has left at the moment. Abbas has a new strategy which
indicates that the Palestinian Authority is moving away from the United States
because of this failure and doesn’t have confidence in another round of
US-brokered talks.
In 2012, Abbas
had sought non-member state status at the UN and the General Assembly approved
the de facto recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state by accepting to
upgrade the Palestinian Authority's observer status at the United Nations to
‘non-member state’ from ‘entity.’ This unilateral move was severely criticized
by the United States as well as Israel.
After the
failure of the negotiations with Israel, Abbas continued his unilateral moves
in international bodies. The last move in that sense was Abbas’ request to join
the International Criminal Court (ICC), aimed at holding Israel accountable for
alleged war crimes; a decision that can be very unproductive in the end.
European reaction
On the other
hand European countries started taking a more pro-Palestinian stance as they
have grown frustrated with Israel, since the collapse of the latest peace talks
in April 2014. As Israel continued to build settlements in the West Bank, they
believed Netanyahu is not interested in peace. Lawmakers urged their governments
to recognize Palestine, a non-binding, symbolic move that will not have
immediate effect but shows clearly the European reaction to the subject. Most
Western countries previously supported Israel and US position that an
independent Palestinian state should emerge from direct talks and negotiations
with Israel and parties should not continue unilateral moves.
Sweden became
the biggest Western European country to recognize Palestine, and parliaments in
France, Spain, Britain, Portugal and Ireland held votes in which they backed
non-binding resolutions in favor of recognition. In December the European
Parliament accepted a decision expressing support ‘in principle’ of the
recognition of a Palestinian state and the two-state solution, and believes
these should go hand in hand with the development of peace talks, which should
be advanced. The motion is only symbolic, having no practical implications but
it clearly shows European opinion.
Israel decided to freeze the transfer of Palestinian
tax revenues
Israel’s
decision not to transfer tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority in response
to its ICC membership move can end up with the collapse of the Palestinian
economy. The collapse of the economy can bring the collapse of the Palestinian
Authority as an entity and this may lead to serious security breaches. A result
that neither Israel nor the international community would prefer. Tension
already elevated, a small local incident may grow to larger riots throughout
the territory. This is when Hamas or even worse, international terrorist
organizations can take control of the West Bank and fill the power vacuum.
The month of
March is very critical for Israel and the Palestinians. Netanyahu’s much
criticized speech to the American Congress is scheduled for March 3rd, Israeli
early elections are on March 17th, and the deadline on Iranian nuclear
framework deal is on March 24th. These dates will change a lot in the Middle
East.
For Netanyahu
the Iranian nuclear program is an existential threat and he says he will talk and
defend its position in every possible platform. Netanyahu accepted the
invitation from the Speaker of the House, Republican John Boehner without a
formal invitation from Obama. This is seen as an action against the diplomatic
protocol. Obama administration is against Netanyahu’s speech when Israeli
elections are so close. For Netanyahu this is a chance to score points in
Israel’s domestic political race by ‘standing against the will of the US
president for the sake of his country.’ Or at least this is how it looks in
Washington. Relations between the United States and Israel are particularly
tense, and this is no secret.
Upcoming Israeli elections
The upcoming
Israeli elections are big challenge for Netanyahu. There is a fatigue with
Netanyahu and the electorate question the ten years he served as prime
minister. Isaac Herzog is not a new name in the political life but he is little
known to Israelis. The race is close according to the polls and it is sure that
the new government that will be formed from the results of this election will
change the political scene. If Netanyahu (aka Bibi) wins again with the
security card or the image of the courageous prime minister who stood against
America, the Palestinians will probably be frustrated. A new and fresh left
wing government with Herzog (aka Buji) and former chief negotiator with the
Palestinians Tzipi Livni can change the atmosphere; dialogue instead of
confrontation may triumph. But it is still too soon to predict.
There is no sign
of a new round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority at
the moment. One has to wait the outcome of the upcoming Israeli elections to
foresee the next step in the future of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However,
the Arab initiative would be a good start as a basis for negotiations. King
Abdullah of Saudi Arabia founded the Arab Peace Initiative at the 2002 Beirut
Summit of the Arab League. The proposal promised a complete normalization of
relations between 57 Arab states and Israel. The initiative called on Israel to
withdraw from Arab territories occupied with 1967 war, a just and agreed upon
solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees and accept the creation of an
independent and sovereign Palestinian State. It was adopted unanimously by the
League in 2002, and reaffirmed in 2007 but has never been a basis to resolve
the conflict. Now that the king is dead, the future of this comfort zone is
unknown but it will be a bold step to try and revive this initiative. The one
thing that the future negotiations must respect is Palestinian statehood
aspirations and Israel’s security concerns. The rest can be solved with
goodwill.
Karel Valansi Diplomatic Observer March 2015 issue
Yorumlar