Clouded Horizons for Palestine

But the Bush administration’s interest in peace in the Middle East has been to say the least lukewarm. It will come to the meeting with serious credibility problems that handicap its claim to serve as an honest broker 

Bush refused to meet with the late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and endorsed the self-serving Israeli claim that the Israelis could not find a serious Palestinian partner for peace.

Furthermore, Bush broke with traditional American foreign policy and accepted the construction of new Israeli settlements (NYT August 21, 04), thus undermining the roadmap, the peace plan accepted by the quartet: the US, Russia, the European Union and the UN.

Worse, the Bush administration clearly endorsed and supplied the Israeli war in Lebanon last year. Washington went out of its way to block the early adoption of a cease-fire resolution at the UN Security Council to give the Israelis more time to achieve their war goals against the unexpectedly tough resistance of Hizbollah.

The Bush administration’s alleged concern for the Palestinian people is also belied by Washington’s open collaboration with Israel to isolate and undermine the Hamas government that was democratically elected by the Palestinian people.

The sanctions Bush imposed have created untold hardships for the Palestinian people and exacerbated tensions among elected officials that led to Hamas takeover of Gaza. It also diminished the Abbas government’s claim to legitimately represent the Palestinian people.

There are also other credibility problems. The only negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians likely to lead to a lasting peace are those that are based on law and justice, not on the grossly unequal balance of power between the two parties. The Palestinians obviously want the former, the Israelis, supported by Washington, insist on the latter as basis for negotiations.

Because of the enormous military, financial and diplomatic dependence of Israel on its American ally, the USA is the only country that can exercise leverage upon the Israelis. Only Washington can bring about an end to Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and bring a measure of justice to the resolution of the Palestine conflict. This, the Bush administration refuses to do. The basis for its planned conference is clearly the balance of power between the parties.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made this clear by repeatedly stating that she wanted the parties to agree on common principles for a ‘political horizon.’

And how are these common principles for a political horizon to be achieved? By bilateral negotiations between the parties, because, Rice said: “after all, the bilateral track has to be at the center of any resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.” (NYT, Sep 21. 07). In other words, the balance of power between the parties, not UN resolutions-based multilateral conferences, will determine the outcome..

Assuming that Israeli leaders genuinely want peace-and this is a major assumption- their vision of peace is based not on justice for the Palestinians but on security for their colonial enterprise. This is in the sense that they want no resistance to their plans for continued colonisation of Palestinian land, security for their settlers, and unchallenged hegemony both in Palestine and in the region.

But the Mahmoud Abbas government cannot agree to any peace that included these goals. And it cannot achieve peace that did not include these goals.  It is too weak, too unrepresentative, and has already offered the Israelis all it can offer. The Israelis know it, and are exploiting that weakness. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said recently that despite his goodwill, Abbas would not be able to implement an agreement ( Haaretz, Sep 21.07), conveniently forgetting the role Israel played in weakening Abbas.

In the absence of American pressure, which Rice said Washington would not do, what incentives do the Israelis have to offer the Palestinians a state, a capital in Jerusalem, and a just solution for the Palestinian refugees?

Only Israeli goodwill can redress the inequality of the parties. But goodwill has not been the distinguishing feature of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians.

Earlier this year, the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, John Dugard, described the closed zones, house demolitions, Jewish settlers-only roads, and rhetorically asked: "Can it seriously be denied that the purpose of such action is to establish and maintain domination by one racial group (Jews) over another racial group (Palestinians) and systematically oppressing them?”

A World Bank Report in September has documented how Israeli policies of closures and siege have left the Palestinians deeply impoverished and dependent on aid.

Undeterred, the Israelis continue their collective punishment of Palestinian civilians. On September 19, the Israeli cabinet decided to limit the electricity and fuel supply to Gaza and to further restrict movement in and out of Gaza. Seven Israeli human rights organizations jointly condemned these sanctions as “a grave breach of the foremost principle of international humanitarian law.” (B’Tselem, Sep 20.07)

Regionally, and in a characteristic fashion, Israeli leaders responded to the threat of peace, made tangible by repeated Syrian overtures, by bombing Syria. With Washington’s complicity, the bombing was followed by claims that Syria was developing weapons of mass destruction.

Arab leaders are weary of attending a conference that would seem to legitimize the American-Israeli approach to peace. But they are also deeply aware of the helplessness of their predicament. This was elegantly illustrated when Saudi Arabian Minister of Foreign Affairs Prince Saud called on Israel to stop settlement activities and construction of the wall, as “a good-will gesture” towards The Arabs. (NYT.Sep 27.07). 

Prof. Adel Safty is author of From Camp David to the Gulf, Montreal, New York. His latest book, Leadership and Democracy is published by IPSL Press, New York. 2004.