Headlines, Human Rights, Middle East & North Africa | Analysis

MIDEAST: Palestinians Preparing for Statehood Anyhow

Analysis by Jerrold Kessel and Pierre Klochendler

JERUSALEM, Mar 8 2010 (IPS) - Was it Yasser Arafat’s biggest political error? A decade ago, the deadline for the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel as envisaged in the 1993 Oslo peace accords thrust itself into the fruitless Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.

The then Palestinian president threatened to break the impasse by declaring his state unilaterally.

Arafat repeatedly went to the brink. Israel also went to the brink, warning that if the Palestinian leader declared independence without agreement, that would end any prospect of a final peace deal.

Each time Arafat waved the independence gambit, the international community, spearheaded by the U.S., took the Israeli line. Each time, at the last gasp, Arafat would be dissuaded.

Would the fate of Palestine be radically different had Arafat stood firmly by the principles enunciated at Oslo?

Would the Middle East perhaps have been spared the ensuing bloody Palestinian Intifadah uprising, the ongoing schism between Arafat’s mainstream Fatah and the rising force of Islamist Hamas, or last year’s painful Israeli assault on Gaza with its devastating impact on the lives of the people in Gaza? Would the rise of the Israeli far right have been curbed?


Now, as the Obama Administration readies the parties to re-engage – be it only through indirect, “proximity talks” – the damaging legacy of that decade of failed peacemaking weighs heavily on the renewed negotiating effort.

The final goal remains the creation of that independent Palestine.

But for Palestinians there has been a major shift from the Arafat days, the effort by his successors, President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad, and with the active engagement of the international community, to first build the institutions of Palestine in advance of a state – even under occupation.

This reflects itself in a recovering Palestinian economy, a more efficient (U.S.-trained) security apparatus, and in other trappings of functioning statehood.

In parallel, there has been a distinct change in attitudes within the international community. Such important luminaries as the former EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner have advocated the formal recognition of an independent Palestine by the end of 2011 – even without Israel agreeing to it.

This is an approach that is more and more acceptable even to key figures in the U.S. political firmament – both without and within the Administration.

As Israelis and Palestinians begin to grapple again with the old core issues of borders, settlements, security, Palestinian refugees and sovereignty over occupied East Jerusalem, this shift represents a cardinal change.

In the meantime, the Palestinian Authority is also taking a pro-active approach in furthering their state in-the-making.

This includes:

– Boycotting Israeli goods and produce originating in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem;

– Providing alternative employment for Palestinian labourers working in and building the settlements;

– More than tacit support for non-violent resistance to the building of segments of Israel’s so-called “separation wall” built on confiscated West Bank land;

– Backing for the burgeoning protest movement against the expulsion of Palestinian families from their homes in East Jerusalem.

It’s no coincidence that this new peaceful Palestinian activism – dubbed “The White Intifadah” by some Israeli commentators – comes at the very time that the peace talks are set to resume.

And, it forms the backdrop for the most telling feature of the new round of talks – a deep mutual mistrust that fuels a pessimistic mindset, a lack of faith on both sides that creates a shared conviction that the negotiations, set to last four months, will lead nowhere.

Already in the air is the scent of failure. Even in advance of the resumption, Israelis and Palestinians are both sharpening their arguments as to on whose doorstep the blame, and responsibility for the anticipated failure, will have to be laid.

“I see nothing to create confidence that the Palestinians are ready for any genuine move that will make an agreement feasible,” Israel’s Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, a close confidante of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said on Monday on Israel Radio.

An almost mirror appraisal has been made virtually daily by leading Palestinian figures.

But, blame is precisely the name of the Obama game too.

In assessing the unsuccessful peace endeavour of the past two decades, top U.S. peace negotiators have confessed that one of the reasons for the past failure was their own failure to assign blame to the recalcitrant party.

Now, under the mediation of Sen. George Mitchell, the U.S. tone is different. Although the warning is carefully cushioned in diplomatic language, the U.S. seems primed to assign blame should either side be deemed digging in its heels.

“We expect both parties to act seriously and in good faith,” says a document which the U.S. made available to the Palestinians to assuage their fears about returning to talks without a complete settlement freeze. “If one side, in our judgment, is not living up to our expectations, we will make our concerns clear and we will act accordingly,” reads the document.

The Israelis are issuing warnings too. At every turn, the head of Israel’s security services, Yuval Diskin, tells his Palestinian counterparts that if the Palestinian Authority does not stop its support for resistance – even the peaceful protests – Israel will cut down the level of security cooperation with the PA and renew its own initiated arrest operations against activists within Palestinian towns and villages.

But while Israeli leaders harp on the fact that the success of talks will hinge on Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, the real crux seems to be the exact opposite: is Israel ready to recognise Palestine, what the U.S. stipulates in their document as the end game – “a viable, independent and sovereign Palestinian State with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967.”

Israeli decision-makers are looking with some apprehension at this opening U.S. stance.

If the talks go well, all well and good. But, if the negotiations run into trouble, and Israel is assigned the blame, that may well become the major launching pad for realisation of the Palestinians’ national goal – a state by the end of next year, a state recognised by the entire international community, including the U.S.

Whether that state would really fulfil Palestinians aspirations, or would remain subject to the reality of Israeli dominance on the ground, is a moot point at this stage.

But, in either case, it could fundamentally alter the attitude of the international community towards the two conflicting parties – to the advantage of the Palestinians.

 
Republish | | Print |


santiago gramática