|
|
Follow the Middle East Forum
|
|
|
Diplomatic
Activism Won't Bring Israeli-Palestinian Peace
|
|
|
Share:  
|
  Be the first of
your friends to like this.
Originally published under the title, "The European Peace
Offensive."
The Europeans have decided that the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Holy
Land, over a hundred years long, must finally end. High Representative of
the European Union for Foreign Affairs Federica Mogherini recently came
to Israel to convey the EU's impatience with the impasse in
Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. France intends to bring the matter to
the U.N. Security Council to set an 18-month deadline on the resolution
of the conflict.
The European intentions are laudable, but seem to be removed from the
Middle Eastern reality. While partition of the Land of Israel between the
Jews and the Arabs living in this small part of the world is desirable,
the Palestinian national movement has proven to be the wrong partner to
implement partition and is largely responsible for the failure of the
two-state solution.
The Palestinian national movement seems unable to reach a historic
compromise with the Zionist movement as it still seeks control over the
Temple Mount, a "right of return" for Palestinian refugees, and
the complete absence of any Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria. The
Palestinian media and education system perpetuate the conflict by
inciting against Jews and their link to the Land of Israel. Indeed, the
gap in positions between Israelis and Palestinians is extremely large and
cannot be bridged overnight. It is totally unrealistic to expect an
agreement on final status issues in the near future.
As long as Hamas plays a central
role in Palestinian affairs, no real Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation
is possible.
|
The bitter truth is that the two societies still have the energy to
fight for what is important to them. Ethno-religious conflicts usually
end when at least one of the sides displays great weariness. The gullible
Europeans are having difficulty realizing that peace is not the most
important value for the Israelis or the Palestinians.
In addition, the Palestinians failed to capitalize on the opportunity
to build a state. The most remarkable failure and most devastating to the
state-building attempt was the loss of a monopoly over the use of force.
This led to chaos and the loss of Gaza to Hamas in 2007. As long as Hamas
plays a central role in Palestinian affairs, no real Israeli-Palestinian
reconciliation is possible. What happened in the Palestinian territories
reflects a phenomenon widespread in the Arab world, the collapse of
statist structures. Arab political culture seems unable to sustain
statist structures or overcome tribal and sectarian identities.
The Palestinian Authority (PA) is not that different than Arab
political entities such as Libya, Iraq, Syria, or Yemen, which are unable
to effectively govern their territories. The PA and its leadership are
basically sitting on Israeli bayonets that make sure the PA-ruled
territory is clear of radical violent elements that want to topple the
illegitimate rule of PA President Mahmoud Abbas and to perpetrate
terrorist attacks against Israel. This is the essence of the security
cooperation between Israel and the PA. Economically, the PA is also
dependent upon interactions with Israel and Israel's cooperation with
donor states.
While Israel recognized the
"legitimate rights of the Palestinian people" in 1978, the
Palestinians still have not reciprocated.
|
Above all, the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish state,
a core issue in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. While Israel,
under the leadership of then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin, recognized
the "legitimate rights of the Palestinian people" in 1978, the
Palestinians still have not reciprocated. Moreover, the growing appeal of
Islamism within Palestinian society, a phenomenon reflecting regional
trends, makes the recognition of a Jewish state increasingly difficult.
Denying the legitimate right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel
only reinforces the large Israeli consensus that the Palestinians are not
a serious partner for peacemaking.
The turmoil in the Arab world has also hardened Israeli positions in
negotiations with the Palestinians. Political circumstances may change
suddenly in the Middle East, making defensible borders imperative.
Israeli presence along the Jordan River is a vital security requirement
for Israel. It is a pity that the Palestinians have not yet internalized
this change and are failing to calibrate their aspirations to the reality
on the ground. Unfortunately, realism is hardly part of the maximalist
Palestinian political culture.
A resolution to the conflict is
not in the cards. Interim agreements are the best that can be achieved.
|
Therefore, the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains
intractable. The two-state solution that everybody pays lip service to is
simply not a realistic outcome under the current circumstances.
Last year, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reluctantly accepted a
working paper submitted by the U.S. in an effort to salvage the
negotiations with the Palestinians. But Abbas refused to accept the
American document, effectively ending the American diplomatic efforts. As
expected, Netanyahu's latest concession -- negotiating the borders of the
settlement blocs -- did not satisfy Palestinian desires. Over the years,
the Palestinians have rejected generous offers by Prime Ministers Ehud
Barak (2000) and Ehud Olmert (2008). Obviously, Netanyahu cannot do
better.
A resolution to the conflict is not in the cards. The best that can be
achieved is interim agreements, tacit or formal, that do not entail grave
security risks for Israel. Even the Obama administration learned the hard
way that conflict resolution should be substituted with conflict
management. That is the only strategy that has a chance to minimize
suffering on both sides and achieve a modicum of stability in a stormy
Middle East.
The European peace offensive, another exercise in futile diplomacy,
will in all probability produce another bout of diplomatic activism in
pursuit of another forum for an Israeli-Palestinian exchange of views
that will similarly fail. Such failures hardly discourage professional
diplomats who make an honorable living by trying to bring peace. The
Quartet will probably also try again to make peace. We should wish all of
them luck.
Efraim Inbar, a professor of political
studies at Bar-Ilan University, is the director of the Begin-Sadat Center
for Strategic Studies and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment