The reason there is no progress toward ending
the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians and a
more general move toward peace in the Middle East is that some
people are opposed to it and there is a widespread notion floating
around that all the opposition is all on one side. Don’t believe
it. Yes, there are those in the region who don’t wish to see
a settlement and adamantly reject the reality that peace requires
acceptance of the secure existence of Israel as a country. But
they are smaller in number than we are constantly led to believe
and their influence is not that great.
The principal stumbling block to a Middle East
settlement has always been and remains the occupation.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was
in the Middle East this week, said to be on a mission to secure
participation in an international conference slated for Annapolis,
Maryland that is being promoted by the Bush Administration to
achieve a general settlement to the conflict.
“We welcome President Bush’s decision to include
Syria on the list of countries invited to a November Middle
East peace meeting," the New York Times recently
said editorially, going on to say, “We hope this means that
Mr. Bush and his aides are finally ready to push all sides to
make the compromises essential for moving toward an Israeli-Palestinian
peace.”
“As for why this sudden flexibility from the
White House?," asked the Times. “The conventional
wisdom is that Mr. Bush’s secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice,
wants to try and salvage the president’s legacy — and her own
— with a peace deal that could help stabilize the region that
Mr. Bush’s war in Iraq has so destructively roiled. It will
take a lot more creative diplomacy to make that happen. Indeed,
six trips into a too-little, too-late peace effort, Ms. Rice
is having as much trouble making progress with Israel, America’s
close ally, as with Palestinians.” Rice is handicapped by the
widespread view in the region that her trips there are intended
only to create the impression that progress is being made more
than anything else, and the editorial noted that Rice “says
she is not looking to stage just another photo op…”
“A full-scale peace agreement may be unrealistic,”
suggested the Times editors “but Ms. Rice should aim
to have the two sides sign a formal document laying out in as
much detail as possible a framework for resolving the core issues
of borders, refugees and the status of Jerusalem.”
The problems is that not everybody sees it that
way and there are some powerful forces in Israel and the U.S.
working overtime to see that that doesn’t happen.
On October
5, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz quoting “sources who
spoke with senior PA (Palestinian Authority) officials
in recent days,” said the Palestinians are proposing that the
basis for an agreement to set the objectives of the conference
be that “Israel should declare an immediate freeze on construction
in the settlements and quickly evacuate the outposts, as well
as several settlements” and that “the future border will be
based on the 1967 lines. Exchanges of territory will be limited
to 2 or 3 percent of the West Bank in order to ensure territorial
contiguity for the future Palestinian state and prevent the
division of the West Bank into several cantons surrounded by
settlements. The territory to be exchanged must be equal in
quantity and quality.”
The head of the Palestinian negotiating team, Ahmed Qureia, a former
Palestinian Authority prime minister, recently told a Saudi
newspaper that if a joint Israeli-Palestinian statement is not
formulated before the conference, the Palestinians might decline
to attend. On the other hand an Israeli official told Haaretz
that his government sought instead for Annapolis to only “witness the launching of the permanent status negotiations to achieve
a peace treaty on all the core issues," after the conference.
Perhaps Rice will work out a compromise that
will allow the conference to be convened but it is becoming
increasingly doubtful. The monkey wrenches are flying in fast
and furious.
First off, there was the action secured by supporters
of hardline Israeli policies in the U.S., resulting in 77 members
of the U.S. Senate sending a letter to Rice on the eve of her
foray, calling for the Arab countries to reject Palestinian
resistance groups. They called on Arab countries and the PA
to reject terrorism and to isolate the Palestinian group Hamas,
recognize Israel, "and not use such recognition as a bargaining
chip for future concessions” - as a condition for even being
invited to the conference. “If Arab countries do not take
these steps,” they said, "peace in the region will remain
elusive."
The key here is the demand for the recognition
of Israel prior to negotiations and the notion that things like
giving up the occupied territories would amount to “concession”
on the part of the Israelis. Of course, the signing senators
know full well that for the Palestinians or any of the Arab
states to accept such conditions would doom the conference before
it ever got off the ground. But it’s an election year in the
U.S. and they could pay a political price for saying otherwise.
The senators are echoing what a lot of voices
in Israeli corridors of power are saying. Rice’s efforts – if
their aims are what they are purported to be – are also apparently
being undermined from within the Administration. In May, Deputy
National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams told a gathering of
Jewish Republicans that Rice’s frequent trips to the region
is “just process” — steps needed in order to keep the Europeans
and moderate Arab countries “on the team” and to make sure they
feel that the United States is promoting peace in the Middle
East, according to the Jewish community newspaper The Forward.
According to one of the participants in the meeting, Abrams
said that he does not believe that the United States can make
much progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front. “The United
States could only see success, Abrams added, on limited issues
relating to freedom of movement for Palestinians in the territories
and efforts to strengthen the presidential guard of Palestinian
Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas.”
Abrams’ office later recanted the comments, saying
he supports Rice’s mission.
What most of the world calls “the occupied territories”
are referred to by right-wing parties in Israel as “Judea and
Samaria.” The policy objective is to hang on to them.
Rice, “is moving boldly down the rabbit hole,"
wrote Caroline Glick, a former member of the Israeli Defense
Force and deputy editor of the Jerusalem Post. “It is
far from clear what American interests Rice is advancing with
her unswerving effort to reach a peace accord between Israel
and Fatah. Indeed, Rice's efforts are detrimental to US interests
in the region.”
The Senator’s warning, wrote Glick in the Post
is “well placed. Rice is dragging Israel with her in
her madcap descent down the diplomatic rabbit hole - and not
for the first time," asserted Glick, who is also a fellow
at the U.S. Center for Security Policy and is a cohort of many
of the prominent neoconservative institutions and figures in
the U.S. “Rice has a record of forcing Israel to sacrifice its
security in the interest of her ‘peace’.”
Glick has made quite clear what the Israeli right-wing
thinks about this conference maneuverings and they have no intention
of relinquishing “Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem” – in
other words, ending the occupation. “All negotiations should
be postponed until after the summit, and the summit should be
delayed for weeks, then months, then years. Otherwise, in the
name of ‘promoting peace,’ Rice and her Israeli underlings will
foment a new war.”
It’s also election time in Israel. Although one
hasn’t been scheduled it doesn’t look as if the embattled Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert can retain his position for long.
In addition to everything else, he’s being hounded by corruption
charges. If he could manage to help make the Annapolis confab
look like a substantive step forward toward peace, he might
survive. But his opponents appear determined to see that that
doesn’t happen. Waiting in the wing is hawkish former Prime
Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, for whom Glick served as assistant
foreign policy advisor.
Last Sunday, in the Israeli parliament, Netanyahu,
the right-wing Likud opposition leader, bitterly attacked Olmert,
accusing him of already agreeing to give up the occupied territories.
One hopes than the positive scenario unfolds,
that the renewed efforts being made to bringing about peace
in the Middle East succeed. But for that to happen, there must
be recognition that the central issue is the occupation.
There is an international consensus as to the
way forward in the Middle East and has been for decades. Its
basic components are contained in United Nations Security Council
Resolution 242, adopted unanimously November 22, 1967. It called
for "the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the
Middle East" through "the application of both the
following principles: withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from
territories occupied in the recent conflict" and "termination
of all claims or states of belligerency" and respect for
the right of every state in the area to live in peace within
secure and recognized boundaries. It was followed by Security
Council Resolution 338 that called for a cease fire in the October
War in 1973, embraced the principles of 242 and said, “negotiations
shall start between the parties concerned under appropriate
auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the
Middle East.”
The Arab countries originally rejected the UN
resolution and disputes immediately broke out over whether they
meant Israel would have to withdraw from all of the territory
invaded and occupied in 1967 or not. Much time has passed since
then and insisting on the application of 242 today would be
unrealistic and counterproductive. The Palestinians are not
mentioned in the resolutions and the question of the uprooted
is not mentioned. But the political essence of the resolutions
remains and the vast overwhelming majority of the nations and
peoples of the international community favor its implementation.
And, as the polls bear out, so do most Israelis and Palestinians.
This consensus has been expressed several times
by member countries of the UN General assembly and in more recent
proposals from the Arab world, most particularly those emanating
from Saudi Arabia in 2002 and March of this year. The Saudi
plan calls for full recognition of Israel by the states in the
region, a withdrawal to pre-1967 borderlines, the establishment
of an independent Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital,
and a return of Palestinian refugees to lands lost in the 1967
war.
"I think the Arab peace initiative of 2002
by Saudi Arabia is one of the pillars, which will facilitate
the peace process in the Middle East," says United Nations
General Secretary Ban Ki-moon. "It is encouraging that
Americans and Israelis are now trying to revisit this Arab peace
process. I know that there are still reservations shared by
Israelis. But one cannot always be fully satisfied with one
or two agreements. We must build upon these good principles."
BlackCommentator.com
Editorial Board member Carl Bloice is a writer in
San Francisco, a member of the National Coordinating Committee
of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism
and formerly worked for a healthcare union. Click
here to contact Mr. Bloice.