Third parties sidle into the peace gap


June 18, 2015
Sarah Benton


Apartment blocks under construction in the West Bank Jewish settlement of Beitar Ilit, near Bethlehem, started August 2013. Photo by Amir Cohen, Reuters

Palestinians see no reason to negotiate as Israeli settlements continue

As international efforts intensify to resume the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Palestinians feel that discussions will go nowhere as long as the Israeli government sticks to its policy of settlement expansion.

By Ahmad Melhem, trans.Sami-Joe Abboud, Al Monitor / Palestine Pulse
June 17, 2015

There are growing Arab and international calls to revive the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that stopped after Israel refused to release the fourth batch of prisoners incarcerated before the Oslo Accord on March 29, 2014.

he resumption of negotiations was discussed in Geneva during the June 6 meeting of the Quartet on the Middle East, which includes Russia, the European Union, the United States and the United Nations. The meeting was preceded by a May 20 meeting between EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah.

Mogherini said during the meeting that the European Union is committed to finding ways to relaunch the peace process, and that she will hold meetings with officials in the region to that end.

Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat told Al-Monitor that despite these international efforts, and although the Palestinian Authority (PA) has shown its commitment to the peace process, the PA is nevertheless demanding that Israel fulfill its obligations as stipulated in the Oslo Accord and the subsequent agreements reached through US Secretary of State John Kerry’s initiative to resume the negotiations.

A frustrated US President Barack Obama said in a May 15 interview with Al-Arabiya, “The only solution to me over the long term is a two-state solution,” adding, “What I think at this point, realistically, we can do is to try to rebuild trust.”

Abbas stressed during his meeting with Mogherini, “We are with the peace process, but the Israeli side must shoulder its responsibilities, halt the settlement activity, release the fourth batch of prisoners incarcerated before the Oslo Accord and accept the principle of the two-state solution on the 1967 borders.”

For his part, Erekat said, “The Israeli government is impeding the peace process through its measures on the ground, which eliminate any possibility of a two-state solution.” He explained, “The new [Israeli] government has opened construction bids in the Leshem settlement to link the settlement of Ariel with the Jordan Valley, which involves the division of the West Bank and the undermining of the two-state solution. Is this a government that wants peace?”

Erekat added, “Israel stopped the negotiations and is destroying the two-state solution. Stopping the settlement activity for the resumption of negotiations is not a requirement on our part, but a commitment that Israel has to respect, but this is not possible when the [Benjamin] Netanyahu government program is based on settlement construction.

“The negotiations cannot be resumed before the Israeli government announces the halt of its settlement construction, accepts the principle of the two-state solution in the 1967 territories and releases the fourth batch of prisoners detained before the Oslo Accord.”


A Palestinian woman stands near furniture removed from her house as it is being demolished in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Beit Hanina, Oct. 29, 2013. Photo by Ammar Awad/ Reuters

Qais Abdul Karim, a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization Executive Committee and deputy secretary-general of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, told Al-Monitor that there is no room for a return to negotiations under any formula, as long as the Netanyahu government disavows its commitments to the peace process and sets impossible conditions such as the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

Abdul Karim said, “The negotiations can be resumed when the Palestinian conditions are met, when there are serious international efforts and when there is an international peace conference capable of compelling Israel to apply the international legitimacy resolutions.”

Omar Shehadeh [above], a member of the PLO’s Central Council and leader in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, told Al-Monitor, “Objectively speaking, there is no point in resuming the negotiations in light of the ongoing settlement activity and Israel’s undermining of the two-state solution project. Therefore, I rule out the resumption of negotiations in the near future.”

In light of this stalemate, Israel is trying to push a number of Arab countries to pressure the PA to resume negotiations, taking advantage of a June 5 public meeting in Washington between retired Saudi Maj. Gen. Anwar Ashki and Dore Gold, the new general director of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, during which Ashki alluded to possible co-operation and joint action between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Some see a convergence between Israel and Saudi Arabia, especially with the imminent conclusion of the nuclear deal with Iran.

Netanyahu said in a speech at the Herzliya Conference on June 9, “I hope that the Arab countries will put pressure on the Palestinians to return to the talks in order to reach the two-state solution. There might be a chance because some Arab countries secretly agree with my position.”

Erekat said, “At the moment, no new initiatives have been submitted to us for the resumption of negotiations.”

Shehadeh said, “Arab pressure on the PA is possible, but Israel rejects the Arab peace initiative, so there is no point in resuming the negotiations based on it. However, Israel is seeking to start cooperating with Arab countries to counter the so-called Iranian threat, and this may eventually lead to peace between Israel and Arab countries, as stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative.”

Abdul Karim said that the Arab Higher Committee’s discussions with France about French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius’ draft initiative — which Fabius had intended to submit to the UN Security Council — were mere exploratory rounds and not successful.

The initiative included several elements to support a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the formation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with a land swap and Jerusalem as the capital of both states, the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, the establishment of a timeline for the negotiations, as well as the formation of an international peace committee.

Political writer and analyst Khalil Shaheen told Al-Monitor, “Western and Israeli official parties are seeking to start negotiations through a third party, suggesting that a [parallel] political process is filling the vacuum created by the collapse of the negotiating process. This political process could prevent any further tension or explosion.”

Shaheen added, “During the upcoming period, Palestinians will be completely paralyzed amidst the international efforts — as lately witnessed with the FIFA developments on May 29, when the Palestinian Football Federation retracted its demand to revoke Israel’s FIFA membership. They will wait for changes at the regional level or in the US position, which seeks to contain, not terminate, the conflict.”

Asked about the Israeli-Saudi rapprochement and the possibility of activating the Arab Peace Initiative, Shaheen said, “The regional developments serve Israel and Netanyahu, who said that he is looking for solutions and regional security co-operation with the Arab states vis-a-vis Iran. [Netanyahu’s statements] derailed Arab attention from the real danger that Israel constitutes. This also marginalizes the Palestinian cause and distances it from Arab interests. Therefore, a clear Palestinian position on the Arab initiative is in order, not because Israel rejected it, but because some Arab countries have completely disregarded it.”

Based on experience that stretches back 21 years, the Palestinians are leery that entering new negotiations with Israel could be a waste of time as the settlements continue to ravage their land. According to them, such a step could eliminate the possibility of establishing a Palestinian state in the absence of any real and serious international pressure on Israel.



Palestinian women hold framed photos of imprisoned relatives during a rally commemorating the Palestinian prisoners, Ramallah, West Bank, April 17, 2013.Photo ActiveStills

Netanyahu must prove ‘good faith’ to restart peace talks

If Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is genuinely interested in promoting a new diplomatic peace initiative, he must demonstrate his willingness with actions, such as releasing Palestinian prisoners and working to bolster the Palestinian Authority rather than Hamas.

By Akiva Eldar, trans.Ruti Sinai, Al Monitor
June 16, 2015

Among the thousands of lines written in recent days about the cultural clash between Israeli artists and Culture and Sports Minister Miri Regev and the exploits of Knesset member Oren Hazan, astute readers managed to find a few words about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My colleague Ben Caspit wrote for Al-Monitor June 10 that the need to renew negotiations and return to the two-state solution is once again getting significant mileage in the speeches of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He assessed that the speech Netanyahu delivered at the Herzliya diplomatic gathering was “a first, cautious trial balloon of sorts for what political sources in Israel call his ‘autumn restart.’” Caspit was referring specifically to a diplomatic initiative that Netanyahu will set in motion as soon as the Iranian issue is off the table at the end of June (if an agreement is indeed reached between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany).

Caspit listed the aims of the initiative one by one: getting Isaac Herzog’s Zionist Camp into Netanyahu’s coalition; rehabilitating the relationship with the United States; easing the growing tensions between Israel and Europe and the international community; and hampering the boycotts and delegitimization campaign being conducted against Israel in recent months. Indeed, these goals individually and collectively serve the interests of the State of Israel. Nonetheless, this important list is lacking.

What happened to such goals as ending the occupation, ending the conflict with the Palestinians and preserving Israel’s character as a Jewish and democratic state? This is even before asking Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon for his views on the initiative. Hint: On June 9, Ya’alon said he does not believe a stable agreement with the Palestinians will be reached in his lifetime. To allay any concern about his health, the defence minister stated, “I intend to live a bit longer.” In addition, how does Netanyahu plan to enlist the support of most members of his Likud faction for the new version of the two-state solution, not to mention that of his partners on the more radical right? After all, Knesset member Benny Begin resigned from the government in 1997 to protest the Hebron protocol for the partial redeployment of the Israel Defence Forces from Hebron, and Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely, speaking before Foreign Ministry employees May 21, said that God had given all of the Land of Israel to the people of Israel, and only to the people of Israel.

In light of Netanyahu’s dubious conduct in regard to the territory at the heart of the conflict with the Palestinians, his talk of new diplomatic initiatives goes in one ear and out the other of the Palestinians, his supposed negotiating partners. Given his contradictory statements about a solution to the conflict, it is up to the prime minister to prove the seriousness of his intentions. To convince his fellow lawmakers in the Zionist Camp to join the government, Herzog will need more than a hollow trial balloon from Netanyahu. To stop the wave of boycotts, the prime minister will have to put his money where his mouth is.

It is customary for building contractors to obtain a “good faith” deposit from prospective homebuyers as proof of their serious intention to purchase a property. Over the past year, Netanyahu has displayed great interest in forging a regional peace arrangement. For example, at a ceremony May 8 marking the 70th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany, Netanyahu said that the mutual interests of Israel and the Arab states vis-a-vis Iran are providing opportunities to promote alliances and “perhaps even to advance peace.” Last week, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak spoke at the Herzliya conference about that same mutual interest, “at the heart of which is the fight against radical Islamic terrorism and the struggle against Iran’s hegemonic intentions and nuclear programs.” Barak called it “an opportunity of the kind that comes along once in a generation.”


Ehud Barak with Abdullah II of Jordan in 2010; the  former Israeli PM has a long relationship with the diplomatic Arab king.

Barak often meets with senior statesmen around the world. He knows that their trust in Netanyahu has reached rock bottom. To convince them that talk about regional peace is not just a marketing gimmick, Barak suggests that Netanyahu offers a good faith deposit in the form of serious negotiations with the Palestinians and with a group of pragmatic Arab states. He believes that negotiations on a solution with the Palestinians based on the principle of two states for two people, along with a comprehensive regional arrangement, must be conducted within the framework of an international conference backed by the United States and the Quartet (the European Union, Russia, United Nations and United States). What’s more, the one-time military chief of staff and minister of defense suggests giving serious thought to adopting the 2002 Saudi-sponsored Arab Peace Initiative “complete with Israel’s reservations.”

While prime minister, Barak opposed interim arrangements with the Palestinians, such as freezing construction in the West Bank, continued withdrawal as stipulated in the 1998 Wye River Plantation agreement and implementation of his commitment to transfer three Jerusalem-area villages (Abu Dis, al-Azariya and eastern Swahara) to full Palestinian control. Now he is pleading with the Israeli government to limit new construction to the settlement blocs and stop building in all other areas. He is convinced this would completely alter Israel’s international standing. In other words, what one sees from outside the prime minister’s office is different from the view of the occupants inside.

The good faith fee must be paid in hard currency, such as releasing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, that is, members of Fatah. This would strengthen the status of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Talk about regional peace initiatives based on mutual interest with the pragmatic Arab states is incompatible with contacts between Israel and Hamas about a cease-fire in exchange for lifting the blockade of the Gaza Strip. Such talks could actually strengthen Hamas, which categorically opposes any diplomatic arrangement with Israel. If Israel is genuinely interested in a settlement with the Palestinians, it must deposit this good faith fee in the hands of the Palestinian leadership. In no way should Israel act to strengthen the status of the PA’s nemesis, Hamas.

David Ben-Gurion used to say that it is not important what the gentiles say, it’s important what the Jews do. Netanyahu does not care what the gentiles say. Either way, they don’t do a thing. For him it is important what the Jews say. In any case, they end up doing what they want, until otherwise.

© Copyright JFJFP 2024