Peace Talks Begin Anew, But Tough Times Lie Ahead

by Daniel E. Levenson, ALM

May 21, 2010 

The ultimate goal of any peace negotiations should be to create a peace that will be real and lasting. To rush to a solution, out of either frustration or sudden inspiration, is a tack which does not seem likely to succeed in creating a framework for peace and cooperation, between Israel and the Palestinians, which will be able to weather the difficult steps of implementation which are sure to follow a final settlement. Anyone who thinks that a peace solution, once found, will be easy to implement, is either vastly ignorant of the history of the region, or delusional  as it is clear that there is bound to be significant resistance from hardliners within both camps who will find any solution, which is not wholly in their own interest, to be objectionable.

It is unclear whether this latest round of negotiations, which have started with indirect talks, will somehow be different than previous efforts. As always, there are a variety of regional and international political factors which are likely to influence these latest efforts. Complicating matters, there is significant diplomatic tension between the United States and Israel, which has had a ripple effect in both the Middle East and domestically in the US. Within the American Jewish community there has also been a significant increase in tension around issues relating to Israel, which has created significant divisions.

In a New York Times article on May 5, Paul Vitello wrote about the ways that tensions between different groups within American Jewry have been exposed lately as President Obama has been pushing for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this piece, Mr. Vitello cites a study by Professor Steven M. Cohen, of Hebrew Union College, who has found in his research that American Jews are feeling less and less of a connection to the State of Israel. The reasons for such a shift are not clear, but historical distance from events such as the pogroms of Eastern Europe and the Shoah, not to mention domestic Anti-Semitism within the US, have no doubt contributed to this increased sense of distance.
 
In Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu is facing serious opposition from the right wing, as well as pressure from the left, when it comes to the issue of settlements. Violence by settlers has increased and threatens to destabilize Israeli society and draws security and police resources away from protecting the state from external threats and law enforcement.

The most vexing question though, may be the issue of who should or can represent the Palestinian people in negotiations with Israel, a tricky question to answer. During the days when the PLO was in charge, Israel knew that it had to deal with Arafat. In retrospect, Arafat actually did very little to help the Palestinian people, and his legacy may very well end up being that he effectively delayed the establishment of a Palestinian state by decades. Although he was corrupt and inept, there was one advantage to having Arafat as the titular head of the Palestinian body politic which was that his presence at least provided Israel and other would-be peacemakers with a starting point on the Palestinian side.

All of that being said, the present situation is no better, and may even be worse when it comes to the potential for the Palestinian political class to make a real deal with Israel. In Gaza, Hamas appears to be more interested in filling the coffers of its own organization by violating the border with Egypt and encouraging smuggling and in provoking armed conflict with Israel, than in making any efforts to actually improve the lives of those who live in Gaza. In the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority is still in charge of Palestinian affairs, President Mahmoud Abbas have shown the world that his government is now powerless to reign in Palestinian militants, having effectively ceded control of Gaza to a terrorist organization and left the fate of over a million Palestinians in the hands of Hamas.

Writing in the Weekly Standard in late April of this year, Elliot Abrams speculated on the significance this confused state of affairs may have for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Mr. Abrams notes in his piece, for example, that the decision by President Abbas to seek the blessing of the Arab League before restarting negotiations with Israel does not augur well, since it sends the signal that it is not the Palestinian people or their leaders who will make key decisions independently about their future, but the Arab League. He points out that this is also undesirable since it will give more power to an Arab League Monitoring Committee, where a number of states which are openly hostile towards Israel will have influence. Mr. Elliot also points out quite correctly in this piece that such a move represents a step backwards, since it was the broader Arab regional leadership which openly rejected the idea of partition in 1948, condemning both the Palestinian people and Israel to 60 years of conflict, while they themselves sat on the sidelines, occasionally interfering to the detriment of all. While Egypt and Jordan may provide some counterbalance to the more hostile voices within the Arab league, it does not bode well for the long-term efficacy of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians if Hamas is in charge in Gaza and the PA has to go to the Arab League for permission to negotiate.

This weakness on the part of the Palestinian leadership is nothing new, however. Ever since Hamas took control of Gaza, first via the ballot box and later through a bloody purging of PA loyalists, the Palestinian political class in the territories has been fragmented. Aaron David Miller, a Public Policy Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, discussed this issue in an interview with Bernard Gwertzman from Council on Foreign Relations in January of 2009. In this interview, which is posted on the CFR website, Dr. Miller notes that despite the relationships that President Abbas has with both Israel and the US, he may not be particularly relevant any more, given the strong grip that Hamas holds in Gaza and the inability of Abbas to intervene on behalf of the Palestinians living there. While Dr. Miller was speaking about this issue more than a year ago, recent evidence would seem to back up his assessment that Mahmoud Abbas may not be one while ultimately bring peace for his people. So the question then remains as to who the right person is to represent the Palestinian people in peace negotiations? It speaks to the sad state of affairs in Palestinian politics that no other names have been put forward, and makes one wonder if the Palestinians might not be better off looking outward, to Palestinian communities outside the Middle East, for help when it comes to building up a stronger, more effective political class that takes as its platform neither corruption nor terror. Another point that is raised in this interview is the role that Egypt might play in peace negotiations, but at this point it seems that the Egyptians are none too pleased with the state of affairs in Gaza. With dozens of tunnels beneath the border and occasional skirmishes between Egyptian security forces Hamas, Egypt may be motivated to bring Gaza back under the control of non-terrorists, but they may also want to maintain a certain distance from the issue in order to give themselves room to maneuver in terms of how they want to deal with their own on-going security issues.

The one clear conclusion, that can be drawn from an overview of the present state of affairs, is that these present efforts at peace making are happening on shaky ground. Both Palestinians and Israelis have much to gain from an end to the conflict, but on both sides leaders are dealing with difficult domestic political situations which threaten to undermine not only their ability to negotiate a lasting treaty, but their ability to govern at all. Whatever third party - be it the United States, the European Union, The United Nations of even the Arab League –  that becomes involved in this latest iteration of the peace process needs to take this instability into account. If they ignore it, they are jeopardizing not only the chances of success for peace, but the future of both Israelis and Palestinians as well.

Copyright Daniel E. Levenson 2010.