Bottom Line
Will the Israel-Palestine peace talks succeed?
President Bush, in the early years of his White House years, had abandoned direct engagement policy toward the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The president was known to have disapproved of the effort and time President Clinton spent in 2000 to resolve one of the most intractable conflicts.
The president left the matter to the parties themselves, knowing fully well that unless the US, a close ally and benefactor of Israel, pressed hard on Israel to come to a peaceful settlement no progress would be made.
At the end of his second term, President Bush has been showing keen interest in resolving the conflict. The Bush administration finally realised that stability of Iraq cannot be restored until the Israel-Palestinian conflict is resolved. The US had initiated a road map together with the EU, UN and Russia (known as the Quartet) in 2002 to explore new options for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
In April 2003, the Quartet released its "Performance-based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Crisis."
The roadmap outlines a three-stage program leading to an independent Palestinian state, and a "final and comprehensive settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict" by 2005. But as a "performance-driven" process with no enforcement mechanism, the roadmap depended on the good faith of all sides, and their voluntary compliance with obligations under the plan.
Israel has not demonstrated such compliance. The roadmap requires that Israel "freeze all settlement activity." Yet, Israel continues to build settlements and construct its illegal separation wall in the West Bank.
Israeli aggression, particularly in the form of assassination attempts, continues unabated. Violence has continued, and the Quartet has shown no capacity for imposing requirements on the parties, and the roadmap has steadily lost credibility.
So much injustice and oppression are being inflicted on Palestinians by Israel day after day with the support of the Bush administration that the conflict has severe impact on the region. It acts like a magnet for Islamic militants to fight against the oppressors.
This conflict has a direct impact on Iraq because many young Arabs feel that the injustice perpetrated on the Palestinians would continue unless they defeated the US in Iraq.
In the 80s, the Mujahideen successfully defeated the Russian troops in Afghanistan, and they can also be successful in Iraq against the US troops. The Iraqi chaos is considered by many Arabs as an extension of the unresolved issue of Israel-Palestinian peace settlement. Once the Palestinians get their due rights, one of the important factors leading to instability in Iraq will be gone.
Against this background, President Bush sent his Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice to the region several times to explore the possibility of a peace conference among the stakeholders in November in Annapolis, Maryland, US. The US is expected to invite Arab states of the region.
Syria has refused to attend the conference unless the issue of occupation of the Golan Heights is included in the agenda of the conference. The conflict between Syria and Israel is over territorial possession.
At heart is control of the Golan Heights, 1250 kilometres of mountain and farmland, and a strategic place that gives a sweeping view of Syria. Israeli artillery forces on the Golan Heights could shell Syrian positions and villages in Syria from the top of the Golan Heights.
Control of the Golan Heights gives Israeli armoured forces a bridgehead on the eastern side of Syria Rift valley, poised north to Damascus. Amid rumours of war, Israeli tank brigades have staged large-scale manoeuvres on the Golan Heights in preparation of military operations.
Furthermore, the Golan Heights gives access to water resources that Israel now exploits fully for half of its needs. It produces most of its wine grapes and has the country's only ski resort. Cattle ranchers and hikers can roam in the relatively wide open spaces of the upland plateau.
There seem to be a few difficulties ahead for success of the conference.
First, both Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas of the Palestine Authority are weak politically and, at this stage, it is difficult for them to make decisions. Police investigations are going on against Olmert on suspicion of corruption while he was finance minister.
Abbas's authority in the Gaza Strip has been replaced by Hamas's, which governs the Gaza Strip. Hamas has been mounting a strong rear-guard campaign, warning Abbas not to sell out on ideals and insisting that he does not speak for all Palestinians.
Second, exchange of land, including East Jerusalem by Israel, for peace is objected to by Israel's orthodox Jews and the right wing opposition Likud party led by Netanyahu. The orthodox parties are in the coalition government of Olmert, and they have warned that they might bolt from his shaky coalition if East Jerusalem is given to the Palestinians.
Third, while Palestinians want a detailed document to be approved at the conference, including the status of Jerusalem and the issue of Palestinian refugees to Israel, Israel wants general principles of settlement enumerated in the document.
The secretary of state arrived in Jerusalem on October 15 on her latest round of shuttle diplomacy ahead of the much anticipated White House-sponsored peace conference.
Dr. Rice is reportedly concerned about Abbas's insistence on tabling a resolution on "red-line issues," including secure borders for a Palestinian state, and the gap between the two sides is too wide to be patched up by the US.
Officials of the State Department are reportedly aiming for a declaration from the conference to present the principles for a permanent agreement, and to leave details for later talks.
Observers believe that the US does not wish to discuss the establishment of East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, and the right of return of refugees to Israel, as any discussion would annoy Israel. Since 1967, Israel, irrespective of political affiliation, has consistently refused to discuss these issues.
The Bush administration simply wants the conference to succeed, without discussing tough prickly issues. The best outcome for the US is a skeleton of general principles without any flesh, which may mean different things to different people. This attitude won't satisfy the Palestinians because the Quartet in its roadmap declared that the conflict would end by 2005. It is almost end of 2007, and it seems that it is a long way to ending the conflict, not to mention setting up of a Palestinian state.
Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments