(
USASabah)
Reported by Yusuf Yerkel*
First and foremost, what I ask myself is why Obama despite so many hurdles and lack of peace prospect is committing his own prestige and getting everyone's hopes up again? Given Hilary's statement saying the United States "cannot and will not impose a solution" to the conflict it is becoming more clear that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. I am just curious how there will be any progress without the US's will to impose the parameters of this new direct talks.
Recalling the previous peace talks attempts over the last two decades, the US administration must draw lessons and recognize that without such an imposition there is no way to go forward. However, the US seems to be in a position that regard the talks an end in itself rather than as a means for permanent peace. This could be explained by given the US interest in the Islamic world and its gradual decreasing popularity among the Middle Eastern public.
After all, the recent poll conducted by Pew research center displays the increasing anti-American sentiments throughout the region. Obama's attempt to bring both parties to table, in this sense, must be regard as shoring up its popularity after he has gained in Cairo speech. The US knows very well that talks do not solve the political problem in the region, but they do reshape perceptions a bit at very little cost.
Having said this, one does not have to be the "Paul of Octopus" to see the dead-end of this road. After all Netanyahu has repeatedly stressed he has no intention to continue with the settlement freeze in West Bank or accept the 1967 borders as the basis for talks, and he insists Israel won't share Jerusalem.
In fact, Netanyahu faces pressure from within his government not to halt the expansion of those settlements and his governing coalition could collapse if he loses the support of right-wing groups. Historically, Israel has had weak governments for a generation. These governments are weak because they are formed by coalitions made up of diverse and sometimes opposed parties which is unlikely to produce any positive psychological environment for the Palestinian side. The unwillingness to make compromise on settlements and East Jerusalem, therefore, has a complex internal component which is well known to Netanyahu. And this dimension stands as a massive hinderance for producing any positive results.
In addition to that, even the two-state model which has been offered by the Israelis is problematic in itself. In Steven Walt's blog last week he rightly put emphasis on this very well:
"
There is no sign that Israel's government is willing to accept anything more than a symbolic Palestinian "state" consisting of a set of disconnected Bantustans, with Israel in full control of the borders, air space, water supplies, electromagnetic spectrum. etc. Prime Minister Netanyahu has made is clear that this is what he means by a "two-state solution," and he has repeatedly declared that Israel intends to keep all of Jerusalem and maybe a long-term military presence in the Jordan River valley."
I do not think the Palestinian side will be happy about a state that will look like this especially Hamas. Additionally, there is no sign that the Palestinians are willing to accept less than a viable, territorially contiguous state in the West Bank (and eventually, Gaza), including a capital in East Jerusalem and some sort of political formula on the refugee issue. It should also be noted that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas lacks the political strength to sell any deal to his people, possibly even to his own Fatah movement.
What is more, the problem of reconciliation with Israel is far more complex given Hamas's position on recognizing Israel as a legal state and its strong hold of Gaza. In the charter of Hamas it claims that:
"
the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it." (http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html)
Having a rejectionist attitude towards Israel's existence, it should be Hamas that needs be brought to the negotiation table in order to find a middle ground in the first place.
I am just wondering how this new initiative by excluding Hamas from peace talk is going to be successful given Hamas's increasing appealing after the assault on Mavi Marmara? Isn't there a need to change this policy if all parties are keen on reaching a viable solution that will create a middle ground? There is no need to go back in time it was yesterday when two Israelis have been wounded in the occupied West Bank in an attack on their car, for which the military wing of Hamas has claimed responsibility just a day after similar shooting leaves four Israelis dead.
Are not these shootings a strong indication of a possible failure of any peace between Israel and Palestine that will not include Hamas? I mean how can we account for these attack by not interpreting these shootings of Hamas as a way to impede any peace agreement. Given Israel's strategic culture which holds a highly securitized nature, Hamas knows very well that by conducting these sort of attacks Israel will not make any compromise, in particular on ending the blockade of Gaza. And Gaza stands not only at the center of Palestine-Israeli relations but also at the core for the whole regional peace between Arab states and Israel. All parties must fully recognize and understand that after the assault on Mavi Marmara the gravity of a successful peace lies in the resolution of Gaza blockade.
This a vicious circle. Without finding a mechanism that will appease Israel's sense of threat there is no way of taking any compromise on Gaza, and without the end of Gaza blockade there will be no overarching peace, and without a political engagement with Hamas there is no framework to resolve the blockade. Therefore, Hamas is the key actor in this game and without it we should not hold our breath for any positive results in the ongoing direct peace talks.
All in all, there is one fundamental dimension that must be paid attention. Neither side has the representative power of its majority of public and this very fact makes any enterprise problematic to begin with.
*PhD candidate at SOAS University, London, England
