MIFTAH
Friday, 19 April. 2024
 
Your Key to Palestine
The Palestinian Initiatives for The Promotoion of Global Dialogue and Democracy
 
 
 

The prospects of the Middle Eastern summit convened by Bush for November (the original date has already been postponed for the end of the moth and the term "International Conference" seemed too much of a commitment for Israel), are still but a vague vision on the horizon. And not only because the invitations and the agenda have been suspended so far, awaiting progress in the bilateral contacts between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, but also because neither the aims nor the framework are clear.

Convened by US President as a reaction to Hamas' military takeover of the Gaza Strip, the convention was seen at first as a the rallying, in the Middle East, of the good-guys against the bad-guys or, to put it in the words of an editorial in the Israeli Haaretz daily, of the cowboys against the Indians.

The first, obviously, would be the US, Israel, the Palestinians loyal to Abu Mazen, the moderate Arab states – Egypt, Jordan and, notwithstanding the suspicions following 9/11, Saudi Arabia. The bad guys would be Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and, naturally, Iran. However, it became evident early on that on this basis no international summit would be possible.

The Arab players refer to the Arab Peace Plan, which has also been mentioned by the United States. However this Plan, which was unanimously agree-upon in Beirut in 2002 and was recently re-launched in Riyadh, refers to all the states in conflict with Israel – including Syria and Lebanon – consequently committing all Arab states to recognize Israel if the latter withdraws from the territories occupied in 1967, agrees to the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and guarantees a "fair and agreed-upon" solution (that is to say 'agreed upon' also by Israel) to the problem of the Palestinian refugees.

At the same time, the International Conference held in 1991, organized by President Bush's father, also saw the participation of all warring parties – including Syria.

But there is another, more meaningful, element that should be taken into account: if Syria would feel threatened, isolated and rejected, it is able, by moving its pawns – starting with Hamas and Hezbollah – to hamper and block the road towards the summit and towards its possible outcomes. Attempting, as the US initially tried, to exclude Syria from those invited to participate n the summit, would have placed Saudi Arabia in an impossible situation, with the risk of splitting the Arab League and the unanimity it has voiced toward its Peace Plan. In the meanwhile, upon witnessing the imminent Saudi refusal to participate in the summit, the US and Israel were forced to examine the possibility of sending an invitation to Damascus, in the framework of the Arab states designated by the Arab League to carry out its Peace Plan.

However, the agenda of the summit still remains limited to the Palestinian-Israeli issue, and no discussion is planned on returning the Golan Heights (not of the Shebaa Farms under contention with Lebanon). Syria, therefore, has but little interest in taking the American President's chestnuts out of the fire, and voices serious doubts regarding its acceptance of the invitation.

It would at least be necessary that Israel provides clear assurances, regarding the fact that in a successive – but definite – phase, the other contexts would be discussed and resolved as well, and that the November Summit would be the first in a series of encounters aiming to strategically resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

An analogous reasoning is true regarding Hamas as well: no one thinks today of suggesting direct negotiations between Israel and Hamas (with the latter also seeming to have no interest at the moment in such direct contacts with the Jewish state). However, it is becoming increasingly evident that any agreement that would be reached during the summit between Olmert and Abu Mazen – two leaders who by now are devoid of any popular support – would be written on ice if the Islamic organization opposes it and denounces it as betrayal. Hamas as well is able, if it wishes, to block the peace process. At the same time it is impossible to imagine the establishment of a Palestinian state without the Gaza Strip.

All this does not mean that the ongoing negotiations between the two leaders and their staffs, notwithstanding their meaningful limitations and contradictions, are devoid of significance. On the contrary: it is necessary that the international community pushes for a "joint declaration" that would include the guidelines for a possible final status agreement (the initial term "Agreement of Principles" has also been put aside since it would have required an approval by the Knesset, which would be dangerous of the Israeli government's chances of survival, in view of the growing opposition on the part of the right wing in the form of Lieberman, the religious in the form of Shas and a significant part of Kadima itself – Olmert's party).

Many of the proposals advanced by Deputy Prime Minister Haim Ramon, in the name of- or on behalf of Olmert (even if unofficially), with all their notable limitations, follow the same direction: a possible division of Jerusalem, which would be the future capital of the two states; some form of special super-national arrangement for the holy sites; territorial exchanges in order to compensate for the areas of the West Bank that include the major settlement blocks along the Green Line and around Jerusalem; a positive approach regarding the question of the refugees, while maintaining firm the need to guarantee the predominance of Israel's Jewish character.

Still, the question remains: will this work be carried out with an inclusive vision towards all the potential interlocutors in the peace process, including Hamas, even utilizing the tool of bringing the possible accords to a national referendum as was agreed-upon in the internal-Palestinian Mecca Accord; or will the peace process itself be used as a tool to exclude the actors that are seen as opposing it?

In other words, as far as the Palestinians are concerned, does one intend to work in order to advance reconciliation between the two parties in conflict by declaring that a newly constructed Palestinian National Unity Government would no longer be subject to the European and international boycott; or does one instead continue to threaten that negotiations would be interrupted as soon as Abu Mazen shows his willingness to return to the road leading to Mecca and to re-launch the Accords that have been agreed-upon there (importantly, re-launching these Accords is receiving an ever growing support by the major Arab states – Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan – and by a significant portion of Fatah, connected to Marwan Baraguthi – the Palestinian leader who is serving seven life sentences in Israeli prison).

There seems to be growing awareness of all that has been described here within the US, where positions following this logic are on the rise, from Collin Powell to a significant group of ex-Ambassadors to the Middle East in the recent bipartisan declaration that was signed, among others, by Lee Hamilton, Brezinski and important Republican elements close to Bush Sr.

These are positions that were promoted for the first time in Italy by this column for the past two years almost, and which over the past months have made their way into the Italian Government and other important European countries such as France and Spain.

Janiki Cingoli, director of the Italian Center for Peace in the Middle East

 
 
Read More...
 
 
By the Same Author
 
Footer
Contact us
Rimawi Bldg, 3rd floor
14 Emil Touma Street,
Al Massayef, Ramallah
Postalcode P6058131

Mailing address:
P.O.Box 69647
Jerusalem
 
 
Palestine
972-2-298 9490/1
972-2-298 9492
info@miftah.org

 
All Rights Reserved © Copyright,MIFTAH 2023
Subscribe to MIFTAH's mailing list
* indicates required