New
actors in Palestinian peace
charade By Ramzy Baroud
Despite much saber-rattling by Israel and
the US administration and hyped-up expectations by
the Palestinian leadership, the recognition of
Palestine as a non-member observer state last
November is fast becoming yet another footnote in
the protracted conflict.
Only hours after
the announcement of Palestinian's "state" status,
Israel had its own to make: the building of a new
illegal settlement on Palestinian land (according
to international law, all of Israeli settlements
in the occupied territories are illegal).
The area is called the E-1 zone by Israel.
A couple of European countries responded with
greater exasperation than usual, but soon moved on
to other seemingly more pressing issues. The US
called Israel's move "counterproductive", but soon
neglected the
matter. Palestinian activists
who tried to counter Israel's illegal activities
by pitching tents in areas marked by Israel for
construction were violently removed.
Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority (PA)
is at a standstill in the same pitiful possession.
It continues to serve as a buffer between
occupied, ethnically cleansed and rightfully angry
Palestinians. Its existence would not have been
possible without Israel's consent.
Fiery
speeches, press releases and conferences aside,
the PA has effectively sub-contracted part of the
Israeli occupation - as in maintaining Israel's
security for example - in exchange for perks for
those affiliated with the PA.
Examples of
these privileges include easier access to business
contracts or jobs. It is this symbiosis that
constantly averts any serious confrontation
between Israel and the PA. Both parties would lose
if the status quo were seriously hampered.
For Israel to reclaim its responsibilities
as an occupying power under international law
would be a huge financial and political burden
that could impede its settlement constructions in
East Jerusalem and the West Bank. In fact, Israel
is able to maintain all the benefits of military
occupation without much cost. For Abbas, shutting
down the PA conglomerate would mean financial and
political suicide for the branch of Fatah
politicians affiliated with him.
Thus some
clever manifestation of the "peace process" show
must be found that would help both parties save
face - Israel to finish its settlement plans and
the PA to sustain its enterprise.
In fact,
Israel's decision on January 30 to release US$100
million of taxes and tariffs collected on behalf
of the PA (which it has withheld, some say robbed
to punish the PA for its UN bid) was possibly a
prelude to the resumption of the same ongoing
peace charade.
According to an Israeli
official cited by Agence France Presse, the
transfer was a "measure to ease the financial
crisis faced by the Palestinians," ironically
manufactured by Israel. That gesture of "good
will" is likely to be harnessed into some
"confidence building measures" in hopes of
resetting the entire "peace process".
An
explosion of mass rallies and protests in the West
Bank - where most people have not received a full
pay check for months - will neither serve Israeli
nor PA interests. Scenes of desperate Palestinian
men and women marching throughout the territories
would be a threat to both Abbas' already drained
political apparatus and Israel's horribly
disfigured image.
But there is evidence
that there is more to the plan than averting a
crisis. According to a statement made by Muhammad
Sbeih, secretary-general for Palestinian affairs
in the Arab League, an Arab League delegation will
soon to head to the US to "move forward the Middle
East peace process". "The proposal includes
specific Arab ideas about Israel's withdrawal from
the occupied Palestinian territory, the
establishment of a Palestinian state, "guaranteed
security for both sides".
Moreover, on
February 1, the London-based Arabic newspaper
al-Quds al-Arabi reported that the UK hosted a
conference for Palestinian and Israeli officials
to discuss ways of resuming the so-called peace
process.
According to the paper, which
quoted Palestinian sources, the Israeli delegation
was headed by Yossi Belin - known for his role in
laying the foundation for the Oslo accords. The
head of the Palestinian delegation, prominent
Fatah member Muhammad Ishtayya, denied that any
negotiations took place. Instead, he told Ma'an
the conference - held at the Wilton Park Resort in
southern England - "only discussed the Middle East
crisis".
Meanwhile, attempts at wooing
Hamas continue. Several Arabic newspapers,
including Asharq Al-Awsat reported that the head
of Hamas' Politburo, Khaled Meshaal, had indicated
in a recent meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan
that Hamas is prepared to the accept the so-called
"two-state solution". Meshaal allegedly asked the
Jordanian King to relay the message to US
President Barack Obama. However, a Hamas statement
denied the reports as baseless.
Israeli
politics regarding the occupation and illegal
settlement constructions are unlikely to change
after its January elections. Despite media
enthusiasm over the rise of Israel's left and
center, there are no indications that the new
configuration is likely to sway Israel away from
its war-driven policies.
However, Israel
looks at political events unfolding in Washington
with concern. The US administration is assembling
its team for Barack Obama's second term in office
and of course, Israeli interests are high on the
agenda. Two nominations in particular were of much
interest to Israel, that of John Kerry, as
secretary of state and Chuck Hagel as secretary of
defense.
A Voice of America website
commentary poised a mundane question in relations
to Kerry's new post on February 1: "Can Secretary
of State John Kerry Bring Peace to Israel and the
Palestinians?"
Israeli media however, is
far more candid in these matters. "Is John Kerry
good for Israel?" asked Yedioth Ahronot on its
English website. "He may be a friend of Israel but
is not considered the standard bearer for Israel
at the Senate," the Israeli paper quoted a state
official as saying.
If Kerry is not good
enough, one can only imagine the seething anger of
neoconservatives, pro-Israeli pundits and other
officials at the nomination of Hagel. Hagel's past
statements on Israel and Iran are neither those of
"standard bearers for Israel" or anything that
resembles a commitment of any sort.
In an
all-day confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill,
Republican lawmakers pounced on the former
Nebraska Republican senator regarding everything
he said or failed to say (or sign) over issues of
vital interest to Israel. It was frankly difficult
to decipher whether Senator John McCain and
Senator Ted Cruz were more concerned about genuine
US security issues or Israel's "security"
masquerading as vital US national interests.
Hagel is chastised for criticizing the
immense power wielded by the pro-Israel lobby in
Washington - as if his allegations were mere
fantasies and despite the fact that the major
campaign unleashed against his nomination was
launched by the very forces he criticized.
Few expect a major departure from old
policies once the new Washington team is fully
assembled, although others underscore a slow but
steady shift in US priorities in the Middle East.
Even if one adheres to a more optimistic reading
of the supposed "shift" underway in Washington,
one cannot expect a major change to Israel's
behavior in the occupied territories.
Without a real mechanism to force an
Israeli change - which must be accompanied by
taming the disproportionately powerful lobby -
little on the ground is likely to change.
While American politicians were busy
defending their pro-Israeli credentials in Senate
hearings, other hearings of great importance, yet,
thus far of little consequences, were being
concluded elsewhere.
An inquiry set up by
the Human Rights Council last March and brazenly
boycotted by Israel, had finally concluded that
Israeli settlements are a violation of
international law while calling on Israel to
"immediately" withdraw all of its settlers from
East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
The UN
investigators concluded that Israel's continued
violations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions could
amount to war crimes "that fall under the
jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,"
Al-Jazeera reported. "Israel must ... cease all
settlement activities without preconditions [and]
must immediately initiate a process of withdrawal
of all settlers", the report, released, January
31, read in part.
The findings by the
well-respected international organization once
more accentuate the real parameters of any genuine
peace. Bit this kind of peace doesn't suit
Israeli, hence US interests.
Until
Palestinians find an alternative to this sorry
trio of Israel-US-PA peacemakers, all they can
expect is more of the same - a secret conference
here, another settlement there and an occasional
Israeli handout, oddly enough, taken from
Palestinians' own tax money.
Ramzy
Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an
internationally-syndicated columnist and the
editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book
is: My Father was A Freedom Fighter: Gaza's
Untold Story (Pluto Press).
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
