Posted By Marc Lynch Share

 

*** Before I get to my post, just a moment to say that here are a number of ways for you to give to help with the Haiti disaster -- please give if you can ***

There's something of a buzz right now about a U.S.-led push to once again try to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.  It is to their credit that George Mitchell and the Obama administration remain deeply committed to pushing forward on this issue in the face of all the skepticism and all the setbacks.  I wouldn't be surprised if some formula is found to revive the talks -- which would be no small diplomatic achievement.  If they do manage to get the two parties to the table, would it have real prospects for a successful outcome or would it shape up as another Annapolis, highly publicized talks which nobody expects to produce anything?  I think that there's one place where a new U.S. initiative could totally reshape the game in a productive direction:  Gaza. 

It wouldn't surprise me if some form of talks finally convened.  Israel has a lot to gain from reviving talks right now  -- or at least in being seen as favoring the revival of talks.    Since its leadership is likely quite confident that the U.S. will not or can not place any serious pressure on it, Israel has little to lose and much to gain from open-ended talks with a two year horizon.  It would dull the edge of the mounting international criticism over Gaza and over settlements, without committing it to making any real concessions. In contrast to the first part of the Obama administration, when the Israelis worried that they might face serious and sustained American pressure, their calculations now are likely different.  So they have real reasons to agree at this point which they didn't before (even if they may well prefer simply to let the other side be the ones saying no). 

The Palestinian Authority leadership is likely afraid of such talks for exactly the same reason.  After initial enthusiasm for an Obama-led process and for the appointment of George Mitchell, many Palestinians and Arabs are now deeply suspicious of talks with Netanyahu --- especially if those are not based on a clear commitment to some of the core Palestinian needs.  The U.S. has lost credibility with both sides by failing to deliver on the settlement freeze, which not only puts Mahmoud Abbas out on a limb if he agrees but also reduces expectations that the U.S. will be able to play an effective role in the negotiations.   Agreeing to two years of open-ended talks without the prospect of meaningful American pressure on Israel to stop its ongoing settlement construction activities would dramatically weaken the PA's position.   That's how a lot of Arabs and Palestinians that I follow feel -- and it would take quite a bit to change those views at this point.

Still, once negotiations actually begin the dynamics could change and American mediation could become more effective during the private give and take of talks than it now appears.  Mitchell is really good at that, for one thing. For it to have a shot, though,  I'd like to see some signs of creative thinking in this regard (if the rumors of a "borders first" approach prove to be right, then here's my view on that).  One area crying out for fresh thought is in the administration's approach to Gaza and to Palestinian politics.  A serious initiative by the U.S. to pair the new peace talks with a plan to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza could radically reshape the game for the better.  

The administration's over-commitment to the "West Bank only/Abu Mazen-Fayyad only" approach -- where it continues to pretty much ignore Gaza or even tacitly support the intensification of the blockade on the Egyptian side, while falling back on the Bush-era Quartet Conditions to justify not dealing with Hamas -- really boxes it in.  That leaves the Palestinian party to any negotiations working from a very weak domestic position, with little ability to command a Palestinian consensus or to deliver on whatever deal is struck.  Finding some formula for a Palestinian national unity government would never have been easy, but is virtually impossible without American buy-in.  Achieving that would have created a Palestinian government in line with the real distribution of views among Palestinians and capable of delivering on any agreement reached, as well as given Hamas incentives to not play the spoiler.   But despite the perennial round of stories in the Arab press of an imminent Hamas-Fatah deal, it still looks as distant as ever. 

Hamas and a national unity government aside, the administration's inability  to find a way to alleviate the humanitarian suffering in Gaza over the last year stands as a major missed opportunity. Addressing the blockade and misery of Gaza would have been the right thing to do morally, would have clearly signaled change from the Bush approach, and very likely would have undermined Hamas control over Gaza by removing its ability to control and tax the flow of goods through the tunnels.  There were some early indications that the administration would do something.    I suppose that initially they were waiting to use a move on Gaza as a bargaining chip, a step in their intricate early plan for Israeli concessions to be matched by Arab concessions.   When that plan fell apart, Gaza seems to have just fallen off the radar... for Americans, at least, although Gaza remains a fixture on al-Jazeera and in Arab politics more broadly.  

If the U.S. really wants to launch a new peace process which won't be just another Annapolis, it should seriously consider announcing serious moves  to alleviate the humanitarian conditions in Gaza as part of the launch.   This would surprise and please Arab public opinion, and might even please Israelis who have grown uncomfortable with the indefinite suffering there.  It would also put Hamas in a bind -- they could hardly complain about a process which  improved the quality of life in Gaza, and it would give them even greater incentives to refrain from spoiler violence. In that regard, it's very interesting that Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal has been making a very public tour of the Gulf including meetings with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain. Even if real Palestinian reconciliation isn't in the cards, combining relief for Gaza with the launch of new negotiations may give the new effort more support across the Arab public and strengthen the Palestinian Authority going into the talks.  

Reuters 2009, via Human Rights Watch

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

DAVID IN DC

8:57 PM ET

January 14, 2010

Last time this came up, Marc blamed the Egyptians

"Finding some formula for a Palestinian national unity government would never have been easy, but is virtually impossible without American buy-in."

Is anything, ever, the Palestinians fault?

Just asking.

 

WILLIAM DEB. MILLS

5:21 PM ET

January 15, 2010

When Are the Palestinians to Blame?

I suppose one could list any number of tactical errors made by Palestinians. But to assign strategic blame to them is hard. Given the forcing of Palestinians out of their homeland 60 years ago, the illegal and endlessly expanding Israeli settlements on the tiny chunks of land left to Palestinians, the apartheid system of governance over the West Bank by Israel, the continuing collective punishment of the whole population of Gaza by Israel, the overthrow of the 2006 democratically elected Hamas regime by an Israeli-sponsored wave of violence, and the refusal of Israel to countenance an effective Palestinian government that would have the military and police and political power to prevent violence against Israel, Israel must accept responsibility for the current state of affairs and realize that the ball is in its court.

 

DAVID IN DC

6:47 PM ET

January 15, 2010

Is anything, ever, the Palestinians fault?

William (paraphrasing): "No"

Right, thanks.

"the overthrow of the 2006 democratically elected Hamas regime by an Israeli-sponsored wave of violence"

Israel supported Hamas overthrowing Hamas?

I don't even know what you are talking about and it doesn't matter. One thing comes though loud and clear - whatever it is, it isn't the Palestinians' fault. It never is.

That was my point.

 

WILLIAM DEB. MILLS

9:31 PM ET

January 15, 2010

2006 Palestinian Election

In 2006 Palestine held an election, its only relatively democratic election, supported by the US and Israel. Here is what happened. Hamas won and set up an administration for all of Palestine, including Gaza. A governance crisis erupted in Palestine after Israel and the US, shocked by Hamas' popularity, intervened to subvert the Hamas regime. At first the US-Israeli team employed economic pressure in an attempt to destroy the ability of Hamas to govern. This governing crisis widened when military assistance was provided to Fatah by the US-Israeli team along with encouragement to launch a civil war to prevent Hamas from governing. A mini-civil war occurred and resulted in Hamas being kicked out of power in the West Bank but retaining control over Gaza, thereby creating two competing Palestinian administrations. Hamas had changed its approach and had been following democratic rules, working within the system. Might it have pursued this path permanently if given the chance? The world will never know; Israel did not wait to find out; rather, it attacked Hamas, overthrowing the results of the election it had approved in its Palestinian colony before the tiger had had time even to breathe, much less indicate whether or not it was truly changing its stripes.

 

JANBEKSTER

10:34 PM ET

January 14, 2010

Ideals and Practicality.

Since the current washington administration has neither, dotted the I's nor crossed the T's as far as its Middle East peace plan, and after reading Dr. Lynch's eloquent discourse, I have come to the simple conclusion that, first; the Washington administration is willing to be and is capable of being more Palestinian than Mr. Abbas regarding Gaza, and secondly, is willing and is capable of presenting the Palestinians with a letter that guarantees the recognition of a Palestinian state within a definit time frame. If that is possible, well, I take my hat of.
khairi janbek,paris/france

 

DEPETRIS@WORDPRESS.COM

12:29 AM ET

January 15, 2010

Israel Won't Change

Considering Israel's weak position internationally- which pretty much cultivated after the P.R. disaster with Turkey a few days ago- you would think that P.M. Netanyahu would at least embrace a loose return to the table with the Palestinians. After all, it is no secret that many in the Arab world, in Europe, and in the United States are quite appalled over the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. While it has kept guns and ammunition out of Hamas' hands, the blockade has also damaged Israel's image as an uncooperative and brutal occupier trying to starve the Palestinian people. This does not even mention one of the most unfortunate consequences for Israel; the economic despair in Gaza gives the Hamas movement a symbolic victory across the Islamic world (whether it contributes to Al'Qaeda recruitment is beyond me).

But with this being said, I don't see any reason why the Israelis would return to the table without American pressure. Today, Israel is experiencing a period of peace, prosperity, and security that would have been impossible a few years ago. Rocket fire from Hamas and clandestine attacks from Hezbollah are near zero. The Israeli economy is projected to grow this coming year. Israel continues to be the beneficiary of billions of dollars in U.S. aid. With everything going right, Israel has no incentive to change its behavior towards the Palestinians.

American pressure it key for revived peace talks, but whether Washington will be willing to bear the brunt of the Israeli lobby is another question. Alleviating poverty in Gaza and helping the Palestinian people will just be twisted by Israel as American appeasement for Islamic radicals.

http://depetris.wordpress.com

http://www.twitter.com/mideastblogger

 

PROGRAMMER.CRAIG

7:59 AM ET

January 15, 2010

Marc: "I wouldn't be

Marc: "I wouldn't be surprised if some formula is found to revive the talks -- which would be no small diplomatic achievement."

Wouldn't it be the same "achievement" every other US President in living recent history has scored? What would be remarkable about Obama managing to do the same thing everyone else before him has done?

You know what would be remarkable? A peace agreement. An actual final settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. Anything short of that is same-old.

Marc: "It would dull the edge of the mounting international criticism over Gaza and over settlements..."

Now you are just being silly.

 

PROGRAMMER.CRAIG

8:00 AM ET

January 15, 2010

So anyway...

How many years will it take for your web developers to figure out how to support formatted comments?

 

JACOB BLUES

2:47 PM ET

January 15, 2010

Let's see, the mountain that HAMAS must climb

1. Stop the violence - no more rocket attacks on Israel.

2. Stop the incitement - no more bloody stupid Farfur the Jihadist wannabe mouse & friends.

3. Agree to adhere to the previous agreements made between Israel and the Palestinian Authority - what you mean that when we negotiate, we actually have to keep our word to the infidel Zionists?

4. Return Gilad Shalit. - Whew, actually live up to the responsibilities listed on the page that the PA signed with the International Red Cross?

Wow, that's a load for sure. Much harder than trying to bust a blockade. After all, what's the end results? Oh yeah, ending the so-called "Humanitarian Crisis" in Gaza.

Apparently it can't be all that bad if HAMAS is so willing to toe the extreme line of "armed resistance".

It's amazing that it seems acceptable to write off the fact that a Palestinian National Unity Government is just a "distant dream", but the United States should do what it can to pressure Israel.

What truly makes this a farce is that there is no real goal here. Professor Lynch even ends his op-ed with the refrain "Even if real Palestinian reconciliation isn't in the cards..."

But "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE", Unfortunately, we're just not told how this is all going to stop HAMAS and the other extremists, from ending their fight.

Four years ago, Israel pulled out of Gaza strip, lock stock and barrel. Took every last Jew....living and dead. It left the foundation for an economy in Gaza.

The world hailed the move, waved flags and banners, 'good shows, and attaboys all around'. The concern that what if the violence would continue against Israel was met, with a 'well now that you're gone from Gaza, you have a "right" to defend yourself should the Palestinians decide to continue their attacks on Israel.

Whoops. Guess not. Rather than a legitimate right to self defense, Israel now sees that it only has a right to play target no matter how HAMAS attacks its citizens.

But if we just help Gaza that much more, it will help. Mark just can't tell us how or in what way.

 

SIR_MIXXALOT

4:53 PM ET

January 15, 2010

HR 867

Well our moral and upstanding House of "Representatives" passed HR 867 whitewashing IDF war crimes, so you expect Gazans to listen to us? You expect we have any moral authority? Tell me what it is?

When congress stops sucking on AIPAC's "rooster" then there may be a chance for US-led peace.

Else US should go home.

 

JIVEMAN

10:41 AM ET

January 16, 2010

Warcrimes allegations are a hypocracy

Where was the yelling about war crimes when Hamas shot over 9,000 rockets and mortar shells into israel? They were nowhere to be heard. When israel repeatedly warned both the international community and the palestinians that continued rocket fire will not go unanswered for ever, it was either ignored or was answered by a weak press release.

It was Hamas' choice to locate its launchers close to population centers. Israel should not and cannot be expected to ignore the continued attacks on it citizens.

 

WILLIAM DEB. MILLS

12:02 AM ET

January 19, 2010

Hypocricy

The legal point in Hamas' defense is that Hamas tried the democratic route in 06 and was betrayed. It tried again by signing and generally observing a truce in summer 08. Israel did not fulfill its side of the bargain.

The moral point is much more important and much simpler: it is the Palestinians who are occupied so they have a right to fight for their freedom by whatever means necessary until they get it.

I would, if foreign soldiers walked into my house, hope I would have the courage to do the same. Wouldn't you?

 

JIVEMAN

8:37 AM ET

January 19, 2010

Moral point is correct?

On the legal point: As is well known, between 2000-2009 israel was hit with around 9,000 mortar shells. The deal struck Hamas was for a COMPLETE stop of rocket and other attacks on Israel for the period of the deal. As you said 2008 agreement was GENERALLY observed, meaning it wasn't. In fact, the very name of the garrement in arabic - Tahdia - imples that Hamas had no intent on upholiding the deal: the term is of a legal origin, meaining to calm or pacify, and has no real binding effect on a religious terror organization such as Hamas. And it shows: in 2008 alone, more than 2,000 rockets were fired into Israeli territory. So, no, Hamas did not hold up its end of the deal in 2008.

As for the moral argument, it is flimsy, at best. Hamas is not attacking the israeli army. It has purposefully targeted its attacks on civilians, including babies and children not yet 10 years old. If hamas whould center their attacks on military forces, this argument may have been correct, but that is not the case. And the fact that you chose the word "courage" to describe these acts is telling.

Besides, that is not Hamas' real "moral" argument. Hamas' argument is that Jews are occupying their land (make no mistake, by "their land" they mean the entire state of Israel), by an illegal mandate given to them as compensation for a Holocaust (that they still claim never happend), and have never been a part of the region and must all be evacuated (or slaughtered - their choice), THAT is Hamas' idea of a lasting peace.

 

Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.

Read More