Before it's too late

Palestinians must act quickly as any plan proposed by US Secretary of State John Kerry will not benefit the Palestinians regardless of whether or not it comes in the form of a peace treaty or a blue print or even a mutual agreement to extend the period of negotiations. It would be difficult to oppose any plan after it is formally announced, especially if it garners European, Russian, Arab and International support.

Anyone who has any hope for Kerry’s proposal must read the comments that were made by his assistant, Martin Endik, to Jewish leaders, which clearly demonstrate the American bias for Israeli interests.

The factors that are the driving forces behind Kerry’s failures can be summarised as follows:

• The enormous gap between the Israeli and Palestinian positions and the lack of sufficient will among the US administration to exert the required pressure on Israel. Time goes quickly and the date of midterm congressional elections is approaching, the influence of pro-Israel forces is increasing the US administration is in a difficult position. Moreover, the Democratic Party is in a state of decline.
• The lack of a balance of power, which remains in favour of Israel, does not compel the Israelis to sign a peace agreement even if the details of such agreement serve Israeli interests.
• The improbability of the outbreak of a third intifada enables Israel to maintain the status quo, which is in its favour, according to the Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon.
• Israel feared the failure of any agreement once, even if it was completely in its favour. In light of the instability in the region, there are no stable systems with strong and legitimate leaders to guarantee its continuity. What is the purpose of Israel making any concessions if one cannot guarantee a potential agreement’s continuity? This point of view is supported by the fact that the outcome of Arab revolutions currently benefit Israel; however, there is no guarantee for Israel that the situation will continue in this manner for the long term.
• The weakness of Palestinian leadership. It cannot easily accept a bad deal that takes away from national rights and there is no guarantee that the people will approve it, especially since its legitimacy and credibility continue to be eroded because of the current divisions. Furthermore, any potential agreement’s legitimacy has not been renewed due to a lack of elections or resistance.
• Israel is being controlled by the influence of the most extreme forces which weakens the possibility of any Israeli government signing any agreement that does not guarantee all Israeli demands. Even if President Benjamin Netanyahu were to change his affiliations or change his coalition, he has no guarantee that he can stay in power after that. After all, he still remembers his experience when he lost power after he signed the “Wye River” agreement.

The factors that are the driving forces behind Kerry’s success can be summarised as follows:

• The fear of all parties concerned of the consequences of failure, particularly in terms of the risk of emerging alternatives and other parties seeking to fill any voids.
• The increasing belief that Kerry’s efforts could be the last chance for the so-called two-state solution.
• Weakness of the Arab situation and the pursuit of the currently active states to resolve the Palestinian issue in any form in order to devote themselves to face the so-called Iranian threat, even if the only way to do so requires forming an alliance with Israel against Iran.
• The unwillingness of the United States to accept a new failure in the region because it will have a tremendously negative impact after the decline of American influence in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and even in the Gulf States.
• The vulnerability of the Palestinian leadership and its willingness to respond to pressure for fear of the collapse of the Palestinian Authority. Also, the need for the President, Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), whose time in office is considered moderate and a symbol of security and stability in the region, to end his political career with a successful achievement, which may make him willing to be flexible. These factors may encourage Israel not to waste this historic opportunity, which may not be repeated, to allow them to impose a solution that can fulfil Israeli and American demands.
• The regional and international consensus to resolve disputes and conflicts using political methods. This requires the diffusion of danger that is inherited in the Palestinian issue, because if this conflict explodes it will destroy everything in the region.
• Kerry’s eagerness and determination to achieve a political breakthrough that he can claim as the perfect end of his political career. He is obsessed with reaching a solution, and he did not put forth all of these efforts in order to manage the conflict because this can definitely be achieved with significantly less work.

Kerry would not have continued his efforts for all this time if each party’s current stance was a true reflection of their final positions. The current negotiations, and whatever the two parties present, is for public consumption only and for the parties to put press on each other and to push the Americans to put more pressure on the other side.

The Quartet Committee supported Kerry’s ideas at its last meetings. Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign affairs spokesperson, said that the EU would offer unprecedented support to the parties in the event that a framework agreement is reached. In the same context it is difficult for the Palestinians to reject Kerry’s proposal without Arab support, a statement released by a Palestinian official said.

So, how about if there was Arab pressure and encouragement to accept what Kerry is going to propose on the basis that this is what the Palestinians can get now and if they refuse, their situation will worsen due to the pressure and sanctions that will be imposed by the US, Europeans and Arabs.

A question of the utmost importance remains: Is it possible for the Palestinian leadership to accept a solution that will put an end to the Palestinian issue while simultaneously declaring that they would never approve it?

The answer to this question is that what is being proposed today is not the final solution but a roadmap towards achieving a final solution. This will give both sides a way out of accepting any deal by saying they achieved part of what they were aiming to achieve and they did not give up all or part of their other demands.

Statements have been leaked that some or many of the proposed solutions, especially those related to Palestinian demands, will be vague while recognising the “Jewishness” of Israel and the arrangements that guarantee security and compensation for Jewish refugees and the liquidation of the right of return will all be crystal clear.

There are other issues, such as making both sides commit to mandatory positions including making Israel choose between its security or maintaining all or a majority of the settlements. There are certain settlements that will be leased and others will remain under the sovereignty of the Palestinians.

As for the Palestinians they have to choose between an incomplete power on a large part of the West Bank, or to have broad powers on all the Palestinian population without sovereignty. Or, the more of their rights that they waive the more land they can control.

There is also a possibility that each party will have the right to insist on certain demands that are not approved, with the right to renegotiate these points in subsequent talks. Another approach is to list, in the agreement, all the points that have not been agreed upon and the point of view of the side that is insisting on finding a solution for it.

Alternatively, everything can be presented in the form of a new roadmap that is being proposed by the Americans and to extend the negotiations until after April to reach an agreement, and to find a way to gradually implement what will be agreed upon now.

This critical situation requires all Palestinians to bear their national responsibilities and this is not possible without holding a national conference immediately and to initiate a comprehensive national dialogue involving all representatives of the people across the board through the participation of members of both Houses of the national legislature with the addition of representatives of political parties and sectors not represented properly, especially women, youth and people in the Diaspora.

If such a conference can’t be held quickly with full representation then it should be the responsibility of those who can attend to make final decisions on behalf of the Palestinian people.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.