Features
Israeli, Palestinian Peace Talks: 62 Years of the Same
Loading ...
When American administered indirect, proximity discussions between Israel and the Palestinians this month, 62 years of fruitless negotiation left the talks already tainted by a distinct feeling of déjà-vu. And while the current cast provides new faces and hopeful ideas for the region’s pursuit of peace, a tired sense of similarity provides a more realistic feeling that an all-too-familiar failure will prevail.
Key new characters in the saga, President Obama and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad share ideals of pragmatism and transparency that appear to offer refreshing approaches to the process. Obama has shown a willingness to test the strength of the “special relationship” between the US and Israel, instead stressing a greater obligation to the critical enforcement of the conditions that allow the peace process to progress and a promise to hold Israel accountable for any obstructions. Last week Obama made the vital step of personal involvement with the extension of an invitation to both parties for separate White House meetings.
Fayyad has taken a progressive approach to the establishment of a stable Palestinian state. Security is the focus as corruption and crime have been targeted. Fayaad’s larger emphasis is on the installation of instruments and institutions of an operative Palestinian state irrespective of the success of any peace talks.
Already Fayyad’s nation building has seen significant improvements in the economy and security of West Bank. In an area so historically characterized by violence a secure Palestine is a much more attractive partner for Israel when negotiating a two-state solution.
Most importantly, Fayyad’s development is an assertion of autonomy, not defiance, in the face of Israel. “This is not about declarations of statehood,” Fayyad told the New York Times. “This is not about proclamations of a state. It is about getting ready for one. Ours is a healthy unilateralism. Contrast that, if you will, with Israeli settlement activity.” He continued: “This is not about going it alone; this is about going together holding hands with everybody, including Israelis.”
However, old feelings of mutual paranoia, distrust and hatred still persist, as does stubbornness. A lack of imagination on the behalf of the US moderators and a lack of tolerance from both parties persevere. The indirect format of discussions is an exhausted platform that becomes exploited and manipulated as the parties descend into triviality.
The familiar face of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu represents the dominant and growing radical and orthodox section of the Israeli population. As the threats to security have changed identities over the past 60 years, Israeli angst and fear that its existence will be ruptured has remained constant.
Intrinsic to the Israeli Prime Minister’s cause is the belief that Israeli concessions of sovereignty lead to increased acts of terror. However, this extreme commitment to sovereignty has come at the expense of an ideological dive that has threatened human rights, free speech and democracy in Israel. Attempts have been made to prevent Arab Israelis running for the Knesset, Israel’s legislature and Israeli citizenship is being threatened for those who will not swear allegiance to the Jewish state and for spouses of Arab Israelis.
And while Obama has said he is willing to test the limits of the American-Israeli “special relationship” and will not let the Israeli government trample about hostilely, Netanyahu seems less convinced. His obstinate pursuit of East Jerusalem housing developments has embarrassed the vice-President Joseph Biden, challenged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and laughed at a shared capital in Israel–one of the primary products pursued by the peace negotiations.
Ultimately it is the US and Israel’s mutual fear of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, manifest in a right to self-defense, which draws them together in the “special relationship” and overrides the pursuit of peace. The threat of a nuclear Iran, the election of Hamas in Gaza, the US funded and fueled Israeli military are stronger bonds than will be broken by any political criticism by the Obama administration.
The Israeli military, which is by far the largest and most advanced in the region, continues to articulate its angst with itchy trigger fingers. Just two weeks since the negotiations restarted, Israeli naval commandos attacked a fleet of Turkish aid ships bound for Gaza, killing ten, drawing international condemnation and forcing Netanyahu to cancel this week’s Washington meeting with Obama. This propensity to violence is a fundamental hindrance to peace and another question mark that continues to grow over Israel’s commitment to democracy and human rights.
The final and most pressing problem to peace is neither group seems particular inspired by the process or prospect of peace at this moment. Israel is a strong, prosperous, developed nation closely allied with the world’s most powerful player no matter how much Netanyahu likes to push the United State’s buttons. The current government represents a Zionistic vision of the future of an Israeli state where security is tied to the retention of sovereignty. Why question current comfort levels?
The West Bank, a territory that has been left dilapidated by the hands of violence, hatred and poverty, has been given an opportunity to pursue development in spite of floundering peace talks. The Palestinians harbor severe distrust for Netanyahu’s bullying that borders on racism, but under Prime Minister Fayyad, they have come to accept that growth can occur despite a lack of political agreement with their angry neighbours. Why threaten newfound levels of prosperity and security? For two notoriously unhappy parties, each seems momentarily content to grip onto what they have, ready to almost satirically participate in talks, but still as reluctant as ever over the past 60 years to relinquish their grip.
Simon is a regular contributor to Deft Magazine and active in the hip hop community in Paris. He earned his Bachelors of Law and Arts from New Zealand's University of Otago, Simon was also a DJ on Radio One Dunedin, in Otago, New Zealand.
You might also like
|
|
|
|
|
