Palestine and the Middle East peace process

The recent Annapolis Conference and US President G.W Bush's visit to the area has thrust the Middle East issue again to center-stage. The last time the United States convened a full-blown Middle East summit, at Camp David in 2000, it collapsed. The vacuum left behind was filled a few months later by violence that continues till today -- at a much lower level, but it never stops threatening to get worse.
It would appear that the Annapolis meeting in the USA was initiated last November with the hope that the Conference would not only kick-start a new series of meetings between Israel and the Palestinians but would also trigger off serious discussions between the two parties aimed at tackling the biggest differences they have between them -- the "final status issues" (FSI) -- the futures of Jerusalem, Jewish settlements and Palestinian refugees, as well as borders, security and relations with their neighbours.
The Conference was a success of sorts. Forty-nine countries (minus Iraq) gathered at the United States Naval Academy to witness diplomatic the theatre that cast peace between Israelis and Palestinians as part of a broader struggle against extremism in the Middle East. The Israeli and Palestinian leaders committed themselves to negotiating a peace treaty by the end of 2008, setting a deadline for ending a conflict that has endured for six decades.
The agreement stopped short of the binding negotiating outline that many Palestinians had hoped for, but it revived a peace process that the United States had left dormant for seven years.
Its success, both sides subsequently remarked, would depend in part on how vigorously President Bush pushed Palestinians and Israelis toward resolving the core issues (FSI) that have bedevilled peace negotiators since 1979. Annapolis has nevertheless plunged the United States back into the role of an Arab-Israeli peacemaker -- an approach Bush had previously shunned -- at a time when wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have helped bring the American image in the Muslim world to historic lows.
The reaction to the peace conference was far from favourable in Gaza, an area controlled by Hamas. Crowds of more than 100,000 protested the outcome of the conference and Bush's claims that it laid "the foundation for the establishment of a new nation: a democratic Palestinian state that will live side by side with Israel in peace and security." There was also skepticism about whether the United States would "monitor and judge the fulfilment of the commitment of both sides" fairly.
The agreement arrived at went somewhat further than the Israelis had wanted, calling for an immediate start to wide-ranging talks aimed at reaching a final accord within 13 months but definitely fell short of the detailed five-page document that Palestinian officials had been seeking aimed at resolving all outstanding issues. There was also no reference to the Arab League peace initiative. That initiative, which was reaffirmed by Arab nations this year, called on Israelis and Palestinians to reach an "agreed" resolution of the refugee issue. It may be recalled here that Israeli officials have been adamant that Palestinian refugees have a right of return only to a future Palestinian state, not to Israel.
The region stands today at a crossroad that separates two historical phases: pre-Annapolis and post-Annapolis. It would, in this context, be pertinent to refer to a post-conference remark made by Prince Saud al Faisal, the Saudi Foreign Minister, who politely clapped after the speech of Israeli Prime Minister Olmert but pointed out that "the time had come for Israel to put its trust in peace after it had gambled on war for decades without success." He also significantly called on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank.
The Annapolis Conference was followed by the French government hosting an international aid conference aimed at reviving the Palestinian economy. Such a meeting was organised against the backdrop of international aid agencies and the International Committee of the Red Cross warning international stakeholders of a worsening humanitarian crisis in the occupied areas and the Gaza Strip.
Held in the middle of December 2007, its goal was to mobilise financial and political support for the Palestinian Authority to enable it to build the foundations for a viable state. Palestinian Authority official led by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad asked for about $5.6bn (£2.8bn) in urgent additional funding over the next three years, to be used for budget support (to pay the salaries of government employees in different sectors) and the rest for development projects, including a sewage treatment plant in Gaza, an industrial park in Jericho and an industrial zone in Hebron.
Massive pledges of aid, beyond that sought by the Palestinians, recognised that the worsening economic crisis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip was threatening to undermine all of the hopes of peace. This meeting also reiterated that the economic well being of the Palestinians was an essential pre-condition not only for the building of a successful Palestinian state but also that an economic revival was necessary for preparing the potential compromises that might be necessary for this purpose.
It would however be important to note here that more money will be meaningless unless there is a rapid change in the restrictions on movement imposed by Israel on the West Bank and the ending of the effective blockade of the Hamas-administered Gaza Strip. It must be remembered that economics, politics and security are all inextricably bound together. Israel unfortunately has shown little enthusiasm for easing such restrictions or in helping to create a sustainable mechanism that can lead to peace.
In a similar vein, it would be important for Washington to take a much tougher line with regard to Israel recently approving plans for new construction work in Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem and fresh settlements in occupied areas. Such steps would make progress that much more difficult.
One can only hope that United States President George W Bush during his recently concluded visit (his first tour as US President to Israel and the West Bank) remembered that his role was that of an honest broker. The US Administration has to remember that any attempt to effectively revive the Middle East peace process and resolve the continuing uncertainties over Iraq and Iran (during his discussions with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States) will require a wider approach. This is vital for any progress towards peace and reconciliation.
I have carefully followed changes in the political and strategic landscape of the Middle East since 1969 and witnessed several efforts aimed at finding solutions to the existing intractable problems. We have another interesting initiative in place. However, for this to succeed, there is need for flexibility as well as firmness. In my view, the following measures need to be undertaken for this purpose --
(a) Accommodating each other's concerns and keeping the peace talks on the right track. The state of Israel has been in existence for nearly sixty years, but for the Palestinian people, their dream of an independent Palestinian State has yet to come true. The Annapolis Conference and the hosting of the international aid meeting by the French have opened windows and doors. The parties concerned must now face up to reality and take bold steps in keeping with the trend of the times. It is important in this context to start negotiations on final status issues concerning the boundary, refugees and water resources. This will facilitate the establishment of an independent Palestinian state based on the Roadmap and the Arab Peace Initiative. These in turn will not only serve the fundamental interests of the peoples of Palestine and Israel, but will also be a historical step towards achieving the peaceful coexistence of the Arab and Jewish nations;
(b) Recognizing that force cannot bring about durable peace. Only patience, dialogue and necessary compromise can beat swords into plowshares and make peace. The parties concerned must live up to their due responsibilities, show courage and vision and take confidence-building measures. One can only hope in this regard that Palestine will achieve internal reconciliation. It must be understood that only Palestinian unity can make their dream of peace come true;
(c) Creating an environment conducive to the peace talks. The Palestinian issue and other issues in the Middle East are inter-related and affect each other. It is therefore suggested that peace talks should also be restarted between Isarel and Syria and between Israel and Lebanon. I believe that resumption of these talks on a parallel road track with the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks will promote each other. This is necessary to create a favourable external environment for the peace talks and to promote wider peace and stability in the entire Middle East;
(d) The international community on a priority basis should also try to increase capacity building of infrastructure in Palestine and extend greater humanitarian assistance and development aid to Palestine. Portions of the aid pledged in Paris needs to be disbursed immediately to make the implementing mechanism more effective; and
(e) The UN Secretary General should consider establishing a broad-based, balanced and effective multilateral process to facilitate and support the peace endeavour. Such a process should include the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League in addition to the Quartet.
Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador who can be reached at [email protected]