Eduardo Brik
Close to the deadline given by the Annapolis Conference to reach a peace agreement between Palestinians and Israelis, it is time to evaluate the process of the negotiations. On the whole, the results until now have been negative, especially due to the refusal of the Israeli government to deal a fair peace.
During this period, there have been several demonstrations that the Israeli government wanted to postpone deliberately and indefinitely the negotiations about the core points of the conflict: Jerusalem, refugees, Palestinian State, water issues and settlements. Therefore, it has been impossible to achieve the Annapolis objectives.
The political and moral crisis of the Israeli government is expanding everywhere and it is mainly reflected in the position of the Prime Minister Ehud Olmet. Accused of corruption, he was also considered responsible for the failure of the negotiations with the PNA and the scandal of the Lebanon war with its catastrophic consequences. Unable to leave his easy chair, he wants to remain in power until the next general elections in Israel, without any qualms. He wants to clean his image now that he lacks political influence.
In recent declarations he addressed the need of a change in the military mentality of the Israeli army and population in order to reach a peace agreement with Palestinians.
Neither all the Lebanon’s war deaths, nor the Israeli and Palestinian victims during his government will forgive him. Not even if he proclaims astonishing declarations of peace and rapprochement. Only History will judge him, although now he wants to clear his conscience.
What is the current situation of the conflict?
Israeli Foreign Minister and leader of Kadihma, Tzipi Livni, has failed in her attempt to form a coalition government. She got the endorsement of the labour party, but not the support from Shas (Sephardic ultra-orthodox party). The latter made strong economical requests and didn’t agree with any division of Jerusalem.
The deep divisions inside the parties, Mofaz en Kadimah and sectors opposed to Barak within the Labour party, create a net of diverging interests in Israeli politics that make Israel an ungovernable country.
Benjamín Netanyahu, Likud´s leader (the former party of Sharon and Livni) and leader of the extreme right-wing of settlers, is the most steady opponent to the Livni’s centrist line Livni, with whom he will compete for the leadership of Israel politics in the next election, called for the 10th of February.
The definitive peace with Palestinians is not at stake, but the fight between two political groups is. The first one, formed by the right-wing, extreme right of the settlers and religious parties, pretends to break negotiations with Palestinians. The second one, configured by the centre-right wing party of Livni, labourers, Meretz and other small parliamentarian factions, wants to keep negotiating the peace, from a moderate position; their intention is to give back most part of the occupied territories, although they are not willing to make all the concessions the PNA wants.
The last surveys after Tzipi Livni recognized her failure to form a coalition and called for anticipated elections, gave her an advantage of 4/5 points over Benjamin Netanyahu, which indicates a the Israeli population slight tendency of towards negotiation and reaching a peace agreement.
But during the next weeks other polls give advantage to Netanyahu. Netanyahu’s intransigence in negotiating about Jerusalem and continuing conversations with the PNA, seem to have more influence among Israeli voters than Tizipi Livni’s position, whose answers to questions about the conflict avoid the main issues that have to be solved.
Fear and the security issue may condition the behaviour of the Israeli electorate and any perspective of change regarding the conflict.
It is likely that during the coming three months, the most radical sector of the Israeli army, which is ideologically linked to the radical right political parties and to the orthodox religious opponents to a fair peace, will encourage military actions against Palestinians, especially in the Gaza Strip. Their goal would be to demonstrate to the Israeli population the impossibility of negotiating with the Palestinians while deepening Hamas’ international isolation in Gaza and also blocking any possible negotiation for the Palestinian unit. They would attempt to radicalize the Israeli population towards the vote of fear, and not towards negotiation.
In such a critical moment of the conflict Israel allows itself to postpone negotiations until the February elections. Instead of looking for a consensus regarding negotiations, each political group defends its miserable interests, delaying sine die the peace calendar, as so many other times.
Negotiations’ freeze for the next three months, again is trying to ignore all the suffering of their citizens and especially of the 3,500,000 Palestinians that have lived for the last 41 years, under Israeli occupation, in intolerable conditions, violating systematically Humans rights and International legality.
We only have to observe and analyze any news program from the Israeli TV to see how media through silence is accomplice to the conflict’s reality. The media’s main focus is on the ins and outs of the deteriorated and old Israeli political class, the possible negotiations with Syria, the American Elections and the financial crises. The conflict only appears in the media when there are clashes with victims on the ground. Such happened on November 4th in the Gaza Strip, breaking the truce between Israel and Hammas.
As all this takes place on the Israeli side, the situation for peace isn’t favorable in Palestine either. The lack of Palestinian unity is an important obstacle. Egypt and the Arab League point out the necessity of reconciliation between Hamas and PNA, and therefore summoned both organizations next November 9th in Cairo.
Abbas, PNA’s president, distrust the success of Palestinian reconciliation. He didn’t even confirm his participation at the meeting giving evasive declarations, in contrast with the firm and positive attitude of Hamas to participate in it.
What kind of pressures is PNA subjected to?
Does it really want to reach a Palestinian unity?
Why European politics and the media ignore shamelessly this meeting in Egypt?
What does Abbas have to say about the meeting in Cairo to Palestinians?
What can he say about the three months delay to resume the negotiations with Israelis?
Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayad recently stated during a speech before a financial forum in Ramalah (Cisjordan): “ Unfortunately, the two-state solution based on 1967 borders is bouncing and is threatening to collapse under the pressure of 170 settlements and almost half a million settlers.”
The results of the American elections won’t change substantially the political course of the conflict. On the one hand, both candidates received economical support from Jewish and Israeli lobbies in theirs respective electoral campaigns. On the other hand, both Obama and Mc Cain have made declarations backing the most conservative and tough stance.
The main stream that is beginning to predominate in wide sectors of the Palestinian community is focused on the following items: to search for Palestinian unity; to call for elections; to question the two-state solution plan; to plead for one binational state solution; to initiate pacifist resistance process to end the occupation.
Time is running out, and peace margins exhausting. But it seems that perception of time is different in both sides. We hope that civil society and leaders from both people reflect on time to reach a way without terror, deaths nor suffering.
