Originally, I was going to write an article about how Israel had no intention of returning Palestinian land, and how Israel’s chief negotiator Tzipi Livni had publicly admitted as much.
As quoted in an Oct. 1 article in The International Herald Tribune, Livni responded to a demand by Palestinian chief negotiator Ahmed Qureia for a deadline on the return of land and the creation of a Palestinian state encompassed by a lasting peace agreement, by saying, “Creating timetables, which are often not carried out, as it happened every time in the past, creates expectations that are then not carried out, and create violence and terror.” That was the point of asking for a deadline — for Israel to agree to a deadline would be to confirm their definite intent actually to grant the Palestinians a state of their own. Livni, not even entertaining the possibility of Israel meeting a deadline, says that they have no intention of meeting their side of any necessary bargain.
That is why Israel will never agree to a deadline; it is too definite. Israel wants to keep their options open and not give back the land unless they really have to. I have always thought that the threat of removal of the United States’ support was most likely to make them do so.
An article on Friday, however, made me think about the current climate in a way I hadn’t previously, and for the first time gave me fleeting hope that maybe — just maybe — this year’s big November peace conference might succeed where all those before it have failed. I read that Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was determined to find peace with the Palestinians before Bush leaves office.
An official quoted Olmert as telling German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, “There are big advantages to reaching an agreement before the end of Bush’s term. This is the right thing to do. It is the best thing to do for both sides.”
Bush and his administration has undoubtedly been one of the most, if not the most, pro-Israel administrations for decades, and has agreed that Olmert and Israel would get to keep control of the large settlement blocs in the West Bank. This is a sizable incentive for Israel. Israel has continued to build new settlement blocs despite being forbidden to under the terms of the last US-led peace process: The road map for peace. And although in their presidential campaigns it seems that all US candidates and administrations — Democrat and Republican — are pro-Israel, Olmert knows this could just be an effort to ensure the Jewish vote. What the next president does once he or she gets those votes cannot be foretold.
There is a widely held train of thought in academic circles, and even at the United Nations, that the settlement blocs are illegal and should be torn down. The Palestinians outright oppose any form of land-swap agreement that would let Israel keep the settlement blocs, as does even the moderate Abbas. Olmert will be weighing up the likelihood that a big priority for the next US president will be to repair America’s image in and relations with the rest of the world, including the UN. Therefore, Olmert can’t guarantee that the offer to keep the settlement blocs will remain on the table after Bush leaves office; nor can he be sure of just how strongly the next US president will attempt to push Israel into peace with or without the settlement blocs.
I still think Israel will try to hold out. Olmert says he hopes to reach agreement on borders, refugees and the fate of Jerusalem but stops short of saying an agreement is possible. In other words, he wants to take Bush’s offer of the settlement blocs becoming Israeli territory when the borders are drawn up but doesn’t want to be forced into actually giving back any of the land and having to institute a Palestinian state — therein losing East Jerusalem for the new state’s capital.
Israel has recently threatened to abandon the peace process if Abbas attempts to bring Hamas back into the fold — after Abbas met with Hamas members in the West Bank at his Ramallah office. Hamas is Israel’s “get out of jail free card,” because it is likely that Hamas will launch a wave of terror to try to wreck any accord they are not part of — as they have done in the past. This may allow Israel to get Bush’s offer down on paper, while Hamas’ terror will be used as justification for their not implementing it.So, on the whole, I am not hopeful that an agreement will be reached at the conference. Israel doesn’t even seem to be going into it with that in mind — and Israel gets what it wants with Bush at the helm.
— Liam Bailey is a UK freelance journalist and publisher of the War Pages blog.
