Peace talks or Israeli dictation?

THE Middle East peace process, which was in deep freeze, is expected to be set rolling again in the near future, thanks to the efforts put in by US Secretary of State John Kerry. With Kerry himself exercising caution in describing the outcome of his efforts as mere “spadework” for resumption of talks, nobody has any illusions of any major breakthrough. But the fact that confabulations would begin is encouraging and augurs well for the region.
Despite the presence of heavyweights like former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, arguably the tallest leader, the peace process in the past two decades failed to throw up any tangible results, particularly when it came to finding a solution to the Palestinian issue which is seen as one of the major sources of trouble in the Middle East.
Besides the perception that an American president in his second term minus the worries of re-election and lobbying would have a freer hand to embark on a Middle East policy, there are two other reasons for the US initiative to broker some kind of peace in the troubled region.
The growing isolation of Israel on the world stage is the first major factor. Following the clear shift to the right that has dominated the Israeli political mosaic in the past few years, Tel Aviv seems inclined to adopt policies that are increasingly undemocratic and even racist against the Arab population. The European Union policy guidelines that regard Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories as subject to International Laws, on grounds that they are not part of Israel, is the latest in a series of events that expose the changing image of Israel. As a result, EU member countries are required to exclude these settlements, with an estimated population of 520,000 populations, from any funding, cooperation, scholarships, research grants, prizes and so on.
Two months ago, renowned British scientist Stephen Hawking made headlines when he announced that he was boycotting an Israeli conference at the request of Palestinian academics. A campaign reminiscent of the movement against the South African Apartheid policy seems to be gathering storm.
The second factor is the turmoil engulfing the Middle East for more than two years, with dramatic changes taking place not only in the region, but also in the immediate neighborhood of Israel, notably the two most powerful ones — Egypt and Syria. The issue of Arab-Israeli conflict is no longer the top priority in the region. Internal strife between different political factions in the region is pitting one against the other to grab power. Sectarianism is taking deep roots in Iraq and Syria, and this has the potential to spread throughout the region. As one Israeli commentator put it, with some 500 Arabs killing each other daily in neighboring countries, there was no need for Israel to intervene in this free party to protect its interests.
The current situation could be the reason why efforts are being made to find a solution to the Palestinian problem, but on terms dictated by Israel. The fact that all what Kerry has done so far is just to revive a process mechanism without putting in any concrete US ideas on how to solve the issue gives a clear indication of the expected outcome. Moreover, selecting Martin Indyk to lead the US delegation for the expected talks reinforces that impression.
On the face of it, Indyk is more than qualified to handle that job. He had a number of important postings during the Bill Clinton administration eight years ago. He served twice as US ambassador to Tel Aviv, assistant secretary of state for Middle East Affairs as well as various capacities in Washington to deal with the region’s issues.
But the British-born, naturalized Australian who turned an American citizen in the early 1990s does not cloak his sympathies for Israel. In fact, one of the early jobs he took when he came to Washington was as a researcher for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the strongest lobby group in Washington DC.
It is hard to expect somebody with such background to play the role of an honest and neutral mediator. It should not be expected in the first place. After all, negotiations have to reflect ground reality. But the question is whether the whole negotiation exercise will help save Israel from becoming an undemocratic and racist country by exercising domination over the occupied Palestinian territories and their population. Where is the American interest in all this?

• This article is exclusive to Arab News.