SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A Middle East Peace That Wreaks Havoc
With the odds stacked so strongly in Israel's favor, Palestinians rightly view the US talks with dread
Sep 01, 2010
What an irony that the Palestinians' arch-enemy, Israel, should also be their savior. There is a real danger that the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks due to start on September 2 in Washington could yield a botched deal that falls far short of the needs of international law or elemental justice, and sets back the cause of Palestine for decades, if not for ever. Fortunately this will not happen as long as Israel's obduracy can be relied on to save the Palestinians from such an outcome.
Time and again, when Israel was thrown a lifeline by Arab neighbors that could have ensured its legitimacy and security, its folly and greed lost it those opportunities. But, since they came at great cost to Palestinian rights, Israel's obduracy had the perverse effect of safeguarding those rights. All peace proposals after 1967 were based on maintaining Israel as a regional power and forcing the Palestinians to settle for less than they were entitled to. They were repeatedly offered paltry settlements that legitimized Israel's hold on most of their land and undermined their right of return. Had Israel agreed, the Palestinian cause would have been lost long ago.
When in the 1979 Camp David negotiations Egypt sought to give the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza a basis for a future independent state, Israel refused. It spurned a succession of Arab peace proposals, most recently the Saudi plan of 2002, offering Israel peace and recognition in return for a Palestinian state. And when, in the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PLO finally capitulated and accepted Israel's occupation of Palestine's remnants so long as it would enable the establishment of an independent state on this morsel, Israel responded by taking more land.
Decades of Israeli rejection and the reality of Israel's western support finally persuaded the Palestinian leadership to get what it could. Where once Palestinians fought against dispossession and for their right to reparation and return, today's browbeaten leadership has settled for a set of aspirations that bear little relation to rights or justice. It is this defeated leadership, reportedly under US pressure to attend or have Palestinian Authority funding withdrawn, which will take part in the talks.
The aim is a two-state settlement, which will supposedly end the conflict. The parameters are familiar from past (and, failed) peace proposals, and grossly unfair to the Palestinians. Historic Palestine will be partitioned roughly along the 1967 lines into a Jewish state on 78% of the land, plus an undefined area of the West Bank also to become Israeli, and a Palestinian state on the remainder - less than 20%. How much of East Jerusalem will go to the Palestinians has not been determined, and there will be no return of refugees.
Israel's prime minister has set conditions before the talks. Israel will keep the Jordan Valley, Jerusalem will remain Israel's undivided capital, and the Palestinian state must be unarmed, with its borders and airspace under surveillance. Nothing will happen unless the Palestinians first recognize Israel as Jewish and guarantee its security.
Despite such preliminaries, the indications are that Israel is not serious about a deal. Its moratorium on settlement building, which in any case excluded East Jerusalem, will end on 27 September. Israeli commentators are skeptical about Binyamin Netanyahu's intentions. Moty Cristal, a former Israeli prime ministerial adviser, believes he "is buying time, looking for ways to stay away from action on the ground". Nonetheless, President Obama, with mid-term elections looming, lacking a foreign policy success and focused on Iran, is determined to see a result.
How could that be achieved, within the constraints of an Israel that cannot be pressured and a weak, unrepresentative Palestinian leadership that excludes Gaza and Hamas? And since Israel's position rejects all the main Palestinian requirements - land, Jerusalem, refugees - progress, if any, can only be made by demanding more concessions from the weaker side. This will mean less land available for the putative Palestinian state, reducing its viability. Hence Jordan's and Egypt's presence at the talks to work out a deal that provides an extension for the West Bank into Jordan, and Gaza into Egypt. No other permutation is possible. Israel will lose very little, but even this may be too much for its "greater Israel" proponents.
If some version of this scenario were to happen and the Palestinian side were bamboozled into agreeing, it would destroy the Palestinian cause and wreak havoc within Palestinian ranks. Such an outcome haunts many Palestinians, who neither trust nor respect the negotiators and think they might sign away Palestinians' rights. This may be unfair, but they can rest assured that if there is any possibility of a peace deal emerging from Washington, the Israeli side - if not theirs - will never let it happen.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Ghada Karmi
Ghada Karmi is a medical doctor and a leading Palestinian activist, academic and writer. She is a research fellow at the Institute of Arab and Islamic studies at the University of Exeter, Britain, and writes frequently for The Guardian, The Nation and Journal of Palestine Studies. Her books include "Return: A Palestinian Memoir," and "Married to Another Man: Israel's Dilemma in Palestine." Karmi was born in Jerusalem to a Muslim family and grew up in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Katamon with its mixture of Palestinian Christians and Muslims. As a young girl, she and her family were forced to flee in the 1948 Nakba and settled in England. In 1998 she visited her childhood home in Katamon for the first time since 1948. She was one of the first supporters of Global March to Jerusalem and is a member of the Advisory Board.
What an irony that the Palestinians' arch-enemy, Israel, should also be their savior. There is a real danger that the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks due to start on September 2 in Washington could yield a botched deal that falls far short of the needs of international law or elemental justice, and sets back the cause of Palestine for decades, if not for ever. Fortunately this will not happen as long as Israel's obduracy can be relied on to save the Palestinians from such an outcome.
Time and again, when Israel was thrown a lifeline by Arab neighbors that could have ensured its legitimacy and security, its folly and greed lost it those opportunities. But, since they came at great cost to Palestinian rights, Israel's obduracy had the perverse effect of safeguarding those rights. All peace proposals after 1967 were based on maintaining Israel as a regional power and forcing the Palestinians to settle for less than they were entitled to. They were repeatedly offered paltry settlements that legitimized Israel's hold on most of their land and undermined their right of return. Had Israel agreed, the Palestinian cause would have been lost long ago.
When in the 1979 Camp David negotiations Egypt sought to give the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza a basis for a future independent state, Israel refused. It spurned a succession of Arab peace proposals, most recently the Saudi plan of 2002, offering Israel peace and recognition in return for a Palestinian state. And when, in the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PLO finally capitulated and accepted Israel's occupation of Palestine's remnants so long as it would enable the establishment of an independent state on this morsel, Israel responded by taking more land.
Decades of Israeli rejection and the reality of Israel's western support finally persuaded the Palestinian leadership to get what it could. Where once Palestinians fought against dispossession and for their right to reparation and return, today's browbeaten leadership has settled for a set of aspirations that bear little relation to rights or justice. It is this defeated leadership, reportedly under US pressure to attend or have Palestinian Authority funding withdrawn, which will take part in the talks.
The aim is a two-state settlement, which will supposedly end the conflict. The parameters are familiar from past (and, failed) peace proposals, and grossly unfair to the Palestinians. Historic Palestine will be partitioned roughly along the 1967 lines into a Jewish state on 78% of the land, plus an undefined area of the West Bank also to become Israeli, and a Palestinian state on the remainder - less than 20%. How much of East Jerusalem will go to the Palestinians has not been determined, and there will be no return of refugees.
Israel's prime minister has set conditions before the talks. Israel will keep the Jordan Valley, Jerusalem will remain Israel's undivided capital, and the Palestinian state must be unarmed, with its borders and airspace under surveillance. Nothing will happen unless the Palestinians first recognize Israel as Jewish and guarantee its security.
Despite such preliminaries, the indications are that Israel is not serious about a deal. Its moratorium on settlement building, which in any case excluded East Jerusalem, will end on 27 September. Israeli commentators are skeptical about Binyamin Netanyahu's intentions. Moty Cristal, a former Israeli prime ministerial adviser, believes he "is buying time, looking for ways to stay away from action on the ground". Nonetheless, President Obama, with mid-term elections looming, lacking a foreign policy success and focused on Iran, is determined to see a result.
How could that be achieved, within the constraints of an Israel that cannot be pressured and a weak, unrepresentative Palestinian leadership that excludes Gaza and Hamas? And since Israel's position rejects all the main Palestinian requirements - land, Jerusalem, refugees - progress, if any, can only be made by demanding more concessions from the weaker side. This will mean less land available for the putative Palestinian state, reducing its viability. Hence Jordan's and Egypt's presence at the talks to work out a deal that provides an extension for the West Bank into Jordan, and Gaza into Egypt. No other permutation is possible. Israel will lose very little, but even this may be too much for its "greater Israel" proponents.
If some version of this scenario were to happen and the Palestinian side were bamboozled into agreeing, it would destroy the Palestinian cause and wreak havoc within Palestinian ranks. Such an outcome haunts many Palestinians, who neither trust nor respect the negotiators and think they might sign away Palestinians' rights. This may be unfair, but they can rest assured that if there is any possibility of a peace deal emerging from Washington, the Israeli side - if not theirs - will never let it happen.
Ghada Karmi
Ghada Karmi is a medical doctor and a leading Palestinian activist, academic and writer. She is a research fellow at the Institute of Arab and Islamic studies at the University of Exeter, Britain, and writes frequently for The Guardian, The Nation and Journal of Palestine Studies. Her books include "Return: A Palestinian Memoir," and "Married to Another Man: Israel's Dilemma in Palestine." Karmi was born in Jerusalem to a Muslim family and grew up in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Katamon with its mixture of Palestinian Christians and Muslims. As a young girl, she and her family were forced to flee in the 1948 Nakba and settled in England. In 1998 she visited her childhood home in Katamon for the first time since 1948. She was one of the first supporters of Global March to Jerusalem and is a member of the Advisory Board.
What an irony that the Palestinians' arch-enemy, Israel, should also be their savior. There is a real danger that the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks due to start on September 2 in Washington could yield a botched deal that falls far short of the needs of international law or elemental justice, and sets back the cause of Palestine for decades, if not for ever. Fortunately this will not happen as long as Israel's obduracy can be relied on to save the Palestinians from such an outcome.
Time and again, when Israel was thrown a lifeline by Arab neighbors that could have ensured its legitimacy and security, its folly and greed lost it those opportunities. But, since they came at great cost to Palestinian rights, Israel's obduracy had the perverse effect of safeguarding those rights. All peace proposals after 1967 were based on maintaining Israel as a regional power and forcing the Palestinians to settle for less than they were entitled to. They were repeatedly offered paltry settlements that legitimized Israel's hold on most of their land and undermined their right of return. Had Israel agreed, the Palestinian cause would have been lost long ago.
When in the 1979 Camp David negotiations Egypt sought to give the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza a basis for a future independent state, Israel refused. It spurned a succession of Arab peace proposals, most recently the Saudi plan of 2002, offering Israel peace and recognition in return for a Palestinian state. And when, in the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PLO finally capitulated and accepted Israel's occupation of Palestine's remnants so long as it would enable the establishment of an independent state on this morsel, Israel responded by taking more land.
Decades of Israeli rejection and the reality of Israel's western support finally persuaded the Palestinian leadership to get what it could. Where once Palestinians fought against dispossession and for their right to reparation and return, today's browbeaten leadership has settled for a set of aspirations that bear little relation to rights or justice. It is this defeated leadership, reportedly under US pressure to attend or have Palestinian Authority funding withdrawn, which will take part in the talks.
The aim is a two-state settlement, which will supposedly end the conflict. The parameters are familiar from past (and, failed) peace proposals, and grossly unfair to the Palestinians. Historic Palestine will be partitioned roughly along the 1967 lines into a Jewish state on 78% of the land, plus an undefined area of the West Bank also to become Israeli, and a Palestinian state on the remainder - less than 20%. How much of East Jerusalem will go to the Palestinians has not been determined, and there will be no return of refugees.
Israel's prime minister has set conditions before the talks. Israel will keep the Jordan Valley, Jerusalem will remain Israel's undivided capital, and the Palestinian state must be unarmed, with its borders and airspace under surveillance. Nothing will happen unless the Palestinians first recognize Israel as Jewish and guarantee its security.
Despite such preliminaries, the indications are that Israel is not serious about a deal. Its moratorium on settlement building, which in any case excluded East Jerusalem, will end on 27 September. Israeli commentators are skeptical about Binyamin Netanyahu's intentions. Moty Cristal, a former Israeli prime ministerial adviser, believes he "is buying time, looking for ways to stay away from action on the ground". Nonetheless, President Obama, with mid-term elections looming, lacking a foreign policy success and focused on Iran, is determined to see a result.
How could that be achieved, within the constraints of an Israel that cannot be pressured and a weak, unrepresentative Palestinian leadership that excludes Gaza and Hamas? And since Israel's position rejects all the main Palestinian requirements - land, Jerusalem, refugees - progress, if any, can only be made by demanding more concessions from the weaker side. This will mean less land available for the putative Palestinian state, reducing its viability. Hence Jordan's and Egypt's presence at the talks to work out a deal that provides an extension for the West Bank into Jordan, and Gaza into Egypt. No other permutation is possible. Israel will lose very little, but even this may be too much for its "greater Israel" proponents.
If some version of this scenario were to happen and the Palestinian side were bamboozled into agreeing, it would destroy the Palestinian cause and wreak havoc within Palestinian ranks. Such an outcome haunts many Palestinians, who neither trust nor respect the negotiators and think they might sign away Palestinians' rights. This may be unfair, but they can rest assured that if there is any possibility of a peace deal emerging from Washington, the Israeli side - if not theirs - will never let it happen.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.