SUCCESS
REQUIRES
CONSEQUENCES
FOR FAILURE
By
John V.
Whitbeck
For
almost two
decades, the
seemingly
perpetual
Middle East
“peace
process” has
been like a
hamster-wheel
for
Palestinians
and a
merry-go-round
for Israelis.
All the
movement has
been a form of
running or
turning in
place. Nothing
ever really
changes.
As
Secretary of
State John
Kerry shuttles
around the
Middle East,
ostensibly to
“kick-start” a
resumption of
direct
Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations,
with Israeli
Prime Minister
Binyamin
Netanyahu
insisting that
any new
negotiations
must be
“without
preconditions”
and
Palestinian
President
Mahmoud Abbas
insisting,
among other
things, that
any new
negotiations
must be
time-limited,
it is worth
recalling a
prior
negotiations
resumption
ceremony held
at the White
House on
September 2,
2010.
In
announcing
that
resumption,
Mr. Kerry’s
predecessor,
Hillary Rodham
Clinton,
stated that
that new round
of
negotiations
should be
"without
preconditions",
as Mr.
Netanyahu had
insisted, and
that both Mr.
Netanyahu and
Mr. Abbas had
agreed that
the
negotiations
should be
subject to a
one-year time
limit or
deadline, as
Mr. Abbas had
insisted.
That
round of
negotiations
went nowhere,
and the
formally
announced
“deadline”
proved
meaningless –
for one clear
and critical
reason.
Throughout
this "peace
process", all
deadlines,
starting with
the five-year
deadline for
achieving a
permanent
peace
agreement set
in the “Oslo”
Declaration of
Principles
signed almost
20 years ago,
have been
consistently
and
predictably
missed. Such
failures have
been
guaranteed by
the practical
reality that,
for Israel,
"failure" has
had no
consequences
other than a
continuation
of the status
quo, which,
for all
Israeli
governments,
has been not
only tolerable
but preferable
to any
realistically
realizable
alternative.
For
Israel,
"failure" has
always
constituted
"success",
permitting it
to continue
confiscating
Palestinian
land,
expanding its
West Bank
colonies,
building more
Jews-only
bypass roads
and generally
making the
occupation
even more
permanent and
irreversible.
In
everyone's
interests,
this must
change. For
there to be
any chance of
true success
in any new
round of
negotiations,
failure must
have clear and
compelling
consequences
which Israelis
would find
unappealing –
indeed, at
least
initially,
nightmarish.
In an
interview
published on
November 29,
2007, in the
Israeli daily
Ha'aretz,
Mr.
Netanyahu's
predecessor,
Ehud Olmert,
declared, "If
the day comes
when the
two-state
solution
collapses, and
we face a
South
African-style
struggle for
equal voting
rights (also
for the
Palestinians
in the
territories),
then, as soon
as that
happens, the
State of
Israel is
finished."
This
article
helpfully
referred to a
prior Ha'aretz
article,
published on
March 13,
2003, in which
Mr. Olmert had
expressed the
same concern
in the
following
terms: "More
and more
Palestinians
are
uninterested
in a
negotiated,
two-state
solution,
because they
want to change
the essence of
the conflict
from an
Algerian
paradigm to a
South African
one. From a
struggle
against
'occupation',
in their
parlance, to a
struggle for
one-man-one-vote.
That is, of
course, a much
cleaner
struggle, a
much more
popular
struggle – and
ultimately a
much more
powerful one.
For us, it
would mean the
end of the
Jewish state."
If
Israeli public
opinion could
be brought
around to
sharing the
perception of
Israel's
position and
options
reflected in
Mr. Olmert's
perceptive
public
pronouncements,
the
Palestinians
would be
entering any
new round of
direct
negotiations
in a position
of strength,
intellectually
and
psychologically
difficult
though it
would be for
Palestinians
to imagine
such a
dramatic role
reversal.
All
that the
Palestinian
leadership
would need to
do is to state
at the time
that any new
negotiations
are launched
that, if a
definitive
peace
agreement on a
two-state
basis has not
been reached
and signed
within one
year, the
Palestinian
people will
have no choice
but to seek
justice and
freedom
through
democracy –
through full
rights of
citizenship in
a single state
in all of
Israel/Palestine,
free of any
discrimination
based on race
or religion
and with equal
rights for all
who live
there.
The
Arab League
should then
publicly state
that the very
generous Arab
Peace
Initiative,
which, since
March 2002,
has offered
Israel
permanent
peace and
normal
diplomatic and
economic
relations with
the entire
Arab world in
return for
Israel's
compliance
with
international
law, remains
on offer but
will expire
and be "off
the table" if
a definitive
Israeli-Palestinian
peace
agreement has
not been
signed prior
to this
one-year
deadline.
Framing
the choice
before
Israelis with
such clarity
would ensure
that the
Israeli
leadership
would be
inspired --
indeed,
compelled – to
make the most
attractive
two-state
offer to the
Palestinians
which Israeli
public opinion
could
conceivably
find
acceptable. At
that point –
but not before
– serious and
meaningful
negotiations
could begin.
Israel’s
vast
colonization
program may
already have
made it too
late to
achieve a
decent
two-state
solution (as
opposed to an
indecent,
less-than-a-Bantustan
one), but a
decent
two-state
solution would
never have a
better chance
of being
achieved. If
it is, indeed,
too late, then
Israelis,
Palestinians
and the world
will know and
can thereafter
focus their
minds and
efforts
constructively
on the only
other decent
alternative.
It is
even possible
that, if
forced to
focus on the
prospect of
living in a
fully
democratic
state with
equal rights
for all its
citizens --
which, after
all, is what
the United
States and the
European Union
hold up, in
all other
instances, as
the ideal form
of political
life -- many
Israelis might
come to view
this "threat"
as less
nightmarish
than they
traditionally
have.
In
this context,
Israelis might
wish to talk
with some
white South
Africans. The
transformation
of South
Africa's
racial-supremacist
ideology and
political
system into a
fully
democratic one
has
transformed
them,
personally,
from pariahs
into people
welcomed
throughout
their region
and the world.
It has also
ensured the
permanence of
a strong and
vital white
presence in
southern
Africa in a
way that
prolonging the
flagrant
injustice of a
racial-supremacist ideology and political system and imposing fragmented
and dependent
"independent
states" on the
natives could
never have
achieved. This
is not a
precedent to
dismiss. It
could inspire.
Any
new
negotiations
toward ending
the occupation
of Palestine
on a two-state
basis and
achieving
peace with
some measure
of justice
must be
subject to a
genuine and
credible
“final”
deadline for
success and
must have
clear and
unambiguous
consequences
for failure.
Whether the
future of the
Holy Land is
to be based on
partition into
two states or
on full
democracy in
one state, a
definitive
choice must
now be made. A
fraudulent
"peace
process"
designed
simply to kill
more time can
no longer be
tolerated.
John
V. Whitbeck is
an
international
lawyer who has
advised the
Palestinian
negotiating
team in
negotiations
with Israel.