 |
| Hamas security forces standing guard in Gaza, December 2010 Image: Ali Ali/EPA |
So why has there been such a long period of limited contact
between the two authorities? The answer is surprisingly simple. Palestine had previously requested
pre-conditions on coming to the negotiating table. The most notable of which
was demanding for an immediate halt to Israeli settlement construction in the
West Bank, an action for which the international community has condemned Israel
almost universally. It’s arguable that
Israel has refused to do for two particular reasons.
Firstly Israel has not wanted to appear to be
overly compromising before the negotiations even began and secondly, the
Netanyahu government has been accused of having little interest in solving the
question of Palestinian statehood. Despite this, it now appears that Palestine has dropped the
pre-conditions in favour of jump-starting negotiations.
Israel has also agreed to release a number of
Palestinian prisoners as a means of restarting negotiations. General public opinion within Israel and the
IDF also seem to favour a political settlement rather than the hard-line stance
of the governing Likud party, whose political influence has eroded considerably
since the elections at the beginning of this year.
Whilst the fact that the two entities have finally agreed to
restart negotiations is undoubtedly a positive step towards peace, many issues
that have plagued previous negotiations remain and several new matters of dispute
have emerged in the last 24 months. The
terms of the negotiations have been kept secret, so we can only speculate over
what is to be discussed and the compromises to be made. But it is more than likely the following will
be on the agenda.
Jerusalem
Jerusalem remains at the core of the dispute. Both sides claim Jerusalem as the capital of
their nation. More realistically though,
the Palestinian Abbas government desires control of East Jerusalem, a holy site
of Islam and the cultural capital of Palestine. East Jerusalem is also part of the Palestinian mandate outline in the UN
Partition of Palestine, so much of the international community favour the
Palestinian argument under UN law. Even the USA, Israel’s strongest ally, does
not recognise the annexation of East Jerusalem, which was seized in the 1967
War, commonly known as the Six-Day War, whereby Israel seized much of
Palestinian mandated land which at the time was under Jordanian
administration.
Israel however,
maintains that Jerusalem must remain undivided and function as the capital of
Israel, not Palestine. Israel maintains
that the entire city is a part of their cultural heritage, predating the
Palestinian mandate and was integrated as part of Islamic holy land long after
the Israelites had settled. Israel’s
very modern concern however, is as to how East Jerusalem would be administered
under Palestinian rule. East Jerusalem
had previously hosted many historic Judaic sites, however many were desecrated
whilst the city was under Jordanian administration.
Israel currently tolerates the freedom of
religion inside its lands; Jerusalem is a city where, for the most part,
Jewish, Christian and Islamic citizens can practice their faith free from
harassment. It is concerned that Palestine will not show the same display towards
practising Jews or Christians inside East Jerusalem should they take
power. Extremist groups and fundamental
organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, have done very little to allay these
fears. Nevertheless, Israel has shown slightly more willingness to compromise
in recent years, offering minor annexations of outlying districts. Jerusalem is arguably the most difficult of all
outstanding issues between the two parties and a lasting settlement will be
very difficult to reach.
Borders
Defining borders is also an issue. Most references for a lasting settlement
involve the 1948 Partition plan and the pre-1967 Borders of Israel. At its most
basic, Israel’s policy is that it will consider withdrawing to pre 1967 borders,
excluding current Israeli settlements and East Jerusalem. It does not wish to abandon those settlements
and seems intent on claiming them to be part of Israel.
Israel is adamant on maintaining the major
settlements, citing political pressure within the nation from the hard right
Zionist groups. Palestine’s position is
very rational on this issue. Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas has recently stated that he is willing to compromise
based on the 1967 borders as a starting point.
Palestine has argued that if they are to make concessions on Israeli
settlements, then Israel should agree to balanced land swaps with
Palestine. Compromise here seems more
likely and may prove to be the initial starting point for discussion.
Right of Return
Many Palestinians have fled Palestine and Israel since the
1948 Arab Israeli-War, in no small part due to the meddling of Egypt and Syria
in the region’s affairs. Many
Palestinians fled after supporting the losing side in the many conflicts or
were simply unfortunate victims of the conflicts themselves. Israel has tended to view these refugees as
war supporters and anti-Israeli, which is not necessarily the case.
Israel is very reluctant to allow these
refugees to return into Israeli lands due to its fixation on the demographics
of Israel. The Netanyahu government is
concerned with the social implications of accepting many Palestinians into
Israel. Primarily it is concerned with
Israel’s status as a majority Jewish state. In the long term, Jewish Israeli citizens may be outnumbered by the
returned Palestinian refugees, namely because Palestinians tend to have more
children than Israelis.
Israel is
therefore worried that this will affect the state’s long-term prospects and
lead to a reunification of Palestine. There
is also an understandable social concern for Israel. Israel is already a fairly dense country that
has to support 6 million citizens and has limited resources. It may not be able to cope in the event of
the resettling of hundreds of thousands of people inside its borders.
Palestinians have therefore often asked for
compensation in exchange for Israeli seizure of their lands, a more than
reasonable demand that the US favours.
Security
Security issues are also a problem for Israel. The state has an unenviable amount of
potential threats surrounding its borders. Syria and Egypt are currently extremely unstable and both their
populations are adamantly opposed to Israel.
Hamas is firmly entrenched in Gaza and its ideology borders on the genocidal. Hezbollah also has a strong base in South
Lebanon and Syria and similarly call for the destruction of Israel. Iran continues a hostile rhetoric and
actively funds anti-Israeli terrorist cells, whilst potentially constructing a
nuclear device. The bloated military
spending of the Gulf States has also unnerved IDF’s high command. It’s therefore fair to say that Israel does
not desire to see another security threat on its Eastern border.
The issue is this however; any Palestinian
state that is formed is likely to be extremely fragile and will have a very
uneasy truce with Israel. Israel
therefore wants to ensure that Palestine cannot emerge as a security threat to
Israel. Israel has already experienced a very hostile neighbour in the form of
Gaza, who elected a hostile government that calls for the destruction of
Israel, shortly after it gained autonomy.
There is no desire for a repeat in Palestine. It therefore insists on a new Palestinian
state being demilitarized and subject to Israeli military oversight so neither
the state nor insurgent groups within Palestine can threaten Israel. Essentially it desires to ensure that Hamas
or a similar group cannot subject Palestine to an armed takeover and antagonise
Israel. Palestine argues that precisely
the opposite will happen if Israel’s demand is heeded. If a new Palestinian state is demilitarized,
it will be unable to combat extremist threats independently and faith in the
government will deteriorate, making it far more vulnerable to a Hamas takeover
than if it was given full security autonomy.
Palestine also dislikes the notion of being reliant on the Israeli’s and
wishes to enjoy its full rights as any other state would enjoy. Israel’s argument seems rational from
previous experience and the extremist groups within Syria, Lebanon and Gaza
would no doubt attempt to provoke conflict, but Palestine’s is just as feasible
when examining the general relation between state and security.
A state that it is unable to provide its own
security is prone for failure as Yemen and
Lebanon have proved. Israel also demands
a condemnation of Hamas by Palestine’s ruling Fatah party, given Hama’s
attitudes towards peace. Palestine has
refused to do so, claiming that they will not condemn an organisation simply to
appease the Israelis.
Given all these issues, there are clearly serious obstacles
for the current negotiations to climb.
Half a century of bad blood will also mean that talks are likely to
stall frequently, with no side wanting to appear too compromising in order to
appease the more radical sects in both their camps.
There are also accusations about both sides’
lack of commitment to finding a peaceful solution, particularly the Israelis
who currently hold the upper hand so are not so pressured to compromise. The parties have outlined a nine-month
negotiation plan, which at the very least gives plenty of time for short-term
compromises to be met. US will undoubtedly play a major role here.
The Obama administration likely views the
situation has highly damaging to the USA’s moral stance and wishes for a
peaceful settlement in order for Israel to moderate its behaviour on the
international scene.
If they are truly
serious about peace, then the Obama administration will exert pressure on the
Israeli delegation, given that Israel is extremely reliant on US support. Whilst hopes for these negotiations are not
particularly high, there is always the hope that both parties may be able to
come to a suitable compromise that brings the Middle East one step closer to
peace.
By David Alex Stanton
No comments:
Post a Comment