| |
||||||
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
UNDERLYING THE OVERWHELMING support for violence as a means to attain victory and the stunting political paralysis in Israel/Palestine lies a reservoir of support for a negotiated peace resolution. The peace indices compiled by Tel-Aviv University and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) reveal that the complex and violent situation engulfing the region still retains the possibility for optimism and maneuverability. Needed is an alternate avenue to violence, a political track that can provide for a negotiated resolution to the conflict. This is not a startlingly new idea: it had been put forth years ago by leftists such as Sari Nussibeh and Yosi Sarid. What challenges it today is the difficulty of charting a method back to political negotiations and capitalizing on what remains of the public’s support for peace. Support for peace in the form of a negotiated settlement may be fast diminishing. The most recent surveys conducted by the PSR show that 70% of Palestinian respondents continue to believe that armed confrontations have helped achieve Palestinian national rights in ways that negotiations could not.* The same sentiment is echoed on the Israeli side. Following the July 22 airstrike that killed Saleh Shehade and 14 others, including women and children, two thirds of the Israeli respondents in a Ma’ariv poll in August looked back and said they supported the operation. Both publics, disenfranchised by the failure to realize the grand settlement forecasted at Camp David 2000 and disheartened by the withering of the Oslo accords, increasingly support the trend of escalating violence. The threat of further violence looms, with neither side appearing to have reached a point of exhaustion. Thus, with such dire consequences of increased violence and a history of such pain and suffering, it would appear that both sides have begun to define victory in terms of who can inflict more damage and suffering upon the other. How to break from this deadlock? Both sides must tap into the overwhelming support their publics offer for a negotiated settlement to the conflict. According to the Tel-Aviv general peace index of October 2002, the rightward movement of Israeli politics has not decreased the support for a negotiated settlement. On the contrary, except for the extreme Right group (20% of respondents, 46% favored negotiations), all the other groups showed a majority supporting political contacts—57% of the moderate Right group, 68% of the Center group, and 82% of the moderate and extreme Left groups. An overwhelming majority of Palestinians support a negotiated peace agreement. Despite the steadfast belief that violence has proven effective, almost three-quarters of the Palestinians surveyed in the same PSR poll still support reconciliation between the two peoples after a peace agreement is reached and a Palestinian state is established and recognized by the state of Israel. The schizophrenic public opinion in both the Israeli and Palestinian camps reflects the hesitancy towards achieving a total victory through military means. Ensuring that supporters of a negotiated settlement don’t fall victim to creeping radical forces will be essential for moving towards a negotiated settlement and avoiding scenarios as disastrous as forced population transfers or the implementation of an apartheid regime. To break the current deadlock, the international community must support a clearly articulated vision of a Palestinian state. Solidifying the vision The overwhelming Palestinian support for a negotiated resolution is a vision of peace contingent on a two-state solution. This vision isn’t far from what most Israelis are willing to accept as a peaceful resolution to the conflict. In a recent poll, 63% of Israelis have offered support for a two-state solution resembling something along the lines of the Clinton Parameters of late 2000, in which then president Bill Clinton declared “there is no choice but to create two states and make the best of it.” The vision and the details for peace have been ironed out years ago. It would behoove us to reopen many of the issues. To break from the cycle of violence, a detailed final status vision based on previous agreements needs to be provided to both sides. Currently the prospect of articulating such a vision through bilateral negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis is slim and—as a result—multi-lateral negotiations should be sought out. The emergence of the Quartet (US, EU, Russia, UN) and the Saudi Initiative reflects a departure from the hesitation for international involvement in the Oslo years. Capitalizing on these shifts and establishing an ironclad commitment from foreign states will solidify the vision of a two-state solution and induce either party to make the adjustments necessary to accommodate peace. Essentially, the peace process would be front-loaded, with the details for a final solution to be agreed upon before either party begins the necessary changes to attain them. Acknowledging the final parameters on the issues of borders, refugees, security, Jerusalem, and resources would provide either side with a vision in which they can place their hopes. Hope will be essential for garnering political support, as was evident during the Netanyahu’s prime ministerial term. During those years (1996–1999), some of the largest settlement expansion took place, yet two-thirds of either national group retained its optimism and hope for the Oslo peace process. This political hope protected the questionable peace process from being engulfed in violence and will be essential for undoing the current cycle today. However, providing a detailed vision, which allows both sides to know what they are going to be getting at the end of a long process of reconciliation, will not be all that is necessary to bring an end to the violence. It will also be necessary to provide a political track for Palestinians to redirect their needs and interests. The call for reform has ranked highly in Palestinian public opinion polls for years, yet only recently have Israel and the international community recognized it as essential for a long-term solution to the conflict. The primacy given to security must be removed and a comprehensive plan for stabilization that includes a political reform for the Palestinians must be created. This would, according to Professor Shikaki of BirZeit University, include the incorporation of the “young guard” of Palestinians, who until now have been disenfranchised and removed from the political process by Arafat and his “old guard.”† Their incorporation in a political process would provide them with alternate avenues to violence and to dissolve what appears to be their unshakable dedication to this as the only means of change. The question of political paralysis also applies to the Israeli government, which at the present time does not appear responsive to ideas of a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians. A shift away from Likud-led politics in the near future is unlikely and a Palestinian commitment to good governance and reform seems equally bleak. International support Sustained international effort will be necessary to break the political paralysis and bring about a two-state solution. An internationally led peace process will require aid to Palestinian reformers to solidify a “political horizon.” However, international attempts to break the stalemate will inevitably be subject to threats and the prospect of derailment from terrorist groups. Any prospect for reconciliation between both sides will require additional and long-term aid—a difficult proposition when considering the comparatively scant amount of attention and aid given to other international crises, like the shocking dislocation of 45,000 Burundi citizens that has occurred in the past two weeks. However, given the current deadlock, an internationally induced solution may be the only way to get the parties out of the current mess they are in. Deep hesitations exist with both sides concerning international involvement. After the President George W. Bush’s June 24 address calling for the reform of the Palestinian political system, Palestinian support for political reform dropped slightly. This can be attributed to people’s fear of being labeled as American lackeys and thereby jeopardizing Palestinian interests for those of the CIA. Israel also finds itself wary of accepting direct international involvement. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has repeatedly rejected international intervention for stomping out terror on the grounds that it would create more friction and ultimately lead to a reward for terrorism.‡ Despite both sides’ opposition to international intervention, their inability to conduct productive bilateral negotiations and the gravity of the current situation makes it appear that respectful international intervention may provide one avenue out of the conflict. Getting out of this mess If the situation continues to escalate with no exit strategy—in the form of a reachable vision and a commitment to good governance from the Palestinian leadership—the future looks to be shaped by a continuation of the dominant dynamic of violence and Israel finding itself implementing policies of an apartheid state. In order to avoid this situation the avenues of political reform, international intervention and the crystallization of a solid vision for peace should be pursued simultaneously. Both parties of the conflict should take bold steps, similar to the ones embarked upon in 1993, to utilize what remains of their public’s support for a negotiated settlement and relieve the area of its violent confrontations. Andrew Horesh B’04 wishes to tap the reservoir of support. † Shikaki, Khalil, Foreign Affairs Jan/Feb 2002. |
copyright © 2002, The College
Hill Independent
last updated 11 22 02
Dana Goldstein takes on