Where Is The Peace Process Going?

Where Is The Peace Process Going? 

Commentary by Sarah Ann Haves 

Growing U.S. pressure on the Palestinians to enter into
direct talks with Israel has led to a scheduled meeting of Arab League foreign
ministers, set to take place in Cairo, on Thursday, July 29, 2010. The Arab League is expected to decide, at that time, whether to approve a direct meeting between Palestinian President
Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in order to advance the peace process.

It’s probable that the Arab League will continue to use Abbas as their mouthpiece, demanding that Israel meet certain conditions before the Palestinians can enter into direct talks. The demands are based on directives spelled out in the Arab Peace Initiative, introduced by Saudi Arabia in 2002. This initiative continues to be the driving force among Arab states that are
seeking an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But, Israel says the demands do not allow Israel to maintain defensible borders.

STALLING THE PROCESS

Meanwhile, the Arab League and the Palestinians may find it advantageous to continue to use stall tactics, hoping to delay the initiation of direct talks until September, in order to stir up a political crisis within the Netanyahu government. September is the time when Netanyahu and his inner cabinet must decide if Israel will renew the settlement construction moratorium that officially ends on September 26th or, allow construction companies to begin building again in the territories. Currently, the Netanyahu government is divided over the issue, as coalition leaders that are both “for” and “against”
the settlement freeze have threatened to quit the government if their demands
are not met.

Since Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama met at the
White House in early July, there has been no real advancement of the peace
process, despite continued American pressure to move towards direct talks. Abbas,
along with Fatah members of his government, have continually insisted that
Israel deal with core issues, such as defining the borders and security of a
Palestinian state. They want to see progress before advancing the talks. Israel
wants the Palestinians to come to the table without these pre-conditions. The stalemate continues.

So far, the inability for Obama to successfully deal with
Palestinian intransigence has led some Jewish leaders to conclude that American
influence is diminishing, which inevitably puts more pressure on Israel. Behind
the scenes, Arab officials are looking to the U.S. for assurances that Israel will
start direct talks where they left off during the previous Israeli
administration, under the direction of former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Olmert had agreed to an Israeli
withdrawal from most of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), with land swaps
included. He was also willing for Israel to share control of East Jerusalem
neighborhoods with the Palestinians. And he called for the initiation of an
international body to oversee the Old City holy sites. Peace talks between
Olmert and Abbas broke down even before Olmert resigned from the premiership
due to allegations against him of financial corruption.

NEGOTIATING THROUGH THE MEDIA

During this current
season of indirect proximity talks between Abbas and Netanyahu, there has been
a new kind of peace negotiating… that is, through public statements made to the
global media. Abbas has continually reminded the international community of
what his expectations are of Israel, outlining Palestinian “red lines”. He has
held back all efforts to advance the peace process until the Israeli government
shows a willingness to meet his demands. Netanyahu, on the other hand, has not been willing to publicly offer
many details concerning Israel’s “red lines”, even though he has done extensive
interviews with media outlets.

THE REAL INTENTIONS OF THE PALESTINIANS

Presently, an increasing number of Israelis are showing
signs of deep skepticism concerning Palestinian intentions towards peace.  Some analysts believe that the current
Palestinian leadership, both in the West Bank and Gaza are adhering to existing
charters and doctrines, which call for a single state of Palestine that would
encompass all of Israel.

Even with the Israeli unilateral withdrawal from Gaza five
years ago, the current Hamas leadership in Gaza has done nothing to make it
easier for local Palestinians. Hamas
keeps many Palestinians languishing in refuge camps, highlighting this “eye
sore”, so that the international community will fund UN coffers and send the
money to Hamas. The Palestinian leadership in both the West Bank and Gaza want
these “refugees” to be included in any peace deal with Israel, demanding that
they have a right to return to Israel, rather than to a Palestinian state.
Israel will not agree to such demands, citing that this would threaten the
Jewish majority population in Israel. This has been one of the sticking points
in the current Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

One of Israel’s frustrations with the Obama Administration
has been the constant pressure on Israel for greater confidence-building
measures (i.e. Israeli concessions). Recently, there’s been a more vocal voice
among Jewish leaders in Israel for a call to genuine reciprocity, where it is
not only Israel making concessions to the Palestinians, but vice versa. One of
the ways the Palestinians have been called on to show reciprocity is in toning
down the continued incitement against Israel – in speeches by Moslem leaders to
the local Arab population; in schools; in the media; and through international
bodies like the UN, human rights forums, etc. 

HOW ISRAELIS SEE PEACE DEVELOPING

A recent peace index indicates that most of the Israeli
public thinks U.S. President Obama favors the Palestinians. Also, a majority of Israelis support
renewed construction in the West Bank after the settlement moratorium is over
on September 26. They believe that
continuing the moratorium would play into the hands of American and Palestinian
negotiators.

Among Israelis, there’s major support for continuing the
peace negotiations with the Palestinians, but few believe that the talks will
lead to a peace treaty. This has been the prevailing mood in Israel since the
Oslo Accords were signed 17 years ago. Most Israelis have not been in favor of the
indirect proximity talks currently taking place between Israel and the
Palestinians, and a majority of the public wants to see the negotiations move
to direct talks.

AMERICAN PROMISES TO ISRAEL – ARE THEY REALLY HELPFUL?

Israelis hear over and over again about America’s commitment
to Israel’s security interests. The Obama Administration has pointed out, time
and again, that it is committed to Israel’s qualitative military edge in the
Middle East, giving examples of unprecedented strategic cooperation between the
two allies.

While these statements are practically true, Israelis are
beginning to question the intent of Obama’s determination to maintain Israel’s
military edge over its enemies in the region. Some Israelis point out that
Obama is also expecting Israel to take increased risks to accommodate
Palestinian demands on the diplomatic front. The concluding analysis is that this leads Israel to risk
its security interests at the peace negotiating table, instead of on the
battlefield.

One example of where this could become dangerous for Israel
in the future has to do with negotiating the parameters of a Palestinian state.
Abbas has demanded that there be no Israeli presence on the eastern border of a
future state of Palestine, and he has pressed for an international force to be
deployed there, instead. In that way, he reasons, Israel will get its security
needs met, and the Palestinians will retain sovereignty over their state.

However, for Israel, this is a risk that is too great for
compromise. Netanyahu has insisted that there must be an Israeli presence on
the eastern border of a future Palestinian state, at least initially, because
international forces cannot insure Israel’s security in the Jordan Valley
region.

There is an increased concern in Israel that the U.S. may
link Israel’s unwillingness to take risks in the peace process to how much of
an on-going commitment America is willing to make towards Israel on a military
level. Israelis reason that only time will tell how genuine Obama’s commitment
to Israel really is. At this point, only 10% of the population believes that
Obama is pro-Israel. In order for the general public to have increased
confidence in the U.S. president and his administration, he will need to
continue increased military cooperation with Israel, while at the same time,
not expect Israel to sacrifice its security interests at the peace table.

TOWARDS A LASTING PEACE

In the meantime, the peace process continues to defy all
projected time tables, and the lack of progress continues to be a frustration for
all those countries that have based their foreign policy initiatives on seeing
this conflict end. America, and
other nations, would be well advised to stop putting such emphasis and time
into solving the conflict, and leave it up to the Israeli and Palestinian communities
to narrow the gaps on their own. There is little hope that a lasting peace can
endure without the development of mutual trust between these two people groups,
as they attempt to resolve the many problems involved in living together in
this complex region of the world.

“Peace I leave with you. My peace I give to you; not as
the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let
it be afraid.”  John 14:27 

Ms. Haves is a news analyst, reporting from Israel on political, diplomatic, military and spiritual issues affecting the nation.

(c) 2010 Messianic Vision all rights reserved. This article is not reproducible except with permisson from Messianic Vision. 

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright ©1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.