de

del

Eduardo del Buey
Photo: Reuters
La Jornada Maya

Tuesday February 11, 2020

Last week, I wrote that it may be time for the global community to revisit the traditional negotiating paradigm on peace between Palestinians and Israelis. I stated that using U.N. resolutions calling for a return to 1967 borders makes little sense today, when Israeli settlements proliferate on the West Bank and when both of Israel’s major parties will never agree to removing them or to support pulling back to 53-year-old borders. Moreover, very few if any Israelis will ever support Palestinian demands that millions of Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to their historical farms and homes in Israel.

A number of my readers dismissed the Trump Peace Plan, saying that it was wrong to expect Palestinians to support any plan that did not meet their just demands. In their view, there is a certain morality about the provisions of the U.N. resolutions that set 1967 borders (with small adjustments) as sacrosanct. This, even though the Palestinians have rejected proposals on a number of occasions that included 95 percent of their demands other than the return of refugees.

Albert Einstein once wrote that the very definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.

For fifty-three years, the international community has followed the same negotiating parameters with nothing to show for their efforts but defeat and frustration.

Palestinian governance has not only been ineffective, it has been detrimental to the interests of Palestinian citizens who live in the West Bank and in Gaza. The inability or unwillingness of the Palestinian political class to provide the educational services that could create a 21st century society is obvious.

One can blame the Israel occupation, to be sure. But when scarce resources are destined to providing annuities to the families of suicide bombers and other terrorists, when school children are taught to hate Israel and Israelis, one is justified in asking if peace is really on the minds of Palestinian leaders.

Israel left a viable agricultural infrastructure in Gaza when is pulled out in 2005. Rather than build on this to create an economy that could sustain the population of Gaza and serve as a model for future Palestinian social and economic development, the Hamas government – duly elected by Palestinian voters in that territory -- rejected any peace with Israel, rejected the very existence of Israel, destroyed the productive infrastructure, and have engaged in a prolonged war not only with Israel, but, also, with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

This situation continues to this very day.

Israel has also moved away from any respect for the U.N. resolutions.

As I stated in my previous article, any viable Israeli government will have to consider the absolute opposition to withdrawal among most Israeli voters. While such an alternative might well have been viable when the center and left of the political spectrum had enough voter support in the 1990’s through the turn of the century, the situation on the ground has changed, in my opinion, at least for the foreseeable future.

In addition to the above realities, Israel must also decide how to reconcile its Jewish nature with its democratic process.

Democracy would call for one person one vote. If Israel were to annex the entire West Bank, it would risk losing its Jewishness if it gave the Palestinian population full civic rights. The Palestinians would be the majority in a matter of years given their demographics.

If Israel were to deny its Palestinian population political and social rights, the result would be an apartheid state – anathema to all of those who lived through a similar system in the South Africa of the last century.

For this reason, a plan that calls for continued Israeli ownership over its settlements in the West Bank with provision for a Palestinian entity, albeit reduced from pre-1967 borders, is the only option that most Israeli’s would consider viable.

Hence, my belief that the situation on the ground has changed forever, and that any future negotiations will have to be undertaken under a new paradigm.

A number of my readers raised the possibility that the international community might force the Israelis into a settlement.

I disagree.

The current administration in Washington that may well last into 2024 has proposed its vision – a far cry from Palestinian aspirations and the solutions called for in U.N. resolutions.

While the European Union is considering strong anti-Trump Plan statements and actions, the reality is that Israel has forged strong relationships with the current Austrian, Hungarian, Slovakian, and Polish governments based on a shared right-wing authoritarian values and mutual rejection of Islamic expansionism. These European states will likely put the kibosh on any concerted anti-Israeli moves by Brussels.

A number of readers have raised opposition by the Arab League and the Islamic Conference.

I ask, what impact have these two organizations had in the past?

Is their opposition a serious threat to Israeli interests when, historically, their decisions and activities have had no impact on Israel?

With many Arab Islamic members of both organizations depending on Israel in their fight against Iran, do their words of opposition indicate a willingness to act decisively given the region’s geopolitical reality?

And, one might ask, what have these Arab and Islamic States done to alleviate the plight of Palestinians in refugee camps, other than use them as geopolitical pawns? Have they tried to assimilate refugees and integrate them into their societies as Canada and European countries have done with Syrian refugees?

I also ask if, given the close relationship between Prime Minister Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin, will Russia spearhead a drive to renew efforts to establish U.N. resolutions as the basis for any lasting peace?

Putin is the ultimate realist, and a technological and economic relationship with an Israel that enjoys the tacit support of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States, may well be more advantageous for Russia than support for a Palestinian dream that will never likely come true, at least in the current international climate.

It is interesting to note that, two days after the Plan was announced, Netanyahu was in Moscow for a highly publicized and warm encounter with Putin.

China’s initial reaction has also been negative. But, upon reflection, will the Chinese want to tacitly encourage their currently oppressed Muslim Uyghur minority to pursue the same dream as their Palestinian coreligionists – an independent state at China’s expense? Is China willing to jeopardize its lucrative investments in Israel and its access to Israeli technology that can feed its own manufacturing and research needs?

And, finally, what is the African reaction?

A few days after the Trump Peace Plan was announced, Prime Minister Netanyahu was in Entebbe, Uganda, to meet with the Sudanese Head of Government under the aegis of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. The leaders discussed the establishment of diplomatic relations between Sudan and Israel and, as of the time of writing, Israeli aircraft are now allowed to transit through Sudanese airspace.

As an Arab country that once hosted Osama Bin Laden, this marks a significant departure from Sudan’s recent past. While there have been some demonstrations against this rapprochement, it remains to be seen if Sudan will join Egypt and Jordan in establishing formal diplomatic relations with the Jewish state – diminishing further Arab support for Palestinian aspirations.

Israeli technology and investments are making an impact across Africa, and access to these are far more lucrative for growing African economies than is solidarity with the Palestinians.

So, where does this leave us?

For those who oppose the new negotiating paradigm, I ask, what is the alternative?

They will reply something along the lines that might is not right, and that justice must be served.

But, is this 21st century realpolitik?

Realpolitik is neither good nor bad – it simply is.

And the reality is that, in many cases, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

For a hundred years, the Palestinians sought what they perceived to be the perfect solution: a single Palestinian state comprising of the entire territory of the then Palestine with no Jewish presence. This has proven to be an elusive dream, yet the Palestinians have rejected what could have been good deals on several occasions in exchange for a perfect but empty dream.

Today’s question is the following: do the Palestinians have a choice other than either maintaining the status quo or negotiating on terms that can lead to a limited solution to their situation, however difficult this compromise might be?

I don’t know, but, I would like to hear from those who oppose the new paradigm to describe a third option that could prove successful.

Are there any takers?

[b][email protected][/b]


Lo más reciente

Por primera vez en 27 años, EU modifica clasificaciones de raza y etnia para las personas

Permitirá que residente se identifiquen como hispanos, de Medio Oriente y herencia norteafricana

Ap

Por primera vez en 27 años, EU modifica clasificaciones de raza y etnia para las personas

Ataque israelí mata a 36 soldados sirios cerca de Alepo: ONG

El objetivo eran los depósitos de misiles del movimiento libanés Hezbolá

Afp

Ataque israelí mata a 36 soldados sirios cerca de Alepo: ONG

Así es cómo la inteligencia Artificial predice el sabor y calidad de la cerveza

Los modelos pueden predecir qué compuestos agregarle para mejorarla

Europa Press

Así es cómo la inteligencia Artificial predice el sabor y calidad de la cerveza

Green Day encabezará concierto climático global respaldado por la ONU en San Francisco

La entradas estarán disponibles desde este viernes en Ticketmaster

Ap

Green Day encabezará concierto climático global respaldado por la ONU en San Francisco