The US special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell is finding the going tough, writes Michael Jansen
PROSPECTS ARE slim for peace between Palestinians and Israelis even though the US, under President Barack Obama, is preparing to broker negotiations with the aim of creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
His envoy George Mitchell, who has just concluded his third visit to the region, contends the “two- state solution is the only solution” for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and says the US will pursue it with “great energy”. The new Israeli government does not agree.
Foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman argues that a fresh approach must be found as the peace process has “reached a dead end”. He also rejects the agreement to establish a Palestinian state signed by Israel, the Arabs and the US in November 2007 at Annapolis.
Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu gives priority to the removal of the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons. He also contends that a Palestinian state could become “Hamastan”, a state ruled by the Hamas movement which controls Gaza.
He opposes talks on key issues of Jerusalem, borders and Palestinian refugees. He refuses to allow Jerusalem to be the capital of two states and vows to continue Israeli settlement activity in areas the Palestinians demand for their state.
He says they must recognise Israel as the “state of the Jewish people” as a precondition for resuming talks.
His stands are unacceptable to both the US and the Palestinians.
In 1993 the Palestine Liberation Organisation recognised Israel within its 1948 border.
Saeb Erekat, a top Palestinian negotiator, argues: “Netanyahu’s new ‘condition’ serves no other purpose than to stall progress towards negotiations and save his government from having to deal with the real issues.”
The Palestinian Authority (PA) argues that recognition will jeopardise the democratic rights of 1.3 million Palestinian citizens of Israel because they are not Jews and amount to renunciation of the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or receive compensation under UN resolution 194 of 1948.
While the situation of the refugees is a major issue yet to be addressed, the PA understands that this does not mean a large number would seek repatriation in Israel because the resolution calls for this to happen only when “practicable.”
This means a token few would return, perhaps under a family reunion scheme, while the rest would settle in the Palestinian state and receive reparations.
In response to the line the Netanyahu government has adopted, the Palestinians have laid down their own conditions.
Erekat says: “Until [it] unequivocally affirms its support for the two-state solution, implements Israel’s roadmap obligations and abides by previous agreements, Palestinians have no partner for peace.”
Among Israel’s commitments are an end to settlement activity and lifting 600-odd checkpoints and road-blocks in the West Bank and around Jerusalem.
So far, Mitchell has dealt only with the resumption of talks between the Palestinians and Israel, but he holds that the Obama administration is committed to a “comprehensive peace” built on the 2002 Arab peace plan.
That plan proposes full Israeli withdrawal from Arab territory occupied in 1967 in exchange for full normalisation of relations between the Arabs and Israel.
Mitchell says that “a comprehensive peace in the region is in the US national interest.” To achieve this end, the US administration seeks to broker parallel talks on the Syrian-Israeli track. While Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is ready to resume talks launched last year under Turkish auspices, Netanyahu has rejected Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights, Damascus’s price for peace.
Regional analysts hold that Netanyahu is on a collision course with the Obama administration and argue that little progress in Arab-Israeli negotiations can be achieved unless he changes his approach.