Negotiations should encompass regional challenges

Friday, Jan 22 2010

The US peace envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, is coming to Beirut, and then on to Damascus and various regional capitals primarily to prepare for the resumption of the Arab-Israeli negotiations. So, what are his chanced of success? Can the envoy bring anything new to the issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict given his experience in matters of negotiation and its challenges from his time as a delegate of the previous American president, George W. Bush? Can there be a breakthrough in the peace process given that Mitchell's tour comes after that by US National Security Adviser, James Jones, who assured in his statement that his tour of the region is part of Obama's desire to revive the peace process in the Middle East in 2010?

Of course, it is too early to talk about the possibility of the success or failure of Mitchell's initiative in achieving breakthroughs in the issue of settlement with the Palestinians. Will Washington step up its efforts or will this attempt see Washington bending to the intransigence of the Israeli Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu. Will the issue revert back to the Quartet Alliance (United States-Russia-European Union-United Nations) as happened during the Bush administration after the attempts of Mitchell failed as did those who came after him during the Bush era such as the Deputy Secretary of US Foreign Affairs in the Middle East, William Burns, the head of the CIA, General George Tenet and others? Will Syrian-Israeli negotiations be revived? Will Ankara return to playing the role of mediator or will the recent crisis between Turkey and Israel affect this issue? In any case, is there anything new in the Obama administration relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict? It seems clear that the Obama administration is in a hurry to deal with this issue and needs to pressure Netanyahu's government to deal with the settlements and to build on the international resolutions relevant to the various areas of conflict. Otherwise, what is currently taking place will simply be a waste of time and effort which will have no result other than to open the way to Israel to impose more of its harsh reality on the ground in Palestine and to keep the sword dangling over the the heads of Lebanon and its people.

The areas of risk are issues such as the status of Jerusalem, the borders, the refugees, the settlements and sovereignty. Various statements have been made, by President Obama, by his Foreign Secretary, Hillary Clinton, as well as by Israeli leaders some of whom were inspired by comments made by the Palestinian leadership, particularly in the phase of the previous negotiations with Olmert. These saw President Abbas appearing to compromise on the right of return for the refugees, the exchange of land, the survival of settlements, the borders, the Judaizing of Jerusalem and the division of the Aqsa mosque and the acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state - as promised by George Bush and agreed on by President Obama - (a state for the Jews only with the subsequent removal of the Palestinian presence there). All of this has repercussions for our country and has ignited various conflicts here in Lebanon.

There is no doubt that there is a confusion in the vision of the Obama administration with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the resumption of negotiations. This confusion unfortunately coincides with the absence of any effective Arab role trying to influence the course of events. Despite Arab desire for a real and serious peace, there has been no response since the launch of the Arab peace initiative in 2002. As for Washington, it seems to be retreating in its stance calling for Netanyahu to freeze settlement activity. Since the meeting between Hillary Clinton and the Arab Foreign Ministers in Washington and the pressure on President Mahmoud Abbas to return to the negotiation table without conditions, there have been repeated statements that the Israeli state is a Jewish state, which serves to write off the right of return which, if not the right of the Palestinians according to Resolution 194, then at least is a minimum requirement for negotiation. Thus, how can it be ignore while it is so clearly a precondition for negotiations?

Is must be noted here that the Arab failure is the most salient feature to confront the Israeli intransigence. This is a failure which not only affects the Palestinians but also opens the way in front of Palestinian civil war if the Palestinians themselves cannot get past these differences and divisions. As for Lebanon, any settlement at the expense of the Palestinian issue and particularly the right of return for the refugees will create dangerous divisions on the Lebanese streets. What is important now is that Israel's plans for a premature return to negotiations on core issues do not succeed – these core issues include keeping the settlements, the dividing wall, the checkpoints, control of Jerusalem and its holy sites, refusing the refugees the right of return, and sovereignty over land, borders and water. These issues cannot be ignored by Washington when it talks of a Palestinian state.

Mitchell's tour of the Middle East calls for a serious Arab stance to emphasize the concept of establishing an independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian lands occupied in 1967 which includes the right of return. The leaders of the three major states did well when they met Mitchell and the US National Security Advisor, James Jones, to deal with Lebanese issues and to raise the demands of the Lebanese people relating to their freedoms, the rejection of US security measures on those travelling from Lebanon to the US and of media issues relating to the banning of certain television channels. The question in both the Arab and Muslim worlds is what will be the mechanisms used by the new American administration in order to establish such a state. What of the systematic destruction which is being undertaken by the Israeli government of the civil society as well as the continuation of the siege on Gaza, the closing of the crossings, the policy of starving the Palestinians, the occupation and settlements, the assassinations, arrests, the dividing wall, the creation of more ghettos in the West Bank, the speeding up of the Judaizing of Jerusalem and the threats to the Aqsa mosque both above ground through tampering and terrorism undertaken by the settlers and below through tunnelling which threaten its foundations?

In conclusion, the challenges being faced by the region with regard to these negotiations should not raise hopes that the current American administration will revive this process in the Middle East in 2010. Rather, the experience over the past few months which witnessed an American retreat on the issue of settlement construction, in addition to a contradiction between the statements of Mitchell and the US Secretary Hillary Clinton show that the fate of the peace process is still very uncertain, particularly in the shadow of the clear militarization which characterizes all of Israel's stances and its behavior towards the region and its people, at the forefront of which is Lebanon.