Future of the Middle East Peace Process

[Ser Reptitious]

Okay, first off, I realize that this topic always conjures up really strong emotions on both sides, often resulting in a flame war that ultimately causes the board moderators to shut down these threads. I am asking all who choose to participate in this thread to please behave like adults (I know that this sounds really condescending, but it has been a problem in the past with these threads) and treat each other with respect, even if you fundamentally disagree with each other.

Perhaps one way to reduce sniping back and forth would be to refrain from making blanket statements about either side, such as "Israel has done/keeps doing abc" or "Palestinians refuse to do xyz". Just like with GRRM's novels, this is a very complex issue with gray characters and entities of varying shades on both sides. Trying to frame this ongoing problem as a black-and-white (or pro- or anti-Israel / pro- or anti-Palestinians) is foolish and utterly unhelpful! So if you criticize the specific entity (such as PM Netanyahu or Hamas) rather than Israel or Palestinians as a whole, this might cut down on a lot of heated rhethoric.

Now then, without further ado, here are my questions:

Where do you see the peace process go from here? Do you think that a lasting peace may be achieved within the next decade or so? If so, what will this peace deal look like? If not, what do you think the consequences of failure will be?

As for myself, I traveled through both Israel and the West Bank for ten days just before Christmas, talking to locals on both sides of the 'divide' (including our esteemed boarders Datepalm and Lumer), and here's how I see things:

First of all, there are clearly people on both sides that strongly desire a permanent peace (I would say the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians fall into this category), but there are also radical fringes on both sides that are determined to undermine any peace efforts in whatever way possible.

The entities opposed to a peace deal on the pro-Palestinian side, IMO, are: Hezbollah (whose entire raison d'être would disappear if there is peace), a good chunk of Hamas (but not all of it, I believe there are some pragmatists there as well), various smaller al-Qaeda-style fanatical groups, and various autocratic Middle Eastern regimes (for whom the ongoing conflict is a convenient distraction of their populations from their own shortcomings).

The entities opposed to a peace deal on the Israeli side, IMO, are: The radical settlers and a good chunk of the Ultra-orthodox, Avigdor Lieberman and his Yisrael Beiteinu party, and (probably) the majority of Likud, including Benjamin Netanyahu.

(For the record, when I mean "opposed to peace" I mean that their version of a peace deal would be so one-sided and far removed from being even remotely acceptable from a mainstream perspective that they are effectively anti-peace.)

When I traveled through the area, I saw both things that very much encouraged me and things that also strongly discouraged me.

What encouraged me was the complete absence of violence or any feelings of insecurity wherever I went. I never felt that boarding a bus might be dangerous, nor venturing about in the West Bank. The Palestinians that I have talked with have given me a sense that they have come to the realization that world opinion is likely to favour them more if they carry on their struggle for nationhood in non-violent ways, and so many of them now seem to seek inspiration from such leaders as Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King. Even Hamas has stopped firing rockets for the time being. It is to be hoped that the longer they stop, the more reluctant they may be to start up again (since their own population might no longer support such a move). These are the encouraging developments.

What strongly discouraged me were the settlements. Those may sound like old news, but I had no idea how critical the situation has become in that regard. I think many people in the West (myself included, before I traveled there) think of the settlements as few and far-flung, small islands among a vast Palestinian sea, not that difficult to remove once a final peace deal has been reached. Unfortunately this perception couldn't be further from the truth: There are now anywhere between 400,000 and 500,000 settlers living in the West Bank (roughly 200,000 of which live in settlements surrounding East Jerusalem) among approximately 2.3 million Palestinians, and the current settler-friendly Likud government keeps rapidly expanding the settlements closest to Jerusalem in order to create "facts on the ground" that will make it very difficult (if not down-right impossible, which is presumably the goal) of making East Jerusalem the capital of a future Palestinian state. The Obama administration has rightly identified as a key issue regarding the peace process, and its apparent climb-down in the face of Netanayahu's resistance is therefore all the more disappointing!

The thing is, it's not just the settlements themselves, but also the (fairly) arrow-straight roads that connect them all to Israel proper that are a big part of the problem. Palestinian vehicles (marked with white licence plates, as opposed to yellow Israeli ones) are not allowed to travel on these roads (nor are they allowed to enter Israel proper, for that matter). They have to travel on Palestinian-only roads that often have to detour for miles around these "settlement roads". Driving from Bethlehem, a suburb of Jerusalem, to Ramallah, on the other side of (East) Jerusalem used to take about 20 minutes (outside of rush hour, obviously). Now, due to the separation wall and the expanding settlements, the trip takes over an hour and a half for Palestinians.

Further, these "settlement roads" are also fenced off with electric fences that contain a lethally high voltage, making it impossible (again, without a lenthy detour) for Palestinians to travel from the one side to the other. If you are a farmer and part of your land is on the other side, you're simply shit out of luck!

As a result, the West Bank is being cut into little pieces, making the formation of a continuous Palestinian state increasingly difficult to build. Soon, it may be completely impossible. This may all sound very depressing, and trust me, I felt very discouraged when I saw all this with my own eyes.

So here's how I would answer my own questions:

1. Where do you see the peace process go from here?

Nowhere at the moment, unless the U.S. becomes more involved again. Obama sounded all the right notes (to Palestinian ears, anyways) in his Cairo speech, but he has become distracted by domestic issues (health care, the economy). Netanyahu is quite happy to keep the status quo going, since it allows the settlers (who are a crucial part of his coalition government) to keep on building. Abbas and the Palestinians refuse to go back to the table unless there is a complete settlement freeze (I personally agree with that position).

2. Do you think that a lasting peace may be achieved within the next decade or so?

That will depend on U.S. involvement and possibly a change of government in Israel. Of course, it will also depend on the Palestinians finding a way to end the feud between Fatah and Hamas, and for Hamas to be refrain from obstructing any serious peace negotiations when they finally do happen.

A separate peace agreement between Syria and Israel is also a crucial component, since such an agreement would eliminate Syrian santuary and support for Hezbollah, which could considerably weaken that entity's ability to sabotage serious peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians with violent actions (rocket firing, suicide bombers, etc.)

There is a slight chance (I'm going to be optimistic and say 30%) that a permanent deal may be reached within the next decade. I think Obama's Cairo speech has built up enough street cred among the Palestinians that they would see his administration as an honest broker. This is very, very crucial. So it depends on how focused said aministration will be on achieving a peace deal, and to what length it is willing to strong-arm a rather reluctant Netanyahu.

To be blunt, I think both sides have the capability to destroy any chance at peace, but only Israel and America have a real chance to make a peace agreement work. The Palestinians (particularly Fatah, which has already recognized Israel's right to exist and has renounced violence) have no real bargaining chips left to offer, so only Israel's goodwill and international pressure will create a successful solution.

3. If so, what will this peace deal look like?

There's only two options: (1) Two states created among the pre-1967 Green Line, or (2) one state encompassing all of Israel and Palestine, but with Palestinians obtaining full citizenship rights. But of course the latter would mean the end of Israel as a predominantly jewish state.

4. If not, what do you think the consequences of failure will be?

I think Israel would risk becoming a pariah state along the lines of pre-1989 South Africa. While expelling all or most Palestinians from the territory (as the radical settlers would like) is simply unthinkable (America would never support such a move nor would most Israelis), the current situation cannot continue indefinitely either. Sooner or later the Palestinians would return to violence in desperation, if no peace deal seems to be forthcoming. Terrorism against Israel and its citizens abroad would rise, and things in the whole region would likely get seriously nasty. I don't even really wanna think about where traveling down this road would lead...

Anways, that's my view. What's yours? (Oh and apologies for the lengthy post)

[The Stranger]

too long to respond to all of it. A single point:

that is a grave misrepresentation of Hezbollah.

ETA: perhaps more accurately, it is a grave oversimplification of Hezbollah.

[Werthead]

1. Where do you see the peace process go from here?

Until a new, more moderate Israeli government gets in or the USA drags Israel back to the negotiating table through serious pressure (such as threatening to end the USA's military exports to Israel), I don't see it going anywhere. As you say, Fatah and the West Bank Palestinians have essentially gone as far as they possibly can in the form of concessions to Israel.

It is possible that the more pragmatic elements of Hamas will assume control of the party and will agree to recognise Israel's right to exist and abandon their desire to push Israel into the sea, which could lead to the lifting of the siege of Gaza. If that happened Hamas would likely shatter and the more extreme elements of the party would break off and continue military activities (shades of the IRA/Real IRA/Continuity IRA). If the core of the group remained intact and, vitally, in charge of the Strip, that might still be seen as progress. However, I think we are still some years away from that becoming a reality. Hamas' pragmatic/practical members do not seem to be in the majority as yet.

2. Do you think that a lasting peace may be achieved within the next decade or so?

Anything is possible, but with the current Israeli government, I would say it is unlikely.

3. If so, what will this peace deal look like?

There is only one option: two states created along the 1967 borders. The Palestinians have climbed down from several previous positions and the 1967 border is their last line in the sand.

Furthermore, I see no evidence that the Palestinians will accept limitations on their sovereignty, meaning that Israel will have no say in Palestine's internal affairs. That means if Palestine wants an army, they can have one, and if they want to open their doors to ex-refugees scattered across the world, they can do so. Netanyahu's idea that Palestine can exist as a joke state with Israel basically deciding its foreign policy is ridiculous. No country in the world would accept being so limited, and I see no reason why Palestine would either.

However, it is possible, if unlikely, that the Palestinians would accept a limited timeframe (say, ten years maximum), between the formation of the state and it forming its own army and allowing refugees back, to create a 'buffer time' in which Palestine and Israel can learn to cooperate.

The settlements are a big problem and getting bigger. The peace deal will likely call for their full dismantling and removal, which the settlers will not accept (I've seen interviews with some of these people and they - quite honestly - believe it is God's will they are on that land and they will not be moved by anyone), and I think it is safe to say that the settlers will not accept coming under the authority of a Palestinian government. Since Israel will not abandon them to their fate, that situation looks like an impasse.

On the Jerusalem question, I think the most logical answer is to make Tel Aviv the official Israeli capital, Ramallah the Palestinian one and hold Jerusalem as an open city between the two. I don't think either side would accept that either.

4. If not, what do you think the consequences of failure will be?

More blood, more violence, more wars and more killing. Fatah has so far followed the USA's lead in going down the diplomatic and peaceful route and seen very little return on that investment. I would be concerned that extremist and hardline elements in the West Bank might well make a new bid for power if Fatah continues to fail to make meaningful progress with Israel, plunging the situation back to where it was ten years ago.

[Ser Reptitious]

The Stranger,

too long to respond to all of it. A single point:

that is a grave misrepresentation of Hezbollah.

ETA: perhaps more accurately, it is a grave oversimplification of Hezbollah.

Fair enough, I concede that Hezbollah is the one entity in this whole mess that I probably know least about. Could you please let me know how and where you see them fitting into the whole peace process (if at all)?

[The Stranger]

Fair enough, I concede that Hezbollah is the one entity in this whole mess that I probably know least about. Could you please let me know how and where you see them fitting into the whole peace process (if at all)?

Briefly, over the past decade they have also morphed into the biggest, strongest, most effective domestic political force in Lebanon, and the vast majority of their energies go towards achieving domestic political ends at this point--as they always have, actually. they are very good at rhetorically bashing Israel, and the continued occupation of several minute pieces of Lebanese territory by Israel gives them what they describe as a casus belli, but their interventions in Israel have been sporadic, if sometimes horrifically violent, most notably the events which instigated what, in as neutral language as I am willing to use, was a criminally disproportionate war against Lebanon in 2006. This is not to discount the fact that they occasionally do attack Israel though, and are thus most definitely armed aggressors in their own right.

that said, their role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is a tenuous one, except insofar as they are indeed deeply involved in the strange relationship between Israel, Syria, and Iran.

[Datepalm]

The Stranger,

Fair enough, I concede that Hezbollah is the one entity in this whole mess that I probably know least about. Could you please let me know how and where you see them fitting into the whole peace process (if at all)?

My off the top of my head impression of Hizballah is that they're more interested in Lebanese politics than in Israeli/Palestinian ones these days. Which isn't to say they've washed their hands of us, but more that their stance towards Israel is part of something wider.

[Guest Raidne]

I suppose I'll bite, but I don't really have anything additional to offer.

1. Where do you see the peace process go from here?

Nowhere.

2. Do you think that a lasting peace may be achieved within the next decade or so?

It depends what you mean by "peace." I don't think any desirable solution is going to be reached in the next decade, no.

4. If not, what do you think the consequences of failure will be?

I think Israel will be viewed like you describe, possibly, and the Palestinians will continue to live as second-class citzens.

Real efforts have been made to reach a compromise in the past, and neither side is willing to give as much as they need to for any compromise to be reached. I guess if we throw a little negotiation theory in there, we'd say that the best alternative for a negotiated settlement, for the Israelis, is to basically go on like they have been. So no real incentive there. Even if the Palestinians step up the violence, I would ask how many Israelis really believe that the Palestinians would be happy enough with any negotiated agreement that there would be any guarantee of the violence stopping then, either. For the Palestinians, you'd think nearly any agreement would be better than the situation now, but historically these agreements have had the ring of total finality, and so the powers that be have been hesitant to agree to anything that they would view as more of a starting point.

Maybe if it were explicitly acknowledged that any agreement reached is just one step along a path with scheduled opportunities to renegotiate the peace effort would be more successful.

Those are my thoughts. Generally I stay out of these threads, so I have no idea what ground we've tread before, etc., but will in the spirit of the OP try my best to not be an ass.

[Shryke]

Until a new, more moderate Israeli government gets in or the USA drags Israel back to the negotiating table through serious pressure, I don't see it going anywhere.

Exactly. The only way any progress will be made is if Israel moderates it's stance or if the US forces them to do so. And neither of these is gonna happen. The political realities of both countries make it pretty much a non-starter.

What are the consequences of this?

More and more killing and violence and all that shit. Until something fundamentally changes in the situation (Palestinians are finally crushed/killed/pushed off the land/etc, change in Israeli or US political situation, alien invasion, etc)

I think Israel would risk becoming a pariah state along the lines of pre-1989 South Africa.

Not likely. They've won the PR war for years on this issue. Why would this chance all of a sudden?

[Ser Reptitious]

The Stranger and Datepalm,

Briefly, over the past decade they have also morphed into the biggest, strongest, most effective domestic political force in Lebanon, and the vast majority of their energies go towards achieving domestic political ends at this point--as they always have, actually. they are very good at rhetorically bashing Israel, and the continued occupation of several minute pieces of Lebanese territory by Israel gives them what they describe as a casus belli, but their interventions in Israel have been sporadic, if sometimes horrifically violent, most notably the events which instigated what, in as neutral language as I am willing to use, was a criminally disproportionate war against Lebanon in 2006. This is not to discount the fact that they occasionally do attack Israel though, and are thus most definitely armed aggressors in their own right.

that said, their role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is a tenuous one, except insofar as they are indeed deeply involved in the strange relationship between Israel, Syria, and Iran.

My off the top of my head impression of Hizballah is that they're more interested in Lebanese politics than in Israeli/Palestinian ones these days. Which isn't to say they've washed their hands of us, but more that their stance towards Israel is part of something wider.

Well I guess that's good news then, in a way. I suppose this means that Hezbollah is less likely to be an active obstacle to any serious peace negotiations that I had feared.

Shryke,

Not likely. They've won the PR war for years on this issue. Why would this chance all of a sudden?

Because in the past the Palestinians tried much harder to achieve their aims through violence and terror. When the evening news in the West is covered with stories of average Israelis going about their mundane daily tasks (such as riding a bus) and suddenly being blown to bits, it's hard not feel sympathetic. It also completely overshadowed the settlement problem.

But if the Palestinians continue to refrain from violence, the settlers' determined continued push to expand the settlements will encounter little to no sympathy in the rest of the world.

In addition, I think the Palestinians have come to recognize the importance of PR much more in recent years and are seeking through tourism and other means to get their side of the story out there.

[Lummel]

The problem I see is not reaching a formal settlement but that the populations of Israel and Palestine are increasing while land and water resources are at best static. Competition for land and water will re-enforce exisiting tensions and create new ones unless the economies of both sides can diversify. I suppose it is possible for Palastine to re-invent itself as the world centre for Islamic banking and financial services but it is not a short term solution for their material condition.

If Israel and Palestine can maintain a functioning relationship then they don't have to make a formal peace. Trying to make a formal peace due to the range of ideological shibboleths for each side is going to be risky for any politican, the safe option for both sides is going to be to fudge the issue. I can't imagine a peace deal re-establishing the 1967 boundaries as being politically possible - rehouse 500,000 people from a population of 7.5 million (according to Wikipedia estimate)? Compensate 500,000 citizens with voting rights for loosing their homes in the settlements?

[Datepalm]

Well I guess that's good news then, in a way. I suppose this means that Hezbollah is less likely to be an active obstacle to any serious peace negotiations that I had feared.

Not necessarily. They don't have even the responsibilty Hamas does towards reality and can keep a very extremist line with no pressure to change and no consequences. If peace with hamas look eminent to break out (hypothetically), Hizballah can launch a couple rockets at the northern border and destroy all public support for it.

[Werthead]

I think Israel would risk becoming a pariah state along the lines of pre-1989 South Africa.

Not likely. They've won the PR war for years on this issue. Why would this chance all of a sudden?

Not sure what you mean here. Israel has been steadily losing the PR war for the last decade, and a fair number of people even in the West amongst Israel's traditional allies now view Israel's actions with growing hostility and scepticism. If the situation continues, Israel will quite easily become the new South Africa. It's probably not too many years away from it now.

[Lummel]

I suspect your divergent views on Israel's international reputation probably fairly reflect that international opinion is divided!

Hard to imagine that Israel could become as isolated as South Africa was given the changes in the international situation since the 1990s.

[Shryke]

Not sure what you mean here. Israel has been steadily losing the PR war for the last decade, and a fair number of people even in the West amongst Israel's traditional allies now view Israel's actions with growing hostility and scepticism. If the situation continues, Israel will quite easily become the new South Africa. It's probably not too many years away from it now.

And none of this is in any way that effects the political situation.

[Werthead]

And none of this is in any way that effects the political situation.

Except that Israel's strongest allies, who once just gave them a nod and a wink to do whatever they wanted to do, now fiercely criticise their every action. That is definitely having an impact on the political situation. Unfortunately, it seems to be giving rise to a siege mentality and making the Israelis dig their heels in and refusing to listen to any advice at all on how to proceed, which isn't a positive effect, but it is nevertheless an effect.

[The Stranger]

Not necessarily. They don't have even the responsibilty Hamas does towards reality and can keep a very extremist line with no pressure to change and no consequences. If peace with hamas look eminent to break out (hypothetically), Hizballah can launch a couple rockets at the northern border and destroy all public support for it.

except for having huge swaths of their country annihilated with internationally banned weapons in 2006. that is interesting what you say about Israeli public opinion, though: are the different groups really conflated like this whenever an incident occurs?

as for Israel's PR health, the 2006 invasion of Lebanon was partly striking to me because of the American media's reaction to it--even the mainstream dogs like CNN spent a significant amount of time musing over whether or not it was a reasonable response on the part of Israel to target large civilian areas while claiming to be fighting Hezbollah, which for the American press amounts to seeing live footage of a purple unicorn.

Anecdotally, my mother was an interesting example of this phenomenon and it's aftermath; she's a fairly middle of the road woman with pretty neutral views on international politics, with the exception of her disgust with the Bush Wars. that said, when CNN actually started showing footage of civilian casualties in Tyre and Sidon (another unicorn moment) she became absolutely livid with the Israeli treatment of civilians, particularly children. IIRC by the end of "hostilities" support for Israel was at its lowest ebb ever in the US according to Zogby polling.

[Kouran]

Anyone who expects Israel to give up the Golan Heights is just crazy. Without the radar stations on the Golan Israel has less than 2 minutes of response time for a ballistic missile attack. With the Golan Heights they have about 6 minutes.

Any nation with any sense will not volunteer to be 2 minutes to Midnight when there is an alternative.

[The Stranger]

Anyone who expects Israel to give up the Golan Heights is just crazy. Without the radar stations on the Golan Israel has less than 2 minutes of response time for a ballistic missile attack. With the Golan Heights they have about 6 minutes.

Any nation with any sense will not volunteer to be 2 minutes to Midnight when there is an alternative.

actually the IDF chief of staff under the last PM said that current technology made much of the Golan's vaunted strategic position unnecessary.

ETA: damn, i'm not finding the article about this that i read a while back. meh, take it as anecdotal til i can.

[the silent speaker]

The settlements are a big problem and getting bigger. The peace deal will likely call for their full dismantling and removal, which the settlers will not accept

I think this is a more complicated issue than that. You are, after all, talking about creating a country with an express policy of "Jew-free zone". We do not tolerate this in any other democracy.

No one, to my knowledge, has even proposed as an offer to have the settlements stay there with Palestinian citizenship. (I agree that most settlers would not accept that, but I think some would; after all, the sanctity is in the land, not the Knesset.) But suppose, hypothetically, such an offer were made to and accepted by the Israeli government and the settlers; does anyone here think they would be left alone in peace? I don't. I think there would be large-scale attacks on these new Palestinian citizens in a matter of weeks.

[Shryke]

Except that Israel's strongest allies, who once just gave them a nod and a wink to do whatever they wanted to do, now fiercely criticise their every action. That is definitely having an impact on the political situation. Unfortunately, it seems to be giving rise to a siege mentality and making the Israelis dig their heels in and refusing to listen to any advice at all on how to proceed, which isn't a positive effect, but it is nevertheless an effect.

Or, basically, it's not having an effect on anyone who matters in anyway that matters.