There may never be peace

[Spoetnik]

There may never be peace

by Tom Phillips / JULY 18, 2012 / 3 COMMENTS

There may be no happy ending to the Israeli-Palestinian clash, says Britain’s former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Israel

For the last six years I have served as a British ambassador in the Middle East, first to Israel and then to Saudi Arabia. I leave the region with particular sadness that in this period the chances of a solution to the long-running conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians—on which, ultimately, turns the issue of Israel’s acceptance in the region—have grown bleaker. These are my ten rules for why this is the case.

(...)


Rule 9: “The international community has never wanted it enough”

The Palestinian issue has been left unresolved too long. It was not until the 1937 Peel Commission that some British officials had the courage to understand that the full meaning of the 1917 Balfour declaration, and that the only way to meet the national aspirations of the two sides, was a two-state solution. Since 1948, and above all since 1967, international will to push for such an outcome has all too often been lacking, with the Americans in particular only slowly coming to the same realisation of what peace will take, having rejected the European Union’s 1981 Venice declaration, which in many ways started the process of scales falling from international eyes.

If—at least for the foreseeable future—the only alternative to a two-state solution is continuing conflict (see Rule 10), and if such conflict represents, as it does, a threat to wider US and western interests in the region and more widely, then a sustained international drive to achieve a two-state deal should be a no-brainer. But as the experience of the Quartet (the US, UN, EU and Russia) confirms, the Americans are genetically indisposed to move into a genuinely multilateralist mode on this issue; and the EU has failed over the years to translate declaratory clarity into operational strategy and tactics, or to use its potential weight as Israel’s most important export market and economic partner. And both have failed to put their efforts together and link them to a wider regional drive to bolster moderation and contain or constrain the extremists. We should focus on transatlantic agreement on the big carrots which could be deployed to encourage the parties to move in the right direction, and the big sticks which might be necessary if they are reluctant to do so.

The other side of the “we’ve never wanted it enough” coin is that an argument can be made that the international donor community has in effect propped up the Israeli occupation by pumping in aid money which has taken the edge off Palestinian frustration. There are good humanitarian reasons for much of the assistance which has been given, and indeed (more recently) good state-building ones. But I fear the staggering level of international assistance has fostered a widespread dependency culture in Palestinian political life (for all Fayyad’s valiant efforts to reverse it) which has contributed to their leadership problems. Has the time come dramatically to scale down the funds we give the Palestinians, in order to put the full weight of the occupation on Israel, a burden I do not think they would be able to endure given, inter alia, the heavier weight it would mean to a society which needs to think of itself in morally positive terms?

A further question: why isn’t the moderate Arab world more active in pressing its western partners to get its act together and sort this one out? There are many reasons, and just at the moment the pressures of the Arab Spring, the deepening Sunni-Shia divide in the region, and the linked perception of a need to counter an Iranian push for greater regional hegemony, have inevitably pushed the Palestinian issue down on the Arab agenda. But one reason—of which Israel should beware—is the Arab reading that Israel needs a two-state solution more than the Palestinians, and, like the Crusader kingdom, will face eventual extinction if it does not make its peace with the locals rather than continue to rely on its overseas backers (for the US now read Christian Europe then). So the Arabs can wait.

Rule 10: “Failure in the most likely outcome”

This is the most complex conflict I know. And it may already be too late to achieve a two-state solution, even if that would have been the right solution, and the only possible solution. I cannot imagine any American government able to do what is necessary to press the Israelis to take the steps which are ultimately in Israel’s interest. I cannot imagine any Israeli government able to take the steps necessary to rein in the settler movement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem for a sustainable two-state solution to be achieved. I find it hard to imagine any internal Palestinian leadership with the authority to make the compromises on the Right of Return without which no Israeli would support a peace deal. And it’s difficult to envisage any Arab leader ready to translate the Arab Peace Initiative into actionable, supportive activity.

Nor can I imagine any viable alternative to a two-state solution. I don’t think it’s realistic to think of going back to ideas such as a UN Trusteeship for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I don’t believe either side is ready seriously to contemplate an Israel-Palestine federal model, although I am intrigued at the thought of how that might offer a way into the Jerusalem issue—the seat of a federal government serving both parts of the federation. I am intrigued too—but not convinced—by the concept of separate Israeli and Palestinian governments within an overall single state—the “parallel state” model. Nor do I believe it would be feasible, or indeed right, to try to live with the new realities on the ground and offer to pay Egypt and Jordan to soak up Gaza and a rump West Bank, hoping to push the Arab world to accept a version of Greater Israel.

This might be a Jewish and Arab problem, but it is a Greek tragedy. When you put all the above rules together, they mean there cannot be a happy ending. I hope I’m wrong.
There may never be peace


Ik heb de andere 8 punten overgeslagen, maar het artikel is het waard om in z'n geheel te lezen. Het argument dat de internationale gemeenschap in feite betaald voor de bezetting door Israel is een argument dat ik al enkele malen heb gemaakt op dit forum, maar je hoort het maar zelden uitgesproken door een ambtenaar met zijn status. Ik deel zijn pessimisme, maar ik hoop toch dat ze uiteindelijk tot een confederale oplossing kunnen komen.

[mark61]

Natuurlijk. Geen land zou zoveel geld zo maar aan een willekeurig land of gebied in de wereld geven als er niet een kwaad geweten moest worden afgekocht. Tis waanzinnig dat je er nooit iemand over hoort.

[Samir75017]

There can never be peace without Justice.

[super ick]

There can never be peace without Justice.

Klinkt als an eye for an eye

[knuppeltje]

Tja, wat zou het anders zijn dan het in slaap sussen van het eigen geweten.

[Samir75017]

Klinkt als an eye for an eye

No, it sounds logical.

[super ick]

No, it sounds logical.

Ligt er maar aan wat je onder gerechtigheid verstaat.

[mark61]

EU haalt ondanks kritiek op nederzettingen banden met Israël aan

door Carolien Roelants
Buitenland

Na maanden van scherpe kritiek op de Israëlische bezetting van Palestijns gebied gaat de Europese Unie vandaag haar banden met Israël nauwer aanhalen. Op een bijeenkomst in het kader van de Europees-Israëlische Associatieraad worden volgens diplomaten zestig samenwerkingsprojecten gelanceerd.

Het gaat om samenwerking op het gebied van transport en energie als ook om versterking van de banden tussen negen Europese organisaties en Israël, waaronder Europol en de Europese Ruimtevaartorganisatie. De Cyprische minister Erato Kozakou-Marcoullis, die de bijeenkomst leidt, zou onderstrepen dat de EU “met spoed” de nieuwe samenwerking zal uitvoeren.

Europese landen eerder zeer kritisch over nederzettingenpolitiek

Twee maanden geleden leverden de Europese ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken nog scherpe kritiek op Israël wegens zijn nederzettingenpolitiek in bezet Palestijns gebied, die de vorming van een Palestijnse staat naast Israël “onmogelijk” dreigt te maken. In een gedetailleerde verklaring beschuldigde de EU Israël ervan de bouw in nederzettingen te versnellen en zijn controle over bezet Oost-Jeruzalem te verscherpen.

Volgens Europese functionarissen komen de 60 samenwerkingsprojecten voort uit een actieplan uit 2005, en betekenen ze niet een belangrijke “opwaardering” van de onderlinge betrekkingen.

Diplomaten zeiden volgens persbureau AFP dat de boodschap niet erg helder is. “Opnieuw horen we enerzijds kritische woorden, maar gaan de zaken door alsof er niets aan de hand is”. Een diplomaat meende dat de kritische Europese uitspraken over het sinds 2010 vastzittende vredesproces “alleen maar theater” zijn.

EU haalt ondanks kritiek op nederzettingen banden met Israël aan :: nrc.nl

Joh. Oeh wat zijn we kritisch. Schizofrenie rules.

[Saul]

Klinkt als an eye for an eye

Misschien moeten we maar een Joods gezin in jouw achtertuin planten en na verloop van tijd jouw bezittingen aan hen overdragen? Of beter: een allochtoons gezin.

Lekker je eigen minderheden uitmoorden en dan uit schuldgevoel de overgebleven exemplaren dumpen in andermans land.

Weet je hoe een gemiddelde Palestijnse familie zich voelt.