The Paris peace initiative

The European position towards the Arab-Israeli conflict has traditionally aligned itself with that of Washington.

Even when the Europeans, or some of them, felt that the US was not acting appropriately with respect to the steadily deteriorating situation in the Middle East, caused by repeated failures to adequately deal with the historic conflict, they preferred not to introduce new ideas that could be seen as deviation from the American line.

One possible reason for such pragmatic approach is the Europeans’ awareness that new ideas would not stand any chance of success unless clearly endorsed by Washington.

This is not to suggest that there are major disagreements between the two sides’ positions on the main elements for a possible political settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Any existing differences, however, relate to approach, rather than substance, and yet that is still a significant matter not to be underestimated.

The Palestinians and the Arab states, but not Israel, speak of the two-state solution, a Palestinian state within the 1967 lines, existing in peace besides Israel, guarantees for Israel’s security and Jerusalem as a shared capital.

All sides agree that the relevant UN resolutions, the Madrid 1990 Peace Conference principles, the Quartet’s Road Map, the Arab Peace Initiative — also endorsed by the 56-member Organisation of Islamic Cooperation — and indeed the many other understandings that have been piling up since 1967 should form the basis for a permanent and a final agreement.

The problem is that ever since peace settlement efforts started, after the 1967 war, no amount of international consensus has been able to overcome Israel’s detrimental veto of any attempt to implement the said agreements.

Moreover, Israel has been relentlessly committing actions on the ground — the continued occupation and the illegal construction of settlements — in flagrant defiance of international law, international consensus, UN resolutions, agreed-upon terms of reference for an Arab-Israeli peace, as well as in direct contradiction of Israel’s own long-term interests.

The point on which the American and the European positions diverge is how to deal with the Israeli government’s intransigence.

While Washington has been routinely reluctant to make Israel act responsibly and force it to stop blocking peace efforts, the Europeans, generally, believe that it is in Israel’s interest to facilitate a quick settlement because the offered terms are favourable, because the stalemate is untenable and because the continued occupation and the way the Palestinians are treated is the perfect recipe for perpetual violence, instability and regional chaos.

Although not often articulated, many European states — and indeed some American independent thinkers — do believe that Israel is harming its long-term interests and is missing an historic opportunity by continuing to colonise the land meant for the envisaged Palestinian state, thus rendering the two-state solution, the most favourable formula for Israel, impossible.

It is in line with this approach and within this context that the French initiative for reviving Palestinian-Israeli negotiations was introduced.

Paris has been working hard to convene an international peace conference to restart the moribund talks.

The effort has been rejected by Israel. Washington has been less than enthusiastic.

Although the French have no intention of introducing any new elements to what is generally agreed upon and what is commonly believed to be fully compatible with Israel’s interests, they still had to moderate the meeting’s goals to make the move less objectionable to the Israelis. 

There are reports that the French proposals would tilt even further to Israeli side by eliminating the prospect of having the outcome of the conference endorsed by a Security Council resolution, and by putting new elements on the table for possible endorsement, such as the recognition of Israel as a so-called Jewish state and the abolition of the right of return of the Palestinian refugees.

If this turns out to be the case, it would only mean further loss of Palestinian rights, without any prospect for getting nearer to a possible settlement.

Israel would be very happy to further reduce the ceiling of legitimate Palestinian rights while maintaining its extremist rejectionist position.

Despite any realistic precautions, the Palestinian Authority has welcomed the French initiative all along. And so did a meeting of the Arab League foreign ministers in Cairo last Saturday.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas did, however, reiterate the standard position of a two-state solution and a Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital, on the 1967 lines with alterations.

He also affirmed that he would not recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

It is hard to predict the outcome of the Paris meeting, due at the end of this week.

The meeting, which will not include representatives from Israel or the PA, but will be held with wide participation of Arab, European, US and other foreign ministers, plans to prepare for an international conference in autumn to revive the stalled talks between Israelis and Palestinians.

I personally see no hope of any possible progress. Not only because Washington is in no mood to support moves that Israel would likely oppose, and not because the new coalition in Israel is much more extremist than the one preceding it, but because the conference, in the absence of determined political will and a meaningful new approach, will end up further blurring the terms.

Constructive ambiguity may work when good will exists. Good will is not an Israeli attribute.