If Jewish colonies continue to expand across occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank at the current rate, within years there will be no land on which to build a Palestinian state, except one consisting of pocket-sized, non-contiguous parcels. Territorial shrinkage is one of the reasons Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has requested the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution, giving Israel three years to end its occupation, although he knows this step will be futile in practical terms because any such resolution will be automatically vetoed by the US.
At the very least, the vote will keep the idea of a Palestinian state uppermost in people’s minds and will likely prove an embarrassment to US President Barack Obama as his ambassador to the UN will be seen vetoing his government’s own official policy.
Bolstered by the groundswell of pro-Palestinian international public opinion, following Israel’s recent onslaught on Gaza, Abbas seems more assertive and dismissive of US objections to his plans of action. He has denounced “genocidal Israel” in the UN General Assembly, well aware that such undiplomatic terminology would provoke a backlash from Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. However, until now, he has hesitated to join the International Criminal Court in The Hague with a view to holding Israel to account for alleged war crimes. But he still has that card up his sleeve and has threatened to use it in retaliation against a potential US veto of the Palestinian National Authority’s upcoming UN bid.
An eye-for-an-eye is all very well, but it will not bring about Palestinian nationhood. Israel will refuse to cooperate with court-appointed investigators and will simply shrug off the judges’ findings with accusations of anti-Semitism. Just recently, Netanyahu had slammed the UN Human Rights Council for its “biased treatment of Israel”, which he described as a manifestation of “the return of the world’s oldest prejudices”. In any case, Hamas, that has no superpower protector taking care of its back, will be far more vulnerable to prosecution. In truth, tit-for-tat invective and threats cannot and will not produce the desired results. And neither will the same old paradigms for peace trotted out whenever there is a new face in the White House. They have not worked and never will. One of the main obstacles is America’s traditional role as ‘mediator’. The US has never been an impartial intermediary; it is rather an advocate for Israel’s interests. This scenario is scandalous. Two giants holding all the chips lean on the little guy hoping he will submit to their demands. But times they are a changing.
The neighbourhood has never been this dangerous. And as it happens, Israel and a number of Sunni Arab states share the same concerns about a nuclear-armed Iran and militant Sunni extremists. Moreover, Israel is in danger of being considered a pariah state. Later this month, the United Kingdom parliament is set to vote on Britain’s recognition of a Palestinian state, following on the heels of an announcement by the Swedish government that it will officially recognise Palestinian statehood. Lastly, if RIP is said to the concept of two states, then Netanyahu and his successors will have to fend off calls for a single state, which in time, due to a demographic imbalance, will undermine the so-called Jewish state.
A broader rapprochement
In his speech at the UN General Assembly, Netanyahu spoke of new dangers and new opportunities before reaching out to “leading states in the Arab world” (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Jordan) to work towards a constructive partnership with Israel to secure “a more secure, peaceful and prosperous Middle East”. “Many have long assumed that an Israel-Palestine peace can help facilitate a broader rapprochement between Israel and the Arab world. But these days, I think it may work the other way around — namely that a broader rapprochement between Israel and the Arab world may help facilitate an Israeli-Palestinian peace,” he said, adding that he is prepared to make “a historic compromise”.
The very suggestion will be anathema to many throughout the region. Others will point out that the Arab League came up with a generous initiative in 2002 offering Israel full diplomatic relationship with all 22 Arab League member states in return for Israel’s withdrawal to 1967 borders. Israel was not interested 12 years ago, but, today, circumstances have changed and, clearly, Netanyahu is willing to deal. His priority is his country’s security and he may be ready to relinquish pieces for peace, provided he receives security guarantees from Arab states.
Netanyahu has created an opening for Arabs to sideline US mediation and take charge, as Egypt did when it brokered a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. It is time that Arabs and Israelis sit around the same table to hash out a trajectory for peace, bringing benefits not only to Palestinians, but to the region as a whole.
Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be contacted at lheard@gulfnews.com
