It is simply implausible that Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is under the illusion that his Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu, is both willing and capable of achieving a just peace. Yet, he is relentless in pushing forward, feeding into the misconception that some magical breakthrough is possible at any minute.
Forget about the fact that the reality on the ground — colony expansion, growingly entrenched military occupation and such — all point to the foretold conclusion that Israel’s peace lingo is a mere craft that is inconsistent with reality. Just read Israeli media to realise how impossible this peace task is. Israel’s Deputy Defence Minister Danny Danon, along with other members of Netanyahu’s rightwing Likud party, are waging a total war against any possibility of a Palestinian state, let alone the simplest of ‘concessions.’
Not that Netanyahu needs much convincing, for he has been an obstacle in the way of anything that resembles a peaceful resolution to the conflict. But to imagine that a right-wing leader is viewed as a possible compromiser by the very people he hand-picked to be deputy ministers, including Danon, conveys that Israel’s appetite for peace is nil.
The Americans are not helping the situation either.
To understand how thoughtless the US latest ‘peace process’ drive has been, one only needs to consider some of the characters involved in this political theatre. One particular character that stands out as a testament to the inherently futile exercise is Martin Indyk.
Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, was selected by Secretary of State John Kerry for the role of the Special Envoy for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority. Under normal circumstances, Kerry’s selection would appear somewhat rational. Former ambassadors oftentimes possess the needed expertise to navigate challenging political landscapes in countries where they previously served. But these are not normal circumstances, and Indyk is hardly a diplomat in the strict use of the term.
As the US-sponsored peace process began to falter, Kerry made a peculiar move by dispatching his envoy Indyk to occupied Jerusalem. On Friday, April 18, Indyk took on the task of speaking to both sides separately. International media depicted the event as a last-ditch effort to revive the talks, and to help bridge the gap between Abbas and Netanyahu. The envoy visit took place a day after intense and difficult talks were reported to have occurred between Israeli and PA negotiators. “No breakthrough was made,” an official Palestinian source told AFP of the Thursday meeting.
It was not that any progress was expected. Both sides are not talking about resolving the conflict per se, but the deliberations were mostly concerned with deferring Kerry’s deadline for a ‘framework agreement’ passed April 29.
The Americans want to maintain the charade for reasons other than peace. Without a ‘peace process’ the US will be denied an important political platform in the Middle East. US administrations have bestowed upon themselves the title ‘honest broker’. Of course, it takes no particular genius to realise that the Americans were hardly honest in their dealings with both parties. In fact, the US was not a third party at all, but was and remains steadfast in the Israeli camp. It used its political and financial leverage as a platform that allowed it to advance Israeli interests first, and their own interests second. Indyk is an example.
Martin Indyk, the prospective harbinger of peace, worked for the pro-Israeli lobby group AIPAC in 1982. AIPAC is a rightwing outlet that has invested unlimited unds and energy to impede any just and peaceful resolution to the conflict. It has such a strong grip over US Congress to the extent that some have suggested that Capitol Hill has become, in a sense, an occupied territory by Israel and its allies. Indyk’s most important contribution to Israel, however, was the founding of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) in 1985, another Israeli lobby outlet that has done tremendous damage to the credibility of US foreign policy in the Middle East by using fraudulent ‘intellectuals’ and ‘experts’ as mediums.
But that is still not enough for Israel. As perplexing as this may sound, Danon is accusing Kerry of “double standards”. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post, published on April 19, Danon attacked Kerry for asking the Israelis to hold true to their earlier commitment of releasing a few Palestinian prisoners. “Kerry is asking us to release murderers. He’s saying our blood is cheaper than that of the Americans who were killed in Boston. The only words to describe this is [sic] a ‘double standard.’”
The interesting fact is that Kerry has gone where no other top American diplomat has. Kerry’s new peace agenda is not entirely a rehash of older agendas. Yes, it is that too, but it almost completely embraces the once far-fetched ideas of Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and rightwing groups, which is that of annexations of main colony blocs. When Lieberman floated these ideas a few years ago, he sounded like a deranged politician. Thanks to Kerry, it is now part of mainstream thinking.
The fact that Israeli officials are continuing to disparage Kerry, and admonish their own right-wing prime minister, would lead one to conclude that Israel is in no mood for peace.
Another deputy minister, Ze’ev Elkin, who is Liberman’s deputy, is as ultranationalist as they come. In a recent interview with The Economist, Elkin renewed his rejection of a Palestinian state. There is nothing new here, but one statement stood out: “these days”, said Elkin with a chuckle, the West Bank is “the most stable part of the Middle East”.
The bewilderment would stem from the fact that the West Bank is an occupied Palestinian territory. Its population is held at gunpoint; they have no freedom, and enjoy no rights. Needless to say, the West Bank should not be stable.
Instead, Palestinians should be leading their own revolution until they achieve their full rights and freedom. This is not a call for violence, but a natural human course. However, Palestinians are not rebelling. Many factors are holding them back, one of which is the very Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. Its troops are in constant ‘security coordination’ with Israel. Its ‘elite forces’ are trained by US generals and Arab armies. The PNA’s mission is not to liberate Palestine, but to ensure the subservience of the Palestinians while Israel carries on with a colonial project that has extended for decades.
This is why Israel continues to dictate the terms, not just in their dealings with Abbas, but also with the Americans as well; and this is why Abbas is a willing partner in this charade. He has a role to play, including that of ensuring the continued ‘stability’ of the West Bank. While Israel is in no mood for peace, Abbas is in no mood to challenge this stifling paradigm.
— Ramzy Baroud is the Managing Editor of Middle East Eye. He is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story” (Pluto Press, London).