BEIRUT — By a fascinating coincidence, within the span of just days next Monday to Wednesday, March 27-29, three separate political events will take place that may well clarify the direction in which the Arab-Israeli conflict will move in the coming years. The Palestinian government headed by Hamas is expected to be approved by parliament Monday and issue its program in detail. The Israeli general election will take place Tuesday as an Arab summit conference opens in Khartoum.
The three events potentially carry equal weight. If all three converge in a constructive, realistic manner, the stage may well be set for movement towards a negotiated, permanent resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The odds of that happening are very slim right now. Yet the majority of Palestinians and Israelis appears to prefer a negotiated settlement rather than attempting military victory or wearing down the other side in a long war of attrition. So we have important signs — if not clarity — from Israel, the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world, that a peaceful resolution of the conflict is preferable and, more importantly, possible, under certain conditions.
The Israeli elections next week are the most important of the three events in terms of revealing whether this region will move towards a negotiated peace or remain deadlocked in low intensity conflict and diplomatic stalemate. The latter option of perpetuating the current status quo, with Israelis unilaterally withdrawing behind their security barrier, indirectly controlling and quietly strangling the Palestinians, is a sure recipe for worse things to happen in the future, as we have learned from similar situations in the past.
The Arab world, since its 2002 summit, has repeatedly offered to coexist with Israel within its 1967 borders, but has elicited no serious interest from Israel or major world powers. So the Arab League’s Khartoum summit is not likely to break new ground or clarify existing positions but only reaffirm the pan-Arab conditional acceptance of living in peace with Israel.
Hamas for its part reflects this same view but in much tougher terms: a sort of Arab summit peace plan with backbone. Hamas leaders have issued a range of statements about coexisting with Israel that are as ambiguous as the range of statements that Israeli governments have made in the past few years about their recognition of Palestinian political and territorial rights. The Hamas position is above all an affirmation that this is a conflict between two parties, and not a unilateral Palestinian war against Israelis or Jews.
Hamas’ election in large part affirms the sense that Israel cannot unilaterally define borders, rules of military engagement, or the nature of political and economic interaction, and neither can Israel and its Western friends demand that Palestinians unilaterally recognize Israeli rights before the Israelis in turn recognize parallel Palestinian rights. Hamas has always built its political credibility and success on being very close to the ground and responsive to its constituents’ sentiments. It now heads a government of Palestinian people of whom 75 percent clearly want a negotiated but fair peace with Israel.
This reality has slowly pushed Hamas, as it pushed Fateh before, to find a way to negotiate with Israel. Hamas, though, will demand a clearer Israeli response on meaningful Palestinian statehood, and a resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem than the ambiguous, disguised colonial control that Israel offered Fateh and Arafat in recent years. In other words, Hamas eventually will accept the 2002 Arab summit peace plan offer to negotiate and coexist with Israel, but only if Israel in turn accepts a full withdrawal to its 1967 borders and a fair resolution of the refugee issue. These are tough but not impossible terms, and of such rigorous stuff are historic reconciliations and peace treaties made.
The missing element remains a clear Israeli commitment to withdraw from all the occupied lands of 1967 and coexist in peace with a viable Palestinian state. The Israeli election Tuesday is important because it provides an opportunity for us to hear the views of the majority in Israel that has always been more reasonable and pragmatic than the national leadership.
The Israeli polls have shown two consistent trends in the past two months: the Kadima Party headed by Ehud Olmert (following Ariel Sharon’s lapse into a coma) has slowly and slightly declined in the eyes of the public, down from nearly 45 to around 37 in the 120-seat parliament. Still, Kadima remains the largest party and is projected to lead a coalition — with Labor at around 20 seats, and Likud around 15 seats.
If the election brings in a Kadima-led centrist coalition the stage could be set for a historic transformation of the Arab-Israeli conflict towards balanced negotiations rather than trends being defined by Israeli unilateral acts based on its own security and colonization priorities. How Israelis interpret their new “centrist” ideology will be critical for future trends of war or peace. If Kadima and its partners devise a new kind of defensive colonization and indirect brutalization of the Palestinians, they will only set the stage for more desperation and war.
If Kadima signals a willingness to make the tough decisions for peace — especially on full withdrawal and refugee rights — it will prompt the Hamas-led Palestinian government to move towards peace negotiations, in the context of a wider Arab willingness to make peace with Israel.
Rami G. Khouri is editor-at-large of the Beirut-based Daily Star, published throughout the Middle East with the International Herald Tribune.
Copyright ©2006 Rami G. Khouri / Agence Global
—————-
Released: 24 March 2006
Word Count: 888
——————-
For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606