Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process
DEVELOPMENTS
In a matter of weeks, President Bush will host the most direct diplomatic initiative in the Israeli Palestinian conflict since he took office. The United States will lead what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has labeled an “international meeting” this November, with the goal of moving the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians forward and laying the groundwork for a future independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Encouraging signs from the Middle East in the past few months have reinvigorated the long-dormant peace process and raised the level of measured optimism among the parties involved. U.S. officials say they are encouraged by the consistent and substantive dialogue between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen). The two leaders persevere towards peace despite political opposition and uncertainty on both sides.
BACKGROUND
History:
Since
Israel declared independence in 1948, its relationship with the Palestinians has been mired in a long and complex conflict. There are essentially three issues policy experts agree must be resolved before any final peace status can be achieved. First, negotiators must agree on the territorial borders and physical make-up of a future Palestinian state. The West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem-territories that Israel conquered from Egypt and Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War-are the subject of contentious legal, historical, and political dispute between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel has occupied much of this area since 1967 and the Palestinians demand withdrawal from all of the land acquired since that time.
Second, the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and, until 2005, the Gaza Strip has been described as a chief obstacle to a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Large numbers of Israeli settlements, or residential communities, have been built since Israel acquired the disputed territory in 1967. The Palestinians, and many international observers, consider the settlements illegal and a violation of international law. Israel believes the settlements are legitimate and President Bush has stated that he does not expect Israel to return entirely to the pre-1967 lines, as a result of the realities on the ground. In 2005, under a proposal put forward by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Israel unilaterally disengaged from the Gaza Strip and all Jewish residents were evacuated from this area.
Finally, the issue of Palestinian refugees must be resolved. The exact number of Palestinians who fled Israel following its creation in 1948 is a subject of vigorous debate. Whether the Palestinians were chased away by Israeli settlers or whether they voluntarily abandoned the land is unsettled in the historical record. When the phrase “right of return” is invoked in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is used to describe Palestinian claims that they are entitled to land within Israel. Most observers agree that an influx of Palestinian refugees would lead to the destruction of the state of Israel because a “right of return” would make Arabs the majority within Israel. Notwithstanding the intense controversy surrounding this sensitive issue, agreement is essential to a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
The peace process has gone through a series of hopeful developments, only to be followed by the resumption of violence and stalemate. In 1993, Israeli and Palestinian leaders engaged in efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict known as the Oslo peace process. During Oslo, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was granted autonomy to govern Palestinian affairs in the Gaza Strip and West Bank in the form of the Palestinian National Authority (PA). In addition, then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat authored a letter recognizing Israel’s right to exist.
In 2000, President Bill Clinton convened a peace summit between Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Although Israel yielded some progress on key terms at Camp David and Taba, a final offer was ultimately turned down by the Palestinians. The Bush Administration’s policy with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict took shape in July 2002, when the quartet – the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia- outlined the principles of a “road map” for peace, including an independent Palestinian state. Since 2002, there has not been a concerted diplomatic effort on the part of the United States to implement the “road map” or take a leadership role in facilitating an end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
Key Palestinian Actors:
Palestinian Authority (PA): The functional government created in the early 1990s by the Palestinian Liberation Organization to govern parts of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
Fatah: A moderate Palestinian political faction that lost power in the Palestinian legislature in 2006 to Hamas. It is supported by the U.S. and Israel.
Hamas: Otherwise known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, arose during the intifada (“the uprising”) in 1987. Hamas has been designated by the United States as a foreign terrorist organization. Hamas is not only the largest and most influential Palestinian militant movement but also a political party. In January 2006, the group won the PA’s general legislative elections, defeating Fatah, the party of the PA’s president, Mahmoud Abbas. Because Hamas views the Arab-Israeli conflict as a religious struggle between Islam and Judaism that can only be resolved by the destruction of the State of Israel, it opposes the current Arab-Israeli peace talks.
Current Situation:
In June 2007, Hamas evicted Fatah security forces from the Gaza Strip and established full control over the territory, imposing an independent governing regime in that area. Meanwhile, Fatah – led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas – has seen its authority effectively limited to the West Bank.
ANALYSIS
The decision by the Bush Administration to finally engage the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and agree to host an international meeting comes during a time of renewed opportunity in the region. There are favorable circumstances in place that many observers believe have created better prospects for peace in the Middle East now than at any time in the last six years.
In the view of the United States and the European Union, with Hamas outside of the Palestinian government – rather than as a political plank within the Palestinian government – the Israelis have a legitimate negotiating partner in the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority. Many also believe the Israelis will find the circumstances conducive for negotiating peace with the Palestinians. The Israelis clearly do not want a terrorist organization to fill the power vacuum in the West Bank as Hamas has done in the Gaza Strip. Moreover, some have noted that all of the states in the Arab League have offered peace with Israel and official recognition if the conflict with the Palestinians is ended and peace is secured.
Notwithstanding the renewed diplomatic efforts in the Middle East, there are numerous pitfalls that could materialize to derail the peace process and thrust the region back into violence. Many complex challenges remain and many painful concessions will undoubtedly need to be made by both sides before any lasting peace can be achieved. But the upcoming talks renew hope among those who struggle for peace in the Middle East.
Robert Friedman is the Managing Editor of Foreign Policy Digest, a non-resident Fellow at the Georgetown Center on National Security and the Law and a Principal in the Truman National Security Project.
