fbpx

Analysis

BICOM Analysis: A renewed peace process?

[ssba]

Last week, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in the Prime Minister’s Jerusalem Residence.  The meeting was intended to contribute to the formulation of a joint declaration of principles by Israel and the PA on the resolution of the ‘core issues’ of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  This hoped-for declaration is then intended to serve as the basis for the agenda of the planned international peace conference to take place in Washington in November.

A sense of cautious hope and determination may be discerned in both the Olmert and Abbas camps regarding the chance of a successful outcome to the current renewed diplomatic process between Israelis and Palestinians.  Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has been identified as the real driving force behind the renewed Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, is understood to share this upbeat sense of possibility.  Beyond the immediate circles around these three figures, however, optimism appears to be in much shorter supply.  So are there any grounds for the optimism?  What, if anything, has taken place to justify it? And how does the sense of both Olmert and Abbas as leaders with only a somewhat precarious hold over their own respective camps factor into this situation?

Factors underlying the revival of the diplomatic process

The US

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been the key driving force behind the current move to revive Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy.  Her motivations for doing so may be found in regional considerations.[i] The emergence of a pro-US constellation of powers – Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan most prominent among them – and the importance these countries attach to the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, have the potential to create a momentum toward a renewed peace process, Rice believes.  As evidence, she may point to the recent Arab League delegation that visited Israel, and the Saudi announcement of its intention to participate in the upcoming conference.[ii]  President Bush is considered to be far more sceptical concerning the likelihood of progress, and the possibility of international mediation playing a decisive role in the solution to the conflict.  This explains the relatively low expectations outlined by Bush in announcing the international conference – namely, that it should help the Palestinians in institution-building and encourage Israeli-Palestinian dialogue.[iii]

Israel

Many analysts in Israel identified the initial impetus behind the Olmert government’s interest in a revived Israeli-Palestinian negotiating process as deriving from the Olmert government’s need for a discernible agenda.  The ruling Kadima party came into being as a result of the ferment in the Likud around the issue of the disengagement from Gaza.   The party was seen as standing for a new strategy of unilateralism.   Ehud Olmert was the Israeli politician most associated with this strategy, and on becoming prime minister, he announced a plan for further unilateral withdrawals on the West Bank (the ‘convergence plan’).

Subsequent events in Gaza, however, and last year’s war in Lebanon, are seen as having discredited unilateralism.  Pioneering a revived negotiating process with the PA offers an opportunity for Olmert to fill the policy void left by the eclipse of unilateralism.   Some observers also note the Winograd Committee investigation into the Lebanon War, which is due to present its final report next year. The prime minister is known to be concerned that the final report may be harshly critical of his performance.  He may consider that close involvement with a fruitful diplomatic process may offer him a good position from which to resist calls for his resignation.

More substantively, the prime minister is known to be satisfied with the positive, workmanlike atmosphere of his meetings with Abbas.  The new PA government of Salam Fayyad is believed by the prime minister to be genuinely interested in progress.  The prime minister has a sense of urgency, believing that Israel has about a year in which to make progress.  He is known to be concerned at the possibility of an eventual Hamas takeover in the West Bank in the absence of progress, and at the more immediate danger of a renewal of Hamas or Islamic Jihad terror attacks in Israel.

Elsewhere among senior figures in the Cabinet, there is again greater scepticism.  Defence Minister Ehud Barak has expressed his belief that there is little chance of substantive progress given the weakness of the PA government in the West Bank.[iv] While Barak and Olmert broadly agree in terms of their preferred solution to the conflict, Barak is understood to be in the process of re-building his political image as a pragmatic, security-minded leader.  The Defence Ministry offers him the perfect venue for this, and Barak’s scepticism toward the current process is not expected to mean Labour’s departure from the coalition in the near future.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is also cautioning against excessive optimism, given the weakness of the Palestinian leadership.  Livni is known to be focusing attention on the fact that while Israel may make significant concessions on key issues such as Jerusalem, the government of Fayyad is too weak, and lacks the internal legitimacy to make similar concessions on such issues as the refugees of 1948.[v]

The Palestinians

It is generally accepted that the commitment of PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and Chairman Abbas to a two-state outcome to the conflict is sincere. However, many questions remain regarding the ability of the PA government to deliver:

First and foremost, the fact that a rival Palestinian government rules in Gaza – and Hamas leaders have already condemned the current diplomatic process and the planned November conference, declaring them to represent a betrayal of the Palestinian interest.  Even within his own Fatah movement, however, Abbas is seen as a leader lacking in authority.  He has already announced that he will not be standing again for the leadership.  Fatah remains riven with disunity and division, and no substantive moves toward desperately-needed internal reforms have begun.[vi]

The movement is divided between the ‘old guard’ leaders who accompanied Yasser Arafat from Tunis, and younger local leaders such as Mohammed Dahlan and Marwan Barghouti.  These camps are themselves divided, however, and more importantly, Abbas possesses firm authority in no camp. He has failed to persuade veteran Tunis-based Fatah officials such as Abu Maher Ghnaim and Farouk Kaddumi to back him and return to the West Bank – and they are opposed to the current attempt to revive the peace process.[vii] Younger Fatah activists, meanwhile, are impatient for reform and scathing in their criticism of the veteran leadership’s refusal to make way for younger leaders.  An editorial in the official PA newspaper al-Hayat al-Jadida last week by Hafez Barghouti represented this view.  Mohammed Dahlan’s return to Ramallah last week may presage further internal strife.

The obvious weakness of Abbas thus raises legitimate questions regarding his ability to make the bold moves –  including inevitable compromises on such issues as the ‘right of return’ which are vital to the success of any negotiation process.

Conclusion

Behind the scenes, one may find very wide scepticism regarding the chances of real progress on the basis of negotiations between the Olmert and Abbas administrations.  Some European diplomats speaking off the record regard Abbas as lacking authority to deliver on core issues – and a common expectation is of the growth of Hamas strength in the West Bank in the near to medium term.[viii] This sense of the weakness of the PA leadership as precluding likely progress is shared by circles around Foreign Minister Livni and Defence Minister Barak.

The Olmert government is also widely considered to lack the authority to force through Israeli concessions – although the Israeli opposition is currently seen as weak and lacking the ability to draw out large public support.

Yet the determination and optimism of the US secretary of state, the Israeli prime minister and the PA chairman and prime minister is unmistakable, and genuine. This has already proved sufficient to inaugurate a renewed negotiating procedure between the two sides.   Whether this new peace process will prove able to deliver substantive results on peace as well as on process remains more open to doubt.

 


[i] Helene Cooper, “As her star wanes, Rice tries to re-shape legacy,” New York Times, 1/9.  http://www.nytimes.com

[ii] Aluf Benn and Shmuel Rosner, “They’re talking: Who’s listening?” Haaretz, 31/8.  http://www.haaretz.com

[iii] Ibid. 

[iv] Ya’acov Katz, “Analysis: Barak has already shown he is tougher than Peretz,” Jerusalem Post, 23/8.  http://www.jpost.com

[v] Barak Ravid, “Livni warns Rice: Summit could fail due to unreasonable goals,” Haaretz, 2/9.  http://www.haaretz.com

[vi] Khaled Abu Toameh, “Muhammad Dahlan returns to Gaza,” Jerusalem Post, 21/8.  http://www.jpost.com

[vii] Ibid. 

[viii] Interview with British diplomat.