BICOM

Key Points

• The most striking element of the Quartet’s Munich statement was the firm rebuke for unilateral measures by either Israel or the Palestinians. Otherwise, the Quartet took a holding position, in anticipation of meetings with the parties planned for March.
• Israeli confidence-building measures announced last Friday, though largely incremental, include the revival of the Palestinian offshore gas project as well as other infrastructure projects that will increase Gaza’s self sufficiency. This potentially has major long-term significance.
• All sides are assessing domestic political developments in Egypt and elsewhere, whose outcome will affect the balance of power in the region, and the calculations of all parties in the peace process. 

What are the implications of the Quartet’s statement?

The Quartet issued a planned statement at the Munich Security Conference on 5 February. It had been anticipated that this statement could set out a clearer position by the Quartet on certain final status issues, including an endorsement of the 1967 borders as the basis for territorial negotiations. But with the high level of political uncertainty in the region, the Quartet opted for what was in effect a holding position, in anticipation of two meetings to be held in March.

The first meeting, planned to take place in Brussels most likely on 1-2 March, will allow envoys of the Quartet members – the EU, UN, US and Russia – to meet separately with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators. Their focus, according to the Quartet statement, is “how to bring about resumed negotiations on all core issues, including borders and security.” The US has been attempting to engage Israelis and Palestinians on these issues in separate parallel talks over recent weeks. The Brussels meetings will be followed in mid-March by another meeting of the Quartet principles.

The most striking element of the Munich statement itself was the firm rebuke for unilateral measures by either Israel or the Palestinians. The statement declared that the Quartet “regrets the discontinuation of Israel’s ten-month moratorium on settlement activity and strongly reaffirms that unilateral actions by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognised by the international community.” As well as reiterating international concern about settlement construction, the Quartet appeared to be sending a clear message to the Palestinians that they would not ultimately support unilateral efforts to establish a Palestinian state.

Palestinian spokesmen responded quickly to the statement by expressing clear disappointment. Rather than discourage Palestinian unilateral moves, the Quartet position may motivate them further in their attempts to win support for their positions in the international community. The UN resolution to condemn Israeli settlement construction they have been promoting may soon return to the Security Council despite US opposition.

What is the significance of Israel’s confidence-building measures?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pre-empted the Quartet statement by announcing on Friday, alongside Quartet envoy Tony Blair, a series of confidence-building measures designed to improve living standards in the Palestinian territories.

They are largely incremental steps that continue processes already in place to improve the situation in Gaza and the West Bank. The measures were welcomed by the Quartet, but were quickly dismissed as “nonsense and unacceptable” by the Palestinians, who are keen to see further international pressure on Israel.

The most significant moves announced relate to Gaza. The announcement included the revival of a long-term project to develop the Palestinian offshore ‘Gaza Marine’ gas field, in which the British-based gas company, BG Group, holds a majority stake. The plan is to use offshore gas to give Gaza an independent source of energy and the Palestinian Authority a source of income. Currently, Gaza is largely dependent on Israel for its energy supply, via power lines that bring energy directly from Israel, and a small power plant within the Gaza Strip that depends on Israel for fuel.

Other gestures relating to Gaza include facilitating improvements in infrastructure, particularly water desalination and sanitation, as well as the import of more construction materials. This includes, for the first time, Israeli agreement to the import of construction materials for private sector construction, as opposed to projects managed by international agencies. Israel has also agreed to provide greater scope for exports, including textiles and furniture.

Israel has a long-term interest in reducing Gaza’s dependence on outside resources supplied mostly by Israeli companies. But as in all its policies relating to Gaza, Israel has to balance the imperative to improve the situation for ordinary people, with the interest in avoiding boosting the legitimacy of the Hamas regime. For this reason, it is careful to ensure any credit and benefits for developments in Gaza accrue to the PA in the West Bank. PM Netanyahu stressed on Friday that revenue from the Palestinian gas field would go to the PA and not to Gaza.

Two principal measures were announced relating to the West Bank. The first is a move to allow the Palestinians to build or renovate police stations in seven towns in Area B – the part of the West Bank which is under Palestinian civil control but Israeli security control. A second measure will allow the Palestinians to develop schools and health clinics in Area C, which is under full Israeli control. It is of some symbolic significance that Israel is agreeing in principle to PA projects in Area C. However, the gestures did not include a much discussed measure to transfer control to the Palestinians of an area of land required for the development of the new Palestinian town of Rawabi, being constructed near Ramallah.

Israel also agreed to ‘encourage’ the implementation of infrastructure projects in Arab areas of East Jerusalem, including two new housing projects, which are already approved under municipal plans.

 

How is the political upheaval affecting the peace process?

The uncertainty about the domestic political situation in Egypt and other Arab states has an inevitable impact on the peace process. All parties are waiting to see what transpires.

In Israel, the developments in Egypt are being employed by both supporters and sceptics of the peace process to bolster their cases. Supporters of the peace process argue that domestic unrest in the Arab world, and the loss of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak as an ally, should motivate Israel to advance the peace process and improve its diplomatic position in the Middle East and globally. Some have also made the case that the domestic unrest on the Arab street makes all the more clear the inherent instability in Israel’s ongoing occupation of the Palestinian Territories.

Sceptics, on the other hand, will argue that the unrest in Egypt makes all the more clear the dangers of ceding territory and signing peace agreements in an unstable political environment. Israel’s nightmare scenario is ceding control of the West Bank to the PA, only for it to come under the control of a Hamas regime.

In a speech to the Knesset on Wednesday, PM Netanyahu reiterated his call for PA President Mahmoud Abbas to join him in direct negotiations. He rejected the idea that the effort was futile because the gaps between the sides may be too great. But he also reiterated the importance of a peace agreement that includes “real security arrangements” that would not only “sustain peace, but… ensure our security in the event that peace unravels – and in the Middle East no one can guarantee the survival of any regime.”

The Palestinians will also be looking with concern at regional developments. President Mubarak is not only an important ally of Israel: he is also an important supporter of President Abbas and the PA within the Arab world. Like Israel, the PA will be concerned that political change in Egypt, particularly if it strengthens the Muslim Brotherhood, will benefit Hamas in Gaza.

The unrest in Egypt has also refocused the attention of some on the PA’s own lack of democratic legitimacy. Palestinian parliamentary and presidential elections that should have taken place in January 2010 were shelved because Hamas in Gaza were not willing to cooperate with the PA’s electoral commission. The PA was reluctant to hold the elections only in the West Bank, which would have overturned PA laws and further entrenched the political separation between Gaza and the West Bank. The PA also shelved local elections in the West Bank last year.

This week, the PA announced local elections would now be held, possibly in May. According to the New York Times, PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said last week that on the question of a general election, “it may be time to revisit our own thinking” as a vote could become “a unifying instrument.” However, Hamas still has every reason to block the elections in Gaza, as polls indicate they would be likely to lose.

The PA will be keen to show it is delivering for the Palestinian people through its strategy of promoting international support for Palestinian statehood on 1967 borders and trying to isolate Israel diplomatically. It is likely to be wary of being portrayed as a stooge of western interests or of being dictated to by the US or Israel.

 

Conclusion

The unrest in Egypt has increased the sense of regional uncertainty. The Quartet’s decision to issue a relatively neutral statement is an indication that the international community is also looking to see how the events in the Arab world in general, and Egypt in particular, play out. There is recognition that a change of leadership in Egypt will undoubtedly have an impact on the regional security balance as well as the diplomatic agenda. Until some status quo is reached and a new leadership makes clear Egypt’s future direction, the general sense of caution and uncertainty is likely to continue.