The Comatose Peace Process
Avi Shlaim
Oxford Today, Hilary Term 2001.
The
visit of Ariel Sharon, the leader of the right-wing Likud, to the
Muslim holy shrines in the old city of Jerusalem, on 28 September 2000,
precipitated the breakdown of the Middle East peace process. It was the
proverbial last straw that broke the camel’s back. Israel reacted
with disproportionate force to the Palestinian protests against the
visit, fuelling a new cycle of violence and bloodshed. On both sides,
the men with the guns took over. A new Palestinian uprising got under
way and it became known as the al-Aqsa intifada. In eight weeks of
bloody clashes, it claimed 270 lives, most of them Palestinians. The
Oslo accords were in tatters.
Seven years elapsed since
prime minister Itzhak Rabin and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat had sealed
the historic compromise between their two nations at the White House,
with Bill Clinton acting as Master of Ceremonies. The accord they
signed was not a full-blown peace treaty but a Declaration of
Principles on Palestinian Self-government in Gaza and the West Bank
town of Jericho. The shape of the final settlement was not specified in
the declaration but left for negotiation between the two parties
towards the end of the five-year transition period. Similarly, the
declaration was completely silent on the most sensitive issues in the
dispute, such as the status of Jerusalem, the future of the Jewish
settlements in the occupied territories, the right of return of the
1948 refugees, and the borders of the Palestinian entity. These issues,
too, were deferred until the final status negotiations.
Despite all its
limitations and ambiguities, the Oslo accord marked a turning point in
the century old-conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. For it
was an agreement between the two principal parties to the conflict:
Israelis and Palestinians. The two parties replaced mutual rejection by
mutual recognition; they acknowledged that the other party had
legitimate national rights; and they resolved to settle their
outstanding differences by peaceful means. The basic assumption on the
Israeli side was that the experience of working together during the
transition period would eventually produce a peace settlement
which would safeguard Israel’s security. The Palestinians assumed
that by giving up their claim to 78 per cent of mandatory Palestine,
they would secure an independent state over most of the West Bank and
the Gaza Strip, with a capital in East Jerusalem.
Implementing the
declaration took much longer than planned. Underlying the difficulties
and the delays was a basic conceptual divide. The Israelis aimed at a
gradual and strictly limited transfer of powers and the retention of as
much control as possible over the territories in their own hands. They
wanted to repackage rather than end Israel’s military occupation.
The Palestinians pressed for an extensive transfer of power, an end to
the occupation, and rapid progress towards full independence. The Oslo
II agreement, signed on 28 September 1995, represented a significant
step in that direction. But it also provoked a right-wing backlash
which culminated in the assassination of Itzhak Rabin. Shimon Peres
followed Rabin down the pot-holed road to peace with the Palestinians
but his efforts were cut short by his electoral defeat in May 1996.
The emergence of Binyamin
Netanyahu at the head of a Likud-led government dealt a body blow to
the cause of peace in the Middle East. For whereas the Labour Party is
a pragmatic party which stands for territorial compromise, the Likud is
an ideological party which regards the West Bank as an integral part of
the Land of Israel. Although Netanyahu won by a margin of less than one
per cent, he abruptly reversed the foreign policy of his Labour
predecessors. In the Arab world, his government’s Basic
Guidelines were seen as a declaration of war on the peace process.
Netanyahu, for his part, regarded the Oslo accords as a violation
of Israel’s historic right to Judea and Samaria and a
threat to its security. Consequently, during his three years in power,
he strove to freeze, subvert, and derail the Oslo accords ― only to
discover that the process they set in motion had become irreversible.
Ehud Barak’s
landslide victory in the May 1999 election was widely expected to
revive the moribund peace process. In the Epilogue to my book The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World
I called Barak’s victory “the sunrise after the three dark
and terrible years during which Israel had been led by the
unreconstructed proponents of the iron wall.” Barak soon
dashed the hopes pinned on him. He presented himself as Rabin’s
disciple, as a soldier who turned from fighting the Arabs to
peace-making. But he lacked the vision, the political courage, and the
personal qualities that were necessary to follow through on the peace
partnership with the Palestinians. It was not for nothing that during
his army days Barak used to be called Little Napoleon. In politics,
too, his style is arrogant and authoritarian and he approaches
diplomacy as the extension of war by other means.
The greatest barrier on
the road to peace with the Palestinians raised by Barak was the
expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank. Settlement activity
is not contrary to the letter of the Oslo accord, but it is contrary to
its spirit. True, settlement activity had gone on under all
previous prime ministers, Labour as well as Likud. But under Barak
settlement activity gathered pace: more houses were constructed, more
Arab land was confiscated, more access roads were built to isolated
Jewish settlements. For the Palestinian population these settlements
are not just a symbol of the hated occupation but a source of daily
friction and a constant reminder of the danger to the territorial
contiguity of their future state.
Another reason for the
slowdown on the Palestinian track was the clear preference articulated
by Barak for a deal with Syria first on the grounds that Syria is a
serious military power whereas the Palestinians are not. During his
first six months in power Barak concentrated almost exclusively on the
Syrian track, leaving the Palestinians to twist in the wind. When the
late Syrian President, Hafez al-Assad, rejected his final offer, Barak
turned, belatedly and reluctantly, to the Palestinian track. His
reservations about the Oslo accord were well known. He argued that the
step-by-step approach of trading land for peace does not serve
Israel’s interests because the Palestinians will always come back
for more. So he insisted that the Palestinian Authority commit itself
to an absolutely final end to the conflict and, in doing so, he brought
the negotiations to a standstill.
This became clear at the
summit meeting at Camp David in July 2000 which Bill Clinton convened
at Barak’s request. Barak pressed for the meeting in the
confident belief that, with the help of the American “peace
processors”, he would be able to impose his terms for a final
status agreement on Yasser Arafat. At the summit Barak presented a
package which addressed all the core issues in the dispute: Palestinian
statehood, borders, Jerusalem, and refugees. He offered a
demilitarised Palestinian state on more than 90 per cent of the
West Bank and Gaza, shared sovereignty in Jerusalem, and token
concessions to the 1948 refugees. Barak’s blunder was to insist
that in return for these limited concessions Arafat had to
renounce any further Palestinian claims against the State of Israel.
This was not a reasonable or realistic proposition. Arafat could not
formally surrender basic Palestinian national rights, above all
the right of return of the 1948 refugees, and he was warned by the
Egyptians and the Saudis not to compromise Muslim rights over the holy
places in the old city of Jerusalem. So Arafat resisted Israeli and
American pressure and returned home to a hero’s welcome.
With the collapse of the
Camp David summit, the countdown to the outbreak of the next round of
violence began. Ariel Sharon’s visit to Islam’s third
holiest shrine provided the spark that set off the explosion. As so
often in the past, the sound of gunfire drowned the dialogue of
the diplomats. Violence is, of course, no stranger to the region. Even
after the signing of the Oslo accord, diplomacy was sometimes
interspersed with bursts of violence. Now fierce fighting was
interspersed with small doses of ineffectual diplomacy. Positions
hardened on both sides and the tit-for-tat gathered its own momentum.
Neither side wanted to be seen as willing to back down. Yasser Arafat
saw no contradiction between the intifada and negotiations. On the
contrary, he hoped that the intifada would give him more leverage in
dealing with the Israelis. Ehud Barak insisted that the incitement and
the violence had to end before he would return to the negotiating
table. His announcement of “time out” signaled the
abandonment of the political track until further notice. In the absence
of talks, military analysts predicted a long and nasty low-intensity
conflict that would only cease when both sides succumb to battle
fatigue.
After the guns fall
silent, and after the dead are buried, the politicians will resume the
talks on final status where they left off. They will have to return to
the negotiating table for the simple reason that neither side has a
viable alternative to a negotiated settlement. Edward Said, the leading
Palestinian intellectual, called his last book The End of the Peace
Process. This title strikes me as too dramatic and too definitive: the
peace process has broken down but it is not dead. Like Abba Eban, the
former Israeli foreign minister, I tend to believe that nations are
capable of acting rationally — after they have exhausted all the
other alternatives.
Back