The Palestinian / Israeli negotiations of September 2010: The Obama Factor

By
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
The negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians in the past had been orchestrated by the internal politics of the United States and Israel, and by the lack of leverage to support the Palestinians. But the current round of talks, between the two parties may be different because of, what I call, the Obama Factor, and because the issues to be discussed have already been discussed and the different views are already known and tabulated. Therefore the time now is ripe to get into a serious compromising stage.
However, the fate of the current negotiations might have already been written, and failure has already been stacked on top of the other failures. But I could discern that there is a sliver of hope that some issues will have been agreed upon by the time this round of talks is concluded. This will have been accomplished mainly because of the genuine determination of President Obama.
Any success of the current round of talks would be attributed to the President of the United States. It is believed that the security of the United States will be vastly improved by settling the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. If Obama were a typical President of the United States, he would have left tackling the thorny problems of the Middle East to the last few months of his administration. But he is different, and without his deep convection of the seriousness of the problem, we would not have the negotiations starting now, in the shadow of the campaigns for the mid-term elections.
Besides the security issue of the United States, Obama had promised and he would try hard to deliver what he promised. It is a matter of being truthful, which is a rare commodity with politicians. He promised while campaigning that he would tackle tough issues if he were elected. He is the President, and he has already tackled successfully a number of thorny issues facing our country.
Obama knows how frustrated and skeptical the Arab and Muslim worlds are, and how deep their conviction that the United State does in the Middle East what Israel wants it to do, regardless of the genuine security needs of the United States. So when Obama lectured in Ankara, Turkey, and when he lectured in Egypt, at the Azhar University, a thousand years old university, in Cairo, he gave a word of honor to the Arab and the Muslim worlds and he promised that as President of the United States, he would help solve the vexing problems of the Middle East.
So if the parties to the negotiations agreed about something substantial, Obama would have pushed the parties to act and pushed them again not to give up, because he has given the world around them and beyond them a promise that he would do, what he will have done, to put a strong footing to a well founded edifice of ever lasting peace in the Middle East.
One of the basic and most difficult issues on the table for compromise is the issue of the refugees: the problem of the Palestinians in the Palestinian diaspora. These Palestinians are everywhere in the world. But their main concentration is in Gaza and the West Bank, and in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordon, where most of them lived in refugee camps, which have become shanty towns, sustained by the United Nations rations and other needs. There are many Palestinians in Europe, Canada, and the United States. They are citizens of these Western countries and they enjoy their rights as equal citizens with the citizenry of these countries.
The Palestinians want to go to their homes, businesses, orchards, and farms. Israel says no way, because they would potentially become a majority in Israel. What would the negotiators do? Many of the Palestinian leadership in Gaza and the West Bank, including Mahmoud Abbas, are from that crop of refugees, so they understand the plight of their countrymen. Jordan gave coded citizenship to the Palestinians who crossed the river Jordan in 1948 and shortly afterwards, but the refugees who crossed the river in 1967 do not have the citizenship privileges.
In Lebanon, the Palestinian Christians were given Lebanese citizenships, some Muslim Palestinian refugees in Lebanon bought citizenships, some were asked to change their religion or the sect of religion they had belonged to. In Syria the Palestinians were given all civil right including working in the government, but no political rights were given to them. In Iraq, the Palestinians had been given some help to stand up on their feet and start working, but they did not have any political rights. Many Palestinians would like to go to their places at any material cost, others who are educated in the manners of Western Civilization and have become enchanted with the concepts and applications of freedom and democracy would refuse to accept anything less than full participation in a democratic state.
Still, I believe that a large number of Palestinians would accept generous reparations and stay permanently where they are now. So the right of return and other options could also be included in an agreed upon formula. Israel has to agree to the human rights concept of the issue. But in practice the return of the reduced number of Palestinians would not risk the Jewish State if that is what the Israelis want.
The problem of Jewish settlers in the Palestinian land which has been occupied since 1967 should be the least prickly of the thorny problems. Minor swaps of equal quality lands to accommodate some of the settlers who would provide additional security to Israel must be acceptable to both sides. But usurping Palestinian land by extremist Jewish squatters or modern day Jewish cowboys, should not be tolerated. Historic Palestine has never been and should never become the Wild, Wild West of America.
In my opinion, peace should be the best tool for the security of every party to the conflict, specially the minority party and the weakest of the parties. But if those among the Israelis who believe that force provides peace and security, they must be convinced that perpetual wars have not and will bring neither security nor peace. Peace should be based on solid foundations, which would make the two parties work together for their mutual security.
Peace based on fair claims is the best way for the security of Israel, unfair and unjust peace will take us back and not forward. Israel must invest a lot to earn the love of the Palestinians, and Palestinians should learn to stop hating the Israelis. Instead, they should learn and practice to love their neighbors.
Security through loving and wishing your neighbors well might be too slow in coming. So during the initial implementation of the terms of a peace treaty, International forces including Americans might be used as long as they are needed to observe the implementation and progress of the process.
Also, the fate of Jerusalem should be easy to settle. East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank that was occupied in 1967 along with other parts of the city, so it is a Palestinian city and the Palestinians Should have the right to make it the capital of their State. However, if the Israelis insist on keeping Jerusalem united, then both the Israelis and the Palestinians must be allowed to claim it as the capital of their States, and they should work out the details of the operations of two governments of one city, albeit a holy city to the three great monolithic world religions.
Finally, Hamas should be part of the peace process. Hamas won the American and European monitored 2006 election in the West Bank and Gaza. Fatah lost, but not like us here (I am thinking of Al Gore in 2000), Fatah wanted to annul the surprise victory of Hamas. My hunch is that Hamas would still win an election if we conduct a monitored election now in the West Bank and in Gaza.
There is not much difference between Fatah and Hamas in their objectives. And calling Hamas a terrorist organization although the militants of Hamas have never attacked us is merely political.
Hamas must be in the mix for the peace process to have a chance to succeed. Our President or his Secretary of State must make an announcement inviting Hamas to be part of the peace process in any agreed upon manner. The Palestinians to implement a meaningful peace treaty must vow to be fully democratic. Who governs depends on the ballot boxes not on inheritance of one sort or another.