Enough Talking about Talks: Time to demand compromise from the PA

By: Abram Shanedling

It’s down to a last ditch effort.

After Palestinian negotiators again walked out of peace talks in September, the Israeli government is now poised to accept a U.S. request for a 90-day extension of the West Bank settlement freeze in exchange for several military and diplomatic guarantees. But the previous 10-month construction moratorium only ushered in Palestinian demands for yet another three month freeze and no concessions. Needless to say, major questions still loom.

Background

Israel is understandably skeptical about adding new pre-conditions to negotiations with the Palestinians, since it received nothing in the last 10 months from its supposed Palestinian negotiating “partner” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is ready to talk peace.

To assure him, Washington has offered Israel 20 additional F-35 fighter jets as well a guarantee to oppose any anti-Israel resolutions in the United Nations and to veto in the UN Security Council any unilateral Palestinian initiative for international recognition of a Palestinian state in without Israeli agreement.

In return, Israel would stop the majority of building in the Jewish neighborhoods of the West Bank – but not including Jerusalem. The proposal still needs approval by the Israeli Cabinet, yet analysts predict it is likely to pass once the U.S. provides a written guarantee.

Meanwhile as he has done so many times in the past, Abbas and the PA are preparing yet another excuse not to negotiate, this time refusing to negotiate only if the proposed settlement freeze includes East Jerusalem as well. Once again, the all-or-nothing approach.

But to consider where we are, we must look at the context with each of the major players.

The U.S.

The American negotiating team admits that final border agreements can’t be reached in merely three months, but the hope is that progress can be made for exchanging settlement blocks for land to begin carving the borders of a future Palestinian state.

The perplexing aspect of the U.S proposal is that what is being offered is nothing new. Israel was already planning to purchase F-35 stealth fighters back in October (obviously adding an additional 20 wouldn’t hurt, especially in light of the growing Iranian nuclear threat).

Even more puzzling – and distressing - is the U.S. diplomatic guarantee to fight the delegitimization of Israel. Washington has always opposed anti-Israel initiatives in the UN and has always stood against unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood. But as Elliot Abrams and Michael Singh explain in Foreign Policy, by now making the fight against delegitimization dependent on Israeli cooperation, the U.S. has set a dangerous precedent. Even suggesting that that U.S. backing of Israel depends on Israeli construction policy weakens the ability of the U.S. to block or dampen future assaults on Israel at the UN.

“Leaving Israel undefended in the United Nations will make successful negotiations less, not more, likely, for an Israel that is under constant attack will batten down the hatches and not "take risks for peace," write Abrams and Singh.

Or as Daniel Gordis in the Jerusalem Post puts it, “Our enemies understand that delegitimization can destroy the Jewish state. [But] do our friends not get it?”

People can obviously differ (on political grounds) about building settlements in parts of the West Bank – many Israelis disagree themselves. Fighting delegitimization however– the slandering and singling out of Israel at the UN – is a different issue. Making it contingent on politics is worrisome at the very least.

Israel

The story isn’t new on the Israeli side. Yet again, Israel has proven that is it willing to make sacrifices for peace, though now they’ll have to be satisfied with just getting the Palestinians to talk peace. Most amazingly, Israel has taken these risks without any tangible guarantees from the other side.

We saw this at the 1993 Oslo Accords, the Wye River memorandum where Israel relinquished most of the holy city of Hebron, during the 2000 Camp David summits with Ehud Barak, the 2005 Gaza Disengagement, with the 2008 offers by Ehud Olmert, and even last week, in Israel’s withdrawal from Ghajar on the northern border with Lebanon.

As it has been throughout history, the ball is clearly now in the Palestinians court. The question is if they too will be able to compromise as a partner, or walk out the door.

The Palestinian Authority

Despite the statement from Abbas that he will not talk unless the freeze includes Jerusalem, some say the PA leader will not be able to resist the pressure from the U.S. However, this may quickly prove false for two reasons.

First, in 2008, Abbas rebuffed an offer from Olmert that would have given the Palestinians roughly 93 percent of the West Bank, a capitol in East Jerusalem as well as recognition of the suffering of Palestinian refugees. If Abbas refused that, how can the world expect him to negotiate at all?

Second, even if Abbas does cede to US pressure, several polls show that popular Palestinian opinion still opposes compromising for peace. A recent survey conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research found that while 61 percent of Palestinians favor continued direct talks, 60 percent also believe that the ultimate goal should be a one-state of Palestine solution. A similar poll of Palestinians released earlier this month by the Arab World for Research and Development found similar results, with 85 percent stating that they would not agree to compromise at all on any of the final status issues, even if it would result in a Palestinian state.

Recent polling of Palestinian public opinion on negotiations.

Some may argue that Netanyahu is simply being “bribed” into talking. However, Israel cannot be blamed for agreeing on the freeze extension when it is so clear that the Palestinians will likely not take advantage of their own opportunity.

The bottom line is that, both in leadership and in popular support, the Palestinians remain unwilling to negotiate and be a partner for peace.

Anti-Semitism remain the norm in the Arab and Palestinian media, and even as the world’s largest recipients of foreign assistance ($1.8 billion just this year alone), the PA has still failed to root out the hatred in its educational system and state run media, and lay the framework for true self governance and democracy. At the most fundamental level though, just as former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat did in 1977 before the Knesset, Abbas and his Prime Minister Salam Fayyad could give Israelis at least some optimism simply by accepting a “Jewish democratic state of Israel”  - something the current PA leaders still refuse to do.

The answer is quite clear. Only when Abbas and the PA finally are finally pressured to compromise and to actually give their people the opportunity to secure their own future will a peace deal – both on paper and practice – be on the horizon.

Additional Reading:

"Abbas: No negotiations without Jerusalem freeze," Associated Press

Daniel Gordis: "When expediency becomes principle," Jerusalem Post

"Obama’s Peace Process to Nowhere", Foreign Policy

"What the PA buys with American money", Jerusalem Post

Recent Polling:

West Bank and Gaza Public Opinion Polling (Conducted October 2010), Greenberg Quinlan Rosner

West Bank and Gaza Public Polling (Conducted October 2010), Arab World for Research and Development