|
JERUSALEM, April 11-- Leading newspapers on either side of the Atlantic are reporting the White House is planning its own peace initiative to end the decades-old Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The suggestion of a possible new proposal from United States President Barack Obama follows a year in which Washington has failed to persuade Palestinian and Israeli leaders to return to the negotiating table.
All the while, the relationship between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to be in freefall with some analysts arguing that if there is no change in regional events for the good, the United States could take punitive measures against the Jewish state, its traditional ally.
There was talk at the end of last year of Obama unveiling a new initiative, after the president met top officials of Israel and Palestine, as well as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Yet despite the rumours, no new plan was introduced.
While the mediation of the United States is of vital importance, it is doubted whether outside interventions can play a decisive role in the Middle East peace process.
THE PLAN
In recent weeks, the White House has been taking soundings from veteran American officials who reportedly unanimously advised that Washington draw up its own peace proposal. The group has been meeting the current U.S. National Security Adviser Jim Jones.
While no details of the reported idea have been made public and Jones is playing down the speculation, there are clear concerns that would have to be addressed by any American proposal.
The core issues, as the United States refers to them, remain unresolved. First and foremost is the mechanism to be put in place to enable the creation of a Palestinian state while allaying Israeli security fears.
As ever, the actual territory that would comprise such a state is a highly contentious matter. The international community says it should be based on the 1967 borders; in other words, a Palestinian state in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.
However, the reality on the ground over the last 43 years means that is virtually impossible - certainly according to Israel. More than a quarter of a million Jewish Israelis now live in towns and villages around the West Bank. Any deal would have to include a land swap, whereby some of the largest settlements would remain in Israeli hands and Israel would exchange those areas for land that is currently undisputed sovereign Israeli territory.
In order to deal with Israel's security fears, the United States and possibly a broader Western coalition would have to guarantee Israeli security, perhaps deploying peacekeeping forces in sensitive locations such as the Jordan Valley, which Israel says it cannot leave because then it would have no protection to its east.
Israel could well be asked to accept a few thousand Palestinian refugees and make reparations to the descendants of the majority of refugees who would then give up on their right to live inside the future borders of the Jewish state.
Jerusalem would likely become an international city under any proposal, though Israel insists the city remain its undivided capital.
INTERVENTION NEEDED
The fear is that the ongoing attempt to launch indirect talks will fail, the co-editor of Palestine-Israel Journal Hillel Schenker said on Sunday.
"If serious negotiations do not begin in the near future then it will be necessary and extremely constructive for the American administration to come forward with a plan," said Schenker.
As time passes, deadlines are beginning to appear on the horizon. In September, the partial settlement freeze announced by Israel will come to an end. The Americans need to have something in place by then.
Meanwhile, the Palestinians are seriously talking up the idea of unilaterally declaring a state of their own. Back in August, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said the Palestinians would create a state within two years. Since then he has been leading the drive to put in place the relevant institutions to ensure that process can be successfully implemented.
With no counter proposals from Netanyahu on the table, Schenker believes a plan at this time from Obama could well prove to be vital.
Whatever Obama cooks up is likely to be based on the 2000 Clinton initiative of then U.S. President Bill Clinton, said Schenker. He brought together the Palestinian and Israeli leaders of the time, Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak. During what became known as the Camp David Summit, Barak reportedly offered to cede 95 percent of the West Bank. However, the talks broke down.
CHANCES OF SUCCESS?
Former Israeli Ambassador to Washington Zalman Shoval does not believe a new initiative from Obama will bring peace to the region. Indeed, asked directly whether Obama can deliver, Shoval replied simply "no."
His reasoning is that no deal can be imposed on the parties, rather it must be something they produce themselves. Obama has a role, according to Shoval, but it is much more as an intermediary working between the parties.
"A program introduced from outside has no chance. Only if the parties reach agreement among themselves, then you need someone to advance the process, create the right conditions and straighten things out," said Shoval, a confidante of Netanyahu.
He said there are precedents for this type of role. In particular he pointed to the work of then U.S. President Jimmy Carter at the 1978 Camp David meeting that led to a peace deal between Egypt and Israel.
Schenker is more optimistic about the potential Obama plan. He said it will not dictate terms to the parties but rather guide them and offer a framework within which to negotiate.
Either way, regional leaders will be closely watching the White House over the next weeks and months to see what, if anything, Obama can do to end the stalemate between Israelis and Palestinians.
Source:xinhua |
