May 14 2010

The Undeclared American Plan for an Israeli Government Change

Published by at 1:04 pm under Articles,Palestinian politics

(This was published in May 14th, 2010)

By Daoud Kuttab

As Israeli-Palestinian proximity or indirect negotiations are scheduled to begin soon, it will be a short time before we find out if this time around talks have any better chance of success than before. For sure the US is exerting strong pressure on both sides to come up with serious positions. There is no need to talk for the sake of talking, what is needed is political will. This seems to be almost totally absent. More importantly, what is the Obama Administration’s plan B in case the present phase, with a ceiling of four months, fails to produce any breakthroughs?

A quick mapping of the situation reveals a Palestinian party that has made some dramatic changes and have been on the record as understanding the requirements of peace. On the other side, Israel seems to be making all the wrong moves, showing little genuine desire for peace.

Palestinians understand that without pressure little change will take place. They have also clearly understood the folly of violent resistance, and have made a dramatic shift to nonviolent action – with the acceptance (and possibly encouragement) of the international community – in order to maintain pressure on the occupiers.

The PLO’s main faction, Fatah, made this shift at their sixth congress, held in Bethlehem last winter after a 20-year hiatus. Senior PLO officials have participated in demonstrations and protest activities, with some being injured and Executive Committee member Abbas Zaki imprisoned for a couple of days. Other senior Fatah officials have been banned from travel outside the West Bank, owing largely to their involvement in nonviolent protests.

In addition to nonviolent activities, Palestinian state-building efforts have been put in high gear. Salam Fayyad, the energetic Western-trained Palestinian prime minister, has implemented a detailed blueprint for declaring a de facto Palestinian state by August 2011.

While state-building is handled by the civilian Palestinian Authority, political efforts are handled by the PLO, whose chairman, Abbas, is the head of Fatah as well as the Palestinian Authority’s president. Abbas and his negotiating team, headed by Erekat, have been successful in securing the support of all members of the Arab League.

The PLO has succeeded in obtaining European support for a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood. The only obstacle remaining to Palestinian leaders are the Americans. When Palestinians asked Mitchell for assurances that the US would support such a statehood declaration if talks failed, Mitchell responded that such a commitment would make negotiations pointless.

Instead, the Americans have their own ideas about how to achieve a breakthrough, especially with Israel, which the Obama administration believes is now the major obstacle. To effect change in Israel, the Americans are launching various trial balloons. One is that, if the current process fails, Obama might issue his own plan, which many expect would be a near-carbon copy of the proposal made by Bill Clinton’s administration in its last days ten years ago. At the time, Palestinian and Israeli negotiators were quoted as saying that the two sides had never been closer to an agreement.

A US peace plan that is fair and reasonable would certainly have many ordinary Israelis and Palestinians cheering. It could cause some major damage to right-wing Israeli political forces that came to power as a result of eight years of former US president George Bush’s so-called war on terror.

The Israelis have found it easy to stonewall all reasonable peace efforts, including the 2002 Arab peace plan, according to which Arab states and Muslim-majority countries agreed to normalize relations with Israel if it withdrew from areas occupied in 1967. The plan also gave Israel a role equal to that of the Palestinians in resolving the refugee issue. It called for the “achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.”

Yet another US trial balloon has been the suggestion that if all of the above fails, the Americans might suggest that the Arab-Israeli conflict be resolved through the convening of an international conference. Such a conference is in fact listed in the “road map” as part of phase III in the talks.

The end result of all these efforts is to shake up the present right wing coalition in Israel. Washington would like to see a new coalition, with the possibility of the inclusion of the centrist Kadima party and the exit of the right wing Yisrael Beiteinu party headed by Avigdor Lieberman.

An undeclared long term plan in the eyes of the Americans would be new elections. But again, can Americans predict the results? The last time Americans pushed for elections in this region, the Islamic movement, Hamas, surprised everyone and scored an overwhelming victory.

Until now, Israelis and Palestinians have insisted on various “red lines” that they proclaimed they would never cross. The coming months will show whether these public postures are negotiable, with obvious consequences for both parties and their relationship with the international community, especially the US. If all fails, will the US carry out its undeclared plan to cause change in the ruling power structures?

One response so far

One Response to “The Undeclared American Plan for an Israeli Government Change”

  1. […] The Undeclared American Plan for an Israeli Government Change […]

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.