Desperation Is the Devil's Work

by Eric Martin

While details of the story have been partially buried the piles of snow blanketing the northeast, the frenzy of attention paid to the State of the Union address and the draw of the potentially paradigm-shifting events in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world, in what should be a newsworthy event, Al Jazeera recently received a large cache of leaked documents pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and peace process, as played out over the past quarter century or so.

With details being revealed on a rolling basis, Matt Duss' early take is worth a read.

First, the documents seriously challenge the theory that unquestioning U.S. support for Israel is necessary to give Israel the confidence to make concessions for peace. From what I’ve seen so far, mostly from the George W. Bush era, the documents show that unquestioning U.S. support for Israel mainly gave the Israelis the confidence to continue to expect and receive ever more concessions from the Palestinians, while absolving them of any real pressure to actually make a deal.

This transcript of a March 2008 meeting is a good case in point. The Palestinians would like a discussion of future borders to proceed from the 1967 borders, that is, the 1949 Armistice lines, an approach grounded in international law and successive United Nations resolutions. The Israelis, on the other hand, prefer to start from a discussion of “reality on the ground” — a reality which Israel is, of course, in the process of changing every day through settlement expansion and wall construction.

In any normal negotiation, one party demanding that those negotiations occur within a frame of reference that that party is constantly unilaterally changing in its own favor would probably be laughed out of the room. But here, by virtue both of being the occupying power, backed unquestioningly by the world’s dominant actor, Israeli negotiators are able to sit back and do just that, and their Palestinian opposites have little option other than to note objection, and agree to disagree for now, knowing that when they next return to the table, reality on the ground will have changed again.

The second part of Duss' analysis is equally, if not more germane, and it contains the elements that will prove "disastrous" to Abbass and other Palestinian groups involved:

That brings me to the second takeaway from these documents, which is how starkly they reveal the massive disparity in power between the two sides. In an ironic sense, it turns out that the right-wing canard about there being “no Palestinian partner for peace” is true — they’re more like supplicants for peace. When one reads the extent of what Palestinian negotiators have, at various times, offered the Israelis — such as Saeb Erekat’s alleged offer on Jerusalem — it’s almost a relief that the Israelis didn’t accept, as it’s hard to imagine any Palestinian leadership, certainly not one this weak, selling capitulations that extensive to their own people. This would be an issue of concern to any genuinely honest broker. It does not appear to have been for the U.S.

Which brings me to the final point, which is not directly addressed in these documents but hangs over almost every page, and that’s the weakness of the Palestinian leadership itself. At this point, how much do these negotiations really matter in the absence of genuine political legitimacy for those doing the negotiating? The release of these documents is a disaster for Mahmoud Abbas and the current P.A. leadership, and a bonanza for Hamas and other critics of the peace process, which is now revealed as little more than a surrender process. While that may be good in terms of an honest reckoning, it does little in the short term to actually make anyone’s life better, or bring us closer to a resolution of the conflict. [emphasis added]

As noted, the documents reveal that, not only have Palestinian leaders been willing to compromise, and then compromise further and again, but that the Israeli side of the equation has been the more obstinate and reluctant to make genuine concessions.

Comments

[Uncle Kvetch]

What possible incentive do the Israelis have to make concessions? It's been made abundantly clear that Israel will do as it pleases, and the American taxpayer will provide it with the necessary wherewithal to do it. Everything else is theater.

For how much longer can otherwise intelligent people continue to pretend otherwise?

[Nescio]

So, how long will it take before we get rid of the "the-Palestinian-side-cannot-be-trusted-and-therefore-we-cannot-ask-anything-of-the-Israeli-side"-meme? Or. is this, in some 13-dimensions-type-of-chess way, proof only Israel really, reallly, really, really wants peace.

[wj]

The only thing that prevents this leak from being an absolute disaster for Israeli support in the US is the fact that things like the offer that Erekat made have gotten no publicity. (Ignore the detail that it would likely have been hard/impossible to sell to the Palestinian people. That isn't relevant, since it was rejected.) If they had been publicized in the US, it would be a matter of justifying Israel's refusal to take Yes for an answer. Which, while some would doubtless try, would be a pretty hard sell.

[Fred]

The 1949 Armistice lines have no support in international law or in any Treaty. If fact, the agreements that define the 1949 lines quite specifically say that they are not national borders. The Arab diplomats of the time emphasized this.

I don't know whether these Palestinian leaks are the real thing. The PA denies it. But if true, it means that the leadership is in a very different place than their people. The PA media (TV and newspapers, etc) have been leading the Arabs in one direction and going in another. The result would be a sabotaged agreement.

And this adds importance the background question: How long can the PA remain in charge if there is a new Arab state in the West Bank?

[Eric Martin]

Must admit Fred, I thought you were going to come with something stronger than that. This must really have you off balance, huh?

[Francis]

I don't think the problem is solvable. The maximum State of Palestine the Israelis are willing to offer is substantially less than the minimum State of Palestine the occupants thereof are willing to accept. (How many people believe that the PA could have successfully persuaded their own people to accept the leaked proposals? I don't.)

I don't see how it ends except in war, genocide and ethnic cleansing. It appears to me that each side would prefer a violent solution to a negotiated one, and they're both just biding their time until it comes. Iran's nuclear program just adds another level of potential violence.

[Eric Martin]

It appears to me that each side would prefer a violent solution to a negotiated one

Are you sure about that? Seems the Palestinian side was willing to make concessions, and then additional concessions, and then more.

[bobbyp]

Is this creeping apartheid or slow motion genocide?

[Jim Parish]

Is this creeping apartheid or slow motion genocide?

Is there a difference?

[wj]

So far, it's apartheid, but not creeping.

Whether it devolves into genocide depends entirely on whether the extremists on one side or the other manage to get control of the weapons necessary to do so. So far, nobody on the Palestinian side has access to such weapons, and the fanatics on the Israeli side haven't gotten into positions where they can control them.

I wouldn't bet the ranch on this situation lasting forever. But I suspect that the Palestinian fanatics get control of the necessary arms second -- i.e. too late.

[Marty]

Not being able to read all links on the phone, Is there a possibility that this level of pacification has ALREADY empowered Hamas (in Palestine) and that we are the only ones that are just finding this out?

[Brett Bellmore]

"they’re more like supplicants for peace."

Based on the missiles, they're terribly incompetent supplicants for peace, then.

[Carleton Wu]

Based on the missiles, they're terribly incompetent supplicants for peace, then.

One of the core practices of those apparently incapable of movement towards peace is this: lump everyone on the other side together, and equate them with their most extreme element.

I mean, do you really think that there's a monolithic, Borg-like Palestinian 'people' who are both negotiating and shooting missiles?

[Phil]

Dude, he can't even tell the people here apart. You think he's going to take the time to distinguish between factions of Muslim brown people?

[The Creator]

The first post really makes the important point. The Israelis are in power, and they are using that power against the Palestinians, at the conference table as in the field.

The Palestinians appear to have extremely bad leadership. That is, they are neither developing more power, nor using what power they possess effectively, and this has been a pattern since before Oslo.

A theory I would put forward (in ignorance) is that both the PLO and Hamas were established on the assumption that they would be in perpetual opposition and would therefore never have to take serious responsibility for political negotiations. That would help account for the PLO's extremely feeble negotiations (and correspondingly, Hamas' preference for principle over practicality).

[Eric Martin]

But Creator, how would the PLO negotiate "stronger" or "less feeble" given the power dynamic you identified in the first paragraph? From where would they muster the power to negotiate stronger?

And Brett, do you not see why your statement makes very little sense in the present context?

[Rob in CT]

What Uncle Kvetch said, word-for-word.

[John Spragge]

@Fred: I think you've asked the wrong questions here. Your questions appear to assume that only the Palestinians will benefit from a comprehensive peace. Let me ask a few different questions:

Should Israel exist as a Jewish state?

Could Israel survive as a theocratic and non-democratic state?

Can Israeli democracy survive the ethnic cleansing of almost half the total population of "green-line" Israel plus the West Bank?

How long can a state that excludes nearly half the people it governs from the franchise continue to credibly present itself as a democracy?

Can the vision of a Jewish State that drives the high-tech entrepreneurial culture of Tel Aviv coexist with the vision of the "hilltop youth"?

The same question goes for Brett: if you believe that peace will only benefit the Palestinians, then it might make sense to say they shouldn't get what they want until they get their act together and stop shooting missiles into Israel. But if you believe that to remain democratic, Jewish, and prosperous the State of Israel needs to make peace, then refusing to negotiate or trying to push for concessions the majority of Palestinians will never accept will do as much harm to Israel as to the Palestinians.

[Nell]

the documents reveal that, not only have Palestinian leaders been willing to compromise, and then compromise further and again, but that the Israeli side of the equation has been the more obstinate and reluctant to make genuine concessions.

That sentence stops short of where it needs to go. The Israeli side has been obstinate and reluctant to make genuine concessions because the U.S. government backs the Israeli government in its intransigence.

As it has chosen also to back Mubarak's dictatorship, for the same reason: to lock in place the "pro-Israel" policy.

[avedis]

Another excellent post by Eric. However, I do think Nell's suggested addendum (in bold in the above comment) is the missing money line.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The same question goes for Brett: if you believe that peace will only benefit the Palestinians,"

But I don't, and have never suggested that. Peace would benefit them both. It's just that it would benefit the Palestinians much more than the Israelis, because of the imbalance of force. Kind of like Don Knots continually jabbing the Incredible Hulk, and repeatedly getting pounded into the ground in response: Don really needs to stop poking the Hulk, but the Hulk probably would appreciate an end to the annoyance.

Just not enough to give into Don's demands that the Hulk commit suicide...

[Donald Johnson]

"As it has chosen also to back Mubarak's dictatorship, for the same reason: to lock in place the "pro-Israel" policy."

They seem to be backing away from him a bit in the last day or two. Biden's comment on the PBS Newshour show a few days ago where he refused to call Mubarak a dictator probably represented their belief (and probably their hope) that Mubarak would be able to stay in power. Now that looks less likely and they're talking about a "review" of our aid policy.

[John Spragge]

@Brett: yes, yes, we've all heard the meme of the Palestinians as impotent nuisances and Israel as all powerful forever. That bit of wishful thinking has floated around the debate since 1967, and we've all seen it before.

Maybe you could answer the actual and somewhat difficult questions Israeli policies raise. To refresh your memory, I include them again below:

Should Israel exist as a Jewish state?

Could Israel survive as a theocratic and non-democratic state?

Can Israeli democracy survive the ethnic cleansing of almost half the total population of "green-line" Israel plus the West Bank?

How long can a state that excludes nearly half the people it governs from the franchise continue to credibly present itself as a democracy?

Can the vision of a Jewish State that drives the high-tech entrepreneurial culture of Tel Aviv coexist with the vision of the "hilltop youth"?

Please try to answer these specific questions rather than snipping a phrase out and attaching a meme that passed its best before date over two decades ago.

[Brett Bellmore]

As it happens, I think the state of Israel is in an untenable situation, it's survival as it is presently constituted is, in the long term, impossible. They face either demographic destruction, or the necessity of acts which will end their status as a somewhat liberal democracy.

But isn't it the nature of life, for all of us, that we face long term destruction, and only a choice of demises? That doesn't lead most to decide to make their demise immediate.

The Palestinian attacks on Israel, while the Israelis would be better off without them, are not an existential threat to Israel. Some of what the Palestinians are demanding to call them off? Can't be said of that. The "right of return" would transform a demographic threat into an immediate crisis.

[Gary Farber]

Creator:

[...] A theory I would put forward (in ignorance) is that both the PLO and Hamas were established on the assumption that they would be in perpetual opposition and would therefore never have to take serious responsibility for political negotiations.

Why would you put forward a theory "in ignorance"? There's this thing called "the internet."

It's useful for curing ignorance. Have you considered using it before trying ignorance?

I'm seriously curious as to what kind of reasoning this is. Could you perhaps explain? Thanks.

I have to confess to some ignorance of what your answer would or will be, if you make one.

I'm uninterested in putting forward my "theory" about what your answer might be, though I assure you I have several hypotheses.

[jrudkis]

"Terry Stops" are already authorized for police that have a reasonable suspicion. Frisking for weapons only requires a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be “armed and dangerous”.

These are short of probable cause, and very different from random searches for no reason.