There is a paradox at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Peace, it is widely held, is further away than ever. Never before has there been such fierce deadlock, mutual animosity and a sense of foreboding.
But if we look beyond the gloom and doom, we find that the official policies of most of the principal parties are probably more closely in alignment than at any time in the history of the Arab-Israeli struggle, centred on a comprehensive regional settlement with full normalization of relations based on two viable states.
So we know how to resolve the conflict. The solution is there, waiting to be grasped. So why can’t we have peace now?
The simple answer – one that lies at the heart of my recently published Fabian paper ‘How peace broke out in the Middle East: a short history of the future’ – is that the prevailing climate makes virtually any progress impossible.
So climate change is vital. But how may this be achieved? The key is to foster a new momentum, that may be triggered by the main actors doing little more than taking the next logical steps in line with their own public positions. What is needed is a sequence of unilateral declarations of principle to unlock the process and allow the river to flow.
The paper is written in the future-historical tense to show how, through a dynamic interplay, the developments could unfold by each move feeding off the previous and nourishing the next.
The first move is made by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert who avows that, “in the hypothetical event” of a full and genuine peace with the Palestinians and the Arab states being obtainable, Israel would “of course”, in principle, be prepared to withdraw in full from the West Bank, subject to agreed, equitable land exchanges. Similarly, he confirms that, in the same hypothetical circumstances, the (demilitarized) Golan Heights could be returned to Syria.
A creative response by President Abbas – inviting the settlers to stay and help build the new Palestinian state – instantly defuses the mounting protestations that it would be heartless to evict them from their homes.
The next move sees the Saudi King Abdullah – author of the Arab Peace Initiative – announcing his willingness to lead a delegation to Jerusalem in pursuit of the peace he is publicly committed to achieving. The visit itself, soon afterwards, decisively swings Israeli public opinion behind the Arab peace plan – reminiscent of the Sadat effect 30 years earlier
An imaginative invitation by the Syrian President Assad to the Israeli prime minister to drive to Damascus for negotiations “to show how easy it would be for ordinary Israelis and Syrians to visit each other’s countries in the future” – adds to the impetus.
Events then move swiftly at every level, taking in an Arab-Israeli summit in Riyadh – which unanimously adopts seven ‘irrevocable declarations of principle’ – and culminating in direct Israeli-Palestinian ‘final-basket’ negotiations, held under the joint auspices of the Quartet and the ‘Arab Quartet’. The developing mood meanwhile abets a long-term ceasefire, an exchange of prisoners and a settlements freeze.
As the permanent-status talks get under way, the imagined scenario fades from the picture. Many thorny issues have still to be sorted out. These are down to the parties themselves but they enter the talks with a new expectancy. Problems that once seemed intractable – in a climate of hostility – look more resolvable once the parties are politically and psychologically ready to do a deal.
The scenario is not a prediction. Probably it won’t happen. But it does show how peace in the Middle East does not have to be a mirage. It all depends on the decisions real people make and on the encouragement of others.
http://fabians.org.uk/publications/freethinking/klug-middleeast-07/