Challenges to the Israeli-Arab Peace Process

Printer-friendly version PDF version Send to friend Change the text size

December 15, 2010 • Volume 28 • Winter 2011

By Abraham Havis

The initial attempts at Middle East reconciliation date back to the 1978 Camp David Accords between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and mediated by American President Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately, the challenges to the peace process trace back equally as far. This legacy is critical for examining the most recent attempts at peaceful negotiation.

On September 2 and 3, 2010, American President Barack Obama, Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu, andPalestinian Authorjty Chairman Mahmud Abbas met in Washington to negotiate a peaceful Middle East. Obama has included in his mandate on Middle Eastern policy the continued freeze of the growth ofIsraeli settlements in the West Bank, the creation of a Palestinian state, and the negotiation of a "fmal-status solution." In March 2009, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited West Jerusalem, articulating her view that Israeli settlements and the demolition of Arab homes in East Jerusalem were "unhelpful" to the peace process.

Conflicting views concerning the settlements and a Palestinian state are contentious barriers to progress in the peace process. While some members of the Knesset oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state, the United States unequivocally supports a "Two-State" solution. Regarding "settlements", Obama declared in an address at the Cairo University in June, "the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."

Ten days after the address, Netanyahu gave a speech revising his previous "anti-Palestinian state" stance. The Israeli Prime Minister specified that Palestine could become a state if Jerusalem remained the capital of Israel, Palestine remained demilitarized, Palestinian refugees could not make claims on their forbearers' property (right of return), and the growth of Israeli settlements would be permitted. To reinforce his message and encourage peace talks, Netanyahu decided to freeze Israeli growth on settlements for ten months.

The Palestinian response to peace talks and their reaction to Netanyahu's most recent concession concerning the settlement freeze, have not been encouraging. In August and September of 2010, four Israelis were killed and four injured during attacks by thirteen militant groups led by Hamas against Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

It is clear at this point that even if an agreement is reached, two concerns remain: Hamas and other terrorist groups, and the debate over the settlements. Palestinian reluctance to accept Israel as a Jewish state has led to continued efforts to destroy it with terror and violence. Netanyahu has criticized Abbas' insufficient countering of Ham as and Hezbollah. All parties involved in the negotiation acknowledge the threat that these militant groups pose to the peace process and agree that they must be suppressed.

On September 26, 2010, the settlement freeze expired. Despite much international pressure, Netanyahu refused to extend the 10-month moratorium. Abbas, supported by the Arab League, declared a halt to the peace talks until the freeze is reinstated. Both Obama and the United Nations have expressed disappointment at Netanyahu's refusal to put limits on the settlements, which the latter argues should not be a barrier to negotiations. Jordanian King Abdullah II claims that continued settlement expansion can escalate into another war by the end of 2010.

In light of such ongoing debates, does Israel have a partner in peace? What are the remaining deterrents to progress towards peace? Abbas' agreement to come to the negotiating table is contingent upon conditions. Iranian President Mahmoud Alunadinejad, Hamas' backer, does not support peace talks, but rather encourages armed revolt by Palestinians. Lebanon wants the peace talks to include Palestinians living outside of Israel and refuses to accept outcomes that do not serve its interests.

Many cite Netanyahu's refusal to extend the settlement freeze as the biggest obstacle to the peace process. However, Israel must pursue its security and national interests, despite negative public and international scrutiny. This is the only way a mutually satisfactory peace process can ever have the hope of developing.