From Rami Khouri in BEIRUT—I join with many others who applaud and are surprised by the speed and persistence of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s engagement in diplomatic efforts to relaunch Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. I applaud his initiative because it can only result in something positive, whether it succeeds or fails. 

If it achieves its goals, it could result in a resumed formal peace negotiation that presumably would have a better chance of success than previous talks over the past 20 years, because new talks would only take place if both sides felt there were a mutual and serious will to succeed. The chances of this are slim, but we should never give up trying to resolve this conflict peacefully, on the basis of the international rule of law.

If Kerry’s mission fails, on the other hand, all sides will have to adjust to the continued stalemate and the stultifying consequences of the long-term Israeli occupation, colonization, annexation and siege of Palestinian lands. Such a failure to re-start negotiations would also be a kind of success, as it would finally lay to rest the notion that there is any credible chance of diplomatic breakthroughs in the current circumstances. This would force all concerned to explore other options. The current situation is not sustainable and in due course will certainly lead to a new explosion of some sort—as has happened with predictable regularity since 1947-48 when this conflict began in its current form.

An intriguing third option that is particularly prevalent in Israel is the idea that in the absence of a comprehensive peace agreement we should focus on improving the socioeconomic conditions of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. This complex and slippery idea comprises three elements that are, in fact, totally opposed to each other, making it hard to oppose or support it with any clarity. 

The first is that socioeconomic development is the right of the Palestinians and anything that promotes their improved well-being and opportunities must be supported. The second, as manifested most emphatically in Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s development plan in recent years, is that economic development and the building of Palestinian institutions are prerequisites for eventual statehood. This compelling argument also should be supported unequivocally.

The third aspect of this idea reflects the Israeli government’s perception of economic development potentially as an alternative to ending its occupation, colonization, annexation and siege of the Palestinian areas and population. Though Israeli leaders often speak of promoting Palestinian development as a goal that would enhance conditions for a diplomatic agreement, many fear that they actually see Palestinian economic development primarily as a means to reducing the pain of occupation to an extent that would allow existing Israeli policies to continue in perpetuity. In the meantime, the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation enjoy neither freedom and sovereignty nor socioeconomic well-being, making the existing status quo very fragile.

It is important to separate the three dimensions of the argument for Palestinian socioeconomic development as a priority issue, by supporting the right of the Palestinians to live a better life and prepare for statehood one day, and opposing the cruel Israeli view that socioeconomic development can substitute for ending the Israeli occupation. A new danger is that the United States may be lining up with the Israeli government view, which sadly would provide yet another reason why the U.S. has been an incompetent and failed mediator in this conflict. 

A few days ago Kerry said that initiatives to promote the Palestinian economy is a central part of the issues that comprise his ongoing explorations for a new diplomatic initiative. He said that, “We are going to engage in new efforts, very specific efforts, to promote economic development and to remove some of the bottlenecks and barriers that exist with respect to commerce in the West Bank.” Economic growth “will help us be able to provide a climate, if you will, an atmosphere, within which people have greater confidence about moving forward.”

His nuanced view of economic growth as promoting the greater goal of peace negotiations is heartening, but is also unclear. In such matters the modern historical record shows that where there are different perceptions the Israeli view almost always prevails over the American view. This is a good moment for the U.S. government to clarify its position on this matter, so that all concerned can better grasp if Kerry is acting as a truly impartial mediator with integrity, or a disguised surrogate for the Israeli government. 

It is important for all concerned to note honestly the correct order of things: Palestinian socioeconomic conditions are bad mainly because of the prolonged Israeli occupation and restrictions. As the late Palestinian economist Yousef Sayegh said many years ago, socioeconomic development is an inherent Palestinian right that we should always seek to promote, but the antidote to long-term Israeli occupation is not economic development, it is liberation.

 

Rami G. Khouri is Editor-at-large of The Daily Star, and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, in Beirut, Lebanon. You can follow him @ramikhouri.

Copyright © 2013 Rami G. Khouri—distributed by Agence Global

[PHOTO CREDIT: David Ortmann (CC).]

Views: 141

Tags: democracy, development, diplomacy, peace, rights, sovereignty

Comment

You need to be a member of Global Ethics Network to add comments!

Join Global Ethics Network

Comment by B. Carlton Burge on April 14, 2013 at 10:30am

Interesting.  "The chances of this are slim, but we should never give up trying to resolve this conflict peacefully, on the basis of the international rule of law."  I agree completely.  Too bad most of your rhetoric does not.

Regarding "...the long-term Israeli occupation, colonization, annexation and siege of Palestinian lands":  Israel is an internationally recognized nation.  Palestine has never been such. The surrounding countries conceded the land after Israel fought long and hard for it.  "Colonization" occurs when a more-powerful country occupies a less-powerful one in an effort to gain territory.  In Israel's case, what was the more powerful country?  But, I must agree with your terms "annexation and siege."  There's no denying that the Israeli government has more often favored primarily Jewish communities over primarily Islamic communities during conflicts regarding land. 

"An intriguing third option that is particularly prevalent in Israel is the idea that in the absence of a comprehensive peace agreement we should focus on improving the socioeconomic conditions of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza."  This seems inherently critical, not to make the status quo more palatable, but in order to have any hope of peaceful negotiations achieving traction.

What does "ending the Israeli occupation" mean?  Is this not just a poorly veiled reference to exactly what the most extreme Arabic elements advocate:  the elimination of Israel?

Carnegie Council

The End of the U.S.-Taliban Talks? with Jonathan Cristol

Despite progress over the last year, Donald Trump effectively ended the latest round of U.S.-Taliban negotiations with a tweet earlier this month. Will talks continue in a more understated way? Does this change anything on the ground in Afghanistan? And what is the Taliban doing in Moscow? Jonathan Cristol, author of "The United States and the Taliban before and after 9/11," discusses all this and more.

Candidates, Calculus, and the Iran Crisis

In choosing whether and how to respond to the attack on Saudi Arabian oil refineries, what is the calculus for determining action? Should the United States maintain its status as the guarantor of the Persian Gulf, protecting the security and integrity of the international energy system? What do the 2020 candidates think?

The Narrative IS Changing . . .

The narrative about America's role in the world is changing--and more evidence is accumulating that suggests that no matter how the 2020 presidential and congressional elections turn out, there is no turning the clock back to a pre-2016 status quo.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

VIDEOS

SUPPORT US

GEO-GOVERNANCE MATTERS

© 2019   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service


The views and opinions expressed in the media, comments, or publications on this website are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by Carnegie Council.