Changing environment in the Middle East

The US diplomacy is involved in a frantic diplomatic effort to stop the Palestinian bid for independence from succeeding.  Their argument is that unilateral moves are counterproductive, and will not help the Palestinians in their stated goal of gaining independence.  The only way to achieve peace, the argument goes on, is through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. 

This rationale was fully accepted by the Palestinian Authority during the last peace negotiations.  That last bid for peace did not succeed exactly because the calls by the Palestinian Authority for Israel to stop unilateral actions fell on def ears.  The Palestinian Authority’s argument was that unilateral moves, and changes to the status quo brought by incessant settlement building and expansion are not conducive to peace. 

The US and Israel, now in panic mode over the Palestinian unilateral diplomatic initiative, did little, at the time, to secure even a small pause in the illegal activity.  Israel was treated with a slap on a wrist, a stark contrast to assortment of threats, ultimatums, warnings, and intimidation thrown at Palestinians presently.  Israel’s policy of land grab was a nuisance while Palestinians’ diplomatic maneuver, supported even by many western governments, is an irresponsible misdeed, we are told. 

The, so called, status quo presented by Israel contributed to major demographic and territorial shifts, since 1967, benefiting Israel - a repudiation of the very term “status quo”.  As each successive round of peace negotiations is organized, Israel, supported by the US, invokes these changes as “facts on the ground” to be reflected in any future peace deal.  This very dynamic that creates perverse incentives is the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East today.

Israelis, despite wanting peace, behave like a person driven by an addiction.  For them, peace is desirable, but if they could just build few more houses, few more settlements, few more “facts on the ground,” in the meantime, there is more than enough willingness to postpone peace, few days, months, and years - it always ends up indefinitely.  Like an addict, they dream of quitting tomorrow, never today.

This addiction, like many other ones, is driven by enablers.  Countries that create the conditions of impunity for Israel.  Most of the other countries would also behave like Israel if, like Israel, they operated in this environment of impunity. 

But what has changed this time around?  The new Palestinian Authority has rejected terrorism.  Terrorism was an easy way for Palestinians to draw attention to the conflict, and they used it effectively for that purpose.  However, publicity itself was not enough to bring them any real gains.  On the contrary, it was used as a tool to pin all the blame to them, to accuse them of sabotaging the peace process, and to justify the expansion of Israel as means of self defense.  

Now that Palestinian Authority operates like a big NGO, while the state of Israel continues with land expropriations, stripping Palestinians off of residency rights, denying ordinary citizens freedom of movement and travel preventing them from re-uniting with their families, and other horrifically discriminatory policies, it is hard to maintain the pretense. 

Israel simply won’t be able to expand its territory into the eternity.  In the current changing global and regional environment, the real interest of Israel would be to consolidate its gains. The enlargement has reached its peak, its saturation point.  If they decide to stay the course, both Israel and the US will be driven more frequently into situation in which their dishonesty and hypocrisy will be put to display, as in the case of the upcoming UN vote. 

There are many voices that say that the UN vote will not change anything.  That it will not “achieve the stated goals of the Palestinians.”  While that might be true, the vote will be a move in that direction.  Conflict in Palestine has lasted for a long time, but the dynamics of it has not always been the same. 

The last major turning point was the 1967 occupation.  It brought the dynamic of systematic, state sponsored expansion into new territories for Israel.  We are now leaving in times in which that dynamic is coming to an end.  Even if the UN vote fails, the shift away from the post 1967 dynamics is irreversible.  Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and other countries are distancing themselves from the support of the post 1967 Israel.  Even some European countries are joining in.  Business as usual is just not sustainable anymore, even for a US supported Israel.  Even Ariel Sharon, a hawk, was sensing that the engine of enlargement is running out of steam, when he enacted his policy of unilateral disengagement, trying to save the gains already made by Israel in the past.  Israel of today is still run by hawks, but the ones running it today lack vision.

The question remaining is will the US manage the change wisely, or will it make the things worse by trying to defend the indefensible.  It is the responsibility of other countries to reduce the pain of the transition by unambiguously supporting rights of all people involved in the conflict.  Supporting the UN vote for the independence of Palestine is a move in that direction. 

Mateo Riopreto

mateo.riopreto@gmail.com