This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/29/middle-east-peace-talks-netanyahu-abbas

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Middle East peace talks rebooted as Netanuyahu and Abbas mull legacies Middle East peace talks rebooted as Netanyahu and Abbas mull legacies
(about 1 hour later)
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators will sit down face-to-face on Tuesday for the first time in almost three years, in what is hoped will be the start of US-sponsored formal negotiations to end their historic conflict. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators will sit down face-to-face in Washington on Tuesday for the first time in almost three years, in what is hoped will be the start of US-sponsored formal negotiations to end their historic conflict.
The fact that the US secretary of state, John Kerry, has got this far has confounded sceptics, who predicted his intensive diplomatic mission to revive the peace process would fizzle out. But scepticism still abounds, and Kerry himself has acknowledged many hurdles on the long road ahead. The fact that the US secretary of state, John Kerry, has got this far has confounded sceptics, who predicted that his intensive diplomatic mission to revive the peace process would fizzle out. But scepticism still abounds, and Kerry himself has acknowledged many hurdles on the long road ahead.
One critical question is whether the two leaders – Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas – are willing to take the bold steps and make the difficult compromises necessary for a solution to the conflict. Both men profess they are ready; indeed, pointers suggest both recognise this might be the last chance for a sustainable peace agreement, and that the alternatives are worse.One critical question is whether the two leaders – Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas – are willing to take the bold steps and make the difficult compromises necessary for a solution to the conflict. Both men profess they are ready; indeed, pointers suggest both recognise this might be the last chance for a sustainable peace agreement, and that the alternatives are worse.
Although Netanyahu is deeply reluctant to cede territory colonised by Israel over the past 46 years, he recently said that one of his goals in the talks was "preventing the creation of a bi-national state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea". That, as has repeatedly pointed out, would lead either to the end of Israel as a "Jewish state" or to an apartheid-like regime in which Palestinians were denied equal rights. Netanyahu may have concluded that giving up some of the territory captured by Israel in 1967 was a preferable option. Although Netanyahu is deeply reluctant to cede territory colonised by Israel over the past 46 years, he recently said that one of his goals in the talks was "preventing the creation of a bi-national state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea". That, as has repeatedly pointed out, would lead either to the end of Israel as a "Jewish state" or to an apartheid-like regime in which Palestinians were denied equal rights. Netanyahu may have concluded that giving up some of the territory captured by Israel in 1967 is a preferable option.
He is also likely to be concerned about his legacy. Netanyahu is now in his third – and probably last – term as prime minister, and he may be motivated by the desire to go down in history as the man who achieved an historic agreement that eluded his predecessors. He is also likely to be concerned about his legacy. Netanyahu is in his third – and probably final – term as prime minister, and he might be motivated by the desire to go down in history as the man who achieved an agreement that eluded his predecessors.
On top of that is intense international pressure both from the US, which has invested heavily in the current attempt to restart talks, and from the European Union, which is showing both impatience with Israel's continued settlement enterprise and a new willingness to act against it. The recent EU directive against financial support for Israeli institutions with links to settlements had a big impact on both sides' willingness to engage with Kerry's mission. Added to that is intense pressure from the US, which has invested heavily in the attempt to restart talks and yesterday confirmed that former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk would oversee them. There is also pressure from the European Union, which is showing impatience with Israel's continued settlement enterprise and a new willingness to act against it. The recent EU directive against financial support for Israeli institutions with links to settlements had a big impact on both sides' willingness to engage with Kerry's mission.
For Abbas, the alternatives to negotiations are also grim. The unpalatable notion of giving up the cherished aspiration for an independent state is matched by equally undesirable prospect of a return to violence should Palestinian frustration and feelings of betrayal translate into a new intifada. And international endorsement of a theoretical state is not, as Abbas knows well, the same as a reality on the ground. For Abbas, the alternatives to negotiation are grim. The unpalatable notion of giving up the cherished aspiration for an independent state is matched by the equally undesirable prospect of a return to violence should Palestinian frustration and feelings of betrayal translate into a new intifada. And international endorsement of a theoretical state is not, as Abbas knows well, the same as a reality on the ground.
Abbas, who has devoted most of his life to negotiations – and has thus far failed – is also conscious of the legacy issue. At 78, time is not on the Palestinian leader's side. Abbas, who has devoted most of his life to negotiations, – and has thus far failed – is also conscious of the legacy issue. At 78, he does not have time on his side.
Kerry is a huge factor. Both sides have saluted his dogged perseverance, and he shows no sign of flagging. That the talks are to begin in Washington is not insignificant; Kerry's personal effort and commitment at the negotiators' backs is intended to keep both sides in the room for as long as possible.Kerry is a huge factor. Both sides have saluted his dogged perseverance, and he shows no sign of flagging. That the talks are to begin in Washington is not insignificant; Kerry's personal effort and commitment at the negotiators' backs is intended to keep both sides in the room for as long as possible.
Even so, the obstacles are immense. Pre-talks discussions have focussed on borders. Both the Palestinians and the US want the pre-1967 line, with agreed land swaps for deviations, to be the basis of negotiations. The Israelis have refused to agree. Even so, the obstacles are immense. Pre-talk discussions have focused on borders. Both the Palestinians and the US want the pre-1967 line, with agreed land swaps for deviations, to be the basis of negotiations. The Israelis have refused to agree.
But the issue of borders is relatively simple compared to what seems to be unbridgeable gaps on Jerusalem, which both sides want as a capital, but whose division or sharing is adamantly rejected by Israel; and whether at least some of the 4.9m Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the diaspora will be allowed to return to their pre-1948 homes, as the Palestinians insist. But the issue of borders is relatively simple compared with what seem to be unbridgeable gaps concerning Jerusalem, which both sides want as a capital, but whose division or sharing is adamantly rejected by Israel, and the matter of whether at least some of the 4.9 million Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the diaspora will be allowed to return to their pre-1948 homes, as the Palestinians insist.
Gaza – ruled by Hamas, and physically and politically separated from the West Bank – has been barely mentioned, but would have to be part of any sustainable permanent agreement. And the Israeli demand that the Palestinians "recognise" Israel as a Jewish state has so far met with outright rejection. Gaza – ruled by Hamas, and physically and politically separated from the West Bank – has barely been mentioned, but would have to be part of any sustainable permanent agreement. And the Israeli demand that the Palestinians "recognise" Israel as a Jewish state has so far met with outright rejection.
For now, scepticism is still far outrunning optimism, and some politicians and analysts are already looking at what might lie beyond another failure of negotiations. For now, scepticism is still far outrunning optimism, and some politicians and analysts are already looking at what might lie beyond another failed attempt at negotiation. Some are suggesting that an interim agreement falling short of a Palestinian state is the best that can be hoped for, although the Palestinians will see little advantage in this. Others, on the Israeli rightwing, suggest annexation of Area C, the 60% of the West Bank currently under full Israeli control and in which the settlements and military bases are located.
Some are suggesting an interim or transitional agreement that falls short of a Palestinian state is the best that can be hoped for, although the Palestinians will see little advantage in this. Others, on the Israeli rightwing, suggest annexation of Area C, the 60% of the West Bank currently under full Israeli control and in which the settlements and military bases are located. An increasing number of Palestinians – and a few on the extreme left and right of the Israeli political spectrum – advocate one bi-national state. But the alternative scenarios of an Arab majority (unthinkable to almost all Israeli Jews) or an apartheid-style state (unacceptable to the Palestinians, the international community and a likely majority of Israelis) all but rule this out.
An increasing number of Palestinians – and a few on the extreme left and right of the Israeli political spectrum – advocate one bi-national state. But the alternative scenarios of an Arab majority (unthinkable to almost all Israeli Jews) or an apartheid-style state (unacceptable to the Palestinians, the international community, and a likely majority of Israelis) all but rules this out. Another just-conceivable scenario is that Netanyahu opts for unilateral action. We tried, he might say, but we couldn't reach an agreement, so now is the time for Israel to withdraw from most of the West Bank to the separation barrier. This, he might argue, "saves" the state of Israel, keeps the big settlement blocs on Israel's side of the unilaterally-drawn "border", and obviates the need to address the explosive issues of Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees. He might say to the Palestinians: "You want a state? We are giving you most of the West Bank (and Gaza). Now get on with it."
Another just-conceivable scenario is that Netanyahu opts for unilateral action. We tried, he might say, but we couldn't reach an agreement, so now is the time for Israel to withdraw from most of the West Bank to the separation barrier. This, he might argue, "saves" the state of Israel, keeps the big settlement blocs on Israel's side of the unilaterally-drawn "border", and obviates the need to address the explosive issues of Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees. He might say to the Palestinians: "You want a state? We are giving you most of the West Bank (and Gaza) - now get on with it." Security, the resistance of hardcore settlers deep in the West Bank, and international opprobrium may well make this – even if it was fleetingly considered – impossible. But despite Israel's much-stated opposition to Palestinian unilateralism, it has taken this path before – most notably in the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza. It just might consider it again.
Security, the resistance of hardcore settlers deep in the West Bank, and international opprobrium may well make this option – even if it was fleetingly considered – impossible to pull off. But despite Israel's much-stated opposition to Palestinian unilateralism, it has taken this path – most notably in the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza – before. It just might consider it again.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox every weekday.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox every weekday.