Kerry's plan will liquidate the Palestinian cause

The US administration does not possess a clear plan to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict; at best it can perhaps manage the conflict by using the worst stipulations of the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap, and twist them into a new framework agreement that permits negotiations to continue for an indefinite period. This agreement would act as a regional incubator in the face of the weakness of the Arab-Islamic support for the Palestinian cause and would free the Israelis from the pressure of accountability.

The “Framework Agreement”, which US Secretary of State John Kerry seeks to achieve before the time limit set for the negotiations ends in April, does not, in the best case scenario, lead to a just and comprehensive solution for the Palestinians, nor does it meet the minimum national Palestinian rights of liberation and self-determination, and the right of return. Instead, it eliminates these rights completely.

Contrary to the concept of “fair mediation”, the value of just and comprehensive rights are not included in the secretary of state’s vision of politically-realistic concepts, nor are they considered during his frequent tours of the occupied territories made, supposedly, for the purpose of reaching a final Palestinian-Israeli agreement. However, he is not really bothered with what this agreement will entail for the Palestinians as long as Israeli “security” and US-Israel strategic interests are protected and he does not stand to be blamed if the mission fails.

In light of Kerry’s persistence and the preoccupation of the Arab countries with their internal issues and therefore a decline in their interest in Palestine; the continued Palestinian political split; the open American bias towards the Israeli occupation; and Western attempts to redraw the map of the region in order to serve their interests; in the light of all of these factors, the United States is hoping to end the peace process forever.

However, the talks will continue in their apparently endless and useless cycle. This will give the Israelis more time to cover the 20 per cent of historic Palestine left for a Palestinian state with yet more illegal settlements, bypass roads and military checkpoints; they will make the establishment of such a state well-nigh impossible.

The Palestinian leadership announced last month that it rejected Kerry’s proposals. As a result, the US official has spared no effort in threatening to cut off financial aid to the Palestinian Authority, leaving it to face the occupation on its own. The Palestinians have been told that they will be blamed for the failure of US efforts to achieve “Mahmoud’s peace” in the region.

Although the negotiations seem to be indefinite and extendable, they are “negotiations for the sake of negotiations”, no more, no less. The most they can achieve is the liquidation of the Palestinian cause and its removal from the pages of history and geography by stripping out its spirit, foundations and core issues.

Kerry wants the Palestinians to agree to have an army of occupation in the Jordan Valley for an extended period, as well as the annexation of the large settlement blocs, built on around 12 per cent of the West Bank; Israel would retain control over the crossings, borders and security sites. Moreover, he wants the Palestinians to agree to exclude occupied Jerusalem from negotiations and the final agreement. In other words, says the Palestinian leadership, the Palestinians are required to agree to “a Palestinian state without crossings, borders or a capital.”

The refugees’ legal right of return has no place in Kerry’s plan. They have a number of options put to them: they can move and live in Canada; live in a future Palestinian state; or stay where they are, particularly in Jordan, which hosts more than 42 per cent of the six million refugees registered with UNRWA. The secretary of state views the latter as the most practical and best solution, as the US administration can no doubt “convince” Jordan with financial sweeteners. Also, the situation of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon will be given priority as the most pressing issue.

The refugees have a fourth option: they can apply to live in Israel, which will consider requests based on specific standards and regulations, set by the Israeli occupation authorities within a humanitarian framework and only in the context of a “family reunification” procedure. It is set to be open for up to 15 years and the Israeli government will contribute towards a fund to compensate and resettle the refugees, with no acknowledgement of responsibility for the whole refugee issue.

The options do not, in any form, include the right of all Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and land from which they were expelled by the Zionist attacks in 1948 and 1967.

The choice facing the Palestinians is worse than the options put forward in “Camp David II” hosted by the former US President Bill Clinton which were rejected by the late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. At the time, the then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the return of a limited number of refugees to the Palestinian territories occupied in 1948 in the context of “family reunification”. Israel would also have allowed a few thousand refugees (the exact number was to be determined by Israel) to return to a future Palestinian state. An international compensation fund was to be established to help refugees settle in host countries. It was said clearly at the time that this would be the end of the refugees’ issue.

Kerry continues to dilute the essence of the Palestinian issue by pressuring the Palestinian leadership to recognise the “Jewishness of the state” as an Israeli condition to reach any agreement between the two parties. The Israelis are no longer content with being recognised as a sovereign state and a fait accompli, but now want to be recognised as a “Jewish state”, granting it alleged historical, religious and political legitimacy. This denies any possibility of the right of return to be exercised. It denies the 20 per cent of Israel’s citizens who are Palestinians the right to call their homeland their own, and also paves the way for them to be expelled from the “Jewish state”.

If the variables on the ground prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, with the occupation taking up 80 per cent of the occupied West Bank, leaving less than 20 per cent for the Palestinians (that’s just 12 per cent of historic Palestine) in a series of non-contiguous “cantons”, then Kerry’s plan will implement Israel’s vision for the future Palestinian entity. That is nothing more than a framework of self-rule over the population of the “state”, with no sovereignty and security being entrusted to the Israelis.

Despite America’s motives and clear pro-Israel bias, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected the plan. He rejects the idea of any right of return, even if it is only symbolic. He also opposes the sovereignty and independence of a future Palestinian state, and is supported by a growing right-wing parliament packed with extremist settlers who will not accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders. Nor will they accept East Jerusalem being the capital of that state, the right of return or an end to Israeli settlement activity. In short, they are pushing for a rump Palestinian state with no sovereignty and no control over its own security.

The Palestinian position, however, is “firm” at the moment, demanding an end to the occupation and the full withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlers from the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967, with some agreed land swaps. There can be no Israeli security presence in the Jordan Valley, says the PA, and Jerusalem must be the capital of the state, while refugees must be settled in accordance with UN Resolution 194. The Arab Peace Initiative announced in Beirut in 2002 is, insists the PA, the only Arab strategic vision to resolve the conflict with the Israeli occupation.

However, this “firmness” needs support from within by ending the Palestinian division and achieving reconciliation and national unity in order to confront Israeli aggression in every possible way, and to reject Kerry’s proposals. There must also be an end to the futile negotiations. The leadership should decide to go to the UN to seek membership of international agencies, institutions and organisations, rather than hinting at this as a punitive action against an occupation that is well-aware that this step will not be taken in the near future.

It is obvious that “agreements” such as that proposed by John Kerry will not provide a just and comprehensive basis for peace. That would depend on unity of purpose amongst the Palestinians, making them immune to US and Israeli pressure to compromise away their land and rights. There are other options aside from negotiations; these peace talks are designed solely for Israel’s benefit and to liquidate the Palestinian cause.

The author is a Jordanian writer. This is a translation of the Arabic text published by Al Jazeera Net on 11 February, 2014

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.