Selling illusions and buying time

The French Initiative for a peace deal in Palestine has made a comeback after its suspension in 2014. The initiative did not enjoy the support of the United States at first, nor that of other European countries. The Palestinians and Arab states, although keen, had to attend to their own business in the UN Security Council, which is sympathetic to the French proposal, although it did not achieve the nine votes that it required despite its flexibility and concessions.

Once again, we see that illusions are being sold and time is being bought and this has been made clear through the enthusiastic response of the Palestinians towards the French initiative, despite it not being absolutely clear. Will it be the foundation for the return to the peace process and its approval by the Security Council? Or will it call for a new meeting along the lines of the 2007 Annapolis Conference and set up an international mechanism that will resemble the International Quartet but include some Arab or regional countries? Alternatively, will this be an initiative that implements a Security Council resolution regarding the Israeli settlements?

Indeed, according to comments in the French media, the decision has not yet been made, especially after a similar Arab resolution failed to deliver. This failure is still present in our minds. The situation is now worse and predicts the rise of a new opportunity to propose a resolution within the Security Council that will be consistent with the terms of international law, launch an international conference or review the expansion of an international mechanism like the Quartet so that negotiations can be resumed and maintain a good pace.

France has reiterated its promise to recognise the Palestinian state even in the event that its initiative fails. While this is a good thing, it could take several weeks or months, or even a year or more, before it actually happens. There could also be elections in France before such recognition is made and there is no guarantee that a new French president will commit to the promises of his predecessor. Israel will by that time have continued its land grabs, intensified its settlement expansion and Judaisation process, and repeated its aggression and violence against the Palestinian people, all of which make the establishment of an independent and viable State of Palestine even less likely.

Why does France not recognise the Palestinian state now? This would make sense given that the French parliament voted in favour of this a few years ago as part of a wider initiative intended to mobilise international pressure against Israel to abide by the UN decision to recognise Palestine as an observer state. French hesitation and ambiguity hurts the initiative. Its pace in pushing the initiative and its goal to resume negotiations after a year and a half is now nothing more than a waste of time. Such an approach does little to prevent the Palestinians from re-entering the cycle of bilateral negotiations under American sponsorship even though France and the international community recognise that such an approach has failed in the past. No initiative can succeed without a clear reference to international law and previous UN resolutions, especially one that does not recognise Palestine as an observer state within the United Nations.

Thus, if France truly wants Israel and the rest of the world to take its proposal seriously, it must also place pressure on Tel Aviv and Washington rather than wait until after the US presidential election. It should also remember that it announced a few months ago that it does not intend to make any effort to get the talks resumed. The most that France can do is work towards maintaining a degree of peace between the two sides and prevent the outbreak of even more violence, while propping up the lame duck of a Palestinian Authority. There are those who say that France has the green light from the Obama administration and that Washington will either support the proposal or abstain in a Security Council vote. This could mean that the US will call for a few amendments pertaining to Palestinian rights. If France does not satisfy Washington then it can expect a veto in the Security Council.

The better outcome for the Palestinian leadership, in an effort to avoid losing another one or two years labouring under yet another illusion, is to recognise that France does not hold more power than the US, and that if the Palestinian position is neither strong nor clear and cannot garner Arab and international support, France will withdraw just as it has in the past. The French could also act as they have done before, when they prevented the Palestinians from building a new path for themselves and prolonged the process for attaining their long-awaited rights.

The Palestinian leaders must refrain from promoting the sense of disorientation that comes with pursuing several paths and initiatives at the same time, as it prevents them from concentrating on one plan and allowing outsiders to take their positions seriously. Thus, they must concentrate on introducing a draft resolution to the UN Security Council in which they demonstrate how Israeli settlements are illegitimate and unlawful as detailed in previous international resolutions. The Palestinians had announced their intention to go through with this earlier and this comes as part of a greater effort to lessen the blow of all the concessions that have been made by the Palestinian people since Oslo. Furthermore, the Palestinians are forced to live with settlement expansion and agree to land swaps so that the Israelis can keep their large settlement blocs. Yet, in light of settlement expansion, it is important for any future agreement to remain in line with the Fourth Geneva Convention with regards to the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. This resolution takes us back to the legal and political scenario in which we found ourselves pre-Oslo and it will actually have a chance of passing through the Security Council simply because Obama’s team wants to leave a fingerprint on this issue before he leaves office.

The world is fed up with Israel’s settlement expansion and needs to work to save the two-state solution since the Palestinian Authority is going downhill and losing its popularity due to the lack of transparency within the political system. It has now been made clear that power will not be transferred to a new president without the current postholder’s resignation or death. Instead of dispersing Palestinian efforts via verbal threats to withdraw international protection and questions of security coordination, which everyone now knows will never be implemented, the Palestinian leadership must instead work to end national division and change its relationship with the occupation radically; the fact remains that the Palestinian Authority is dependent on Israel to devise a plan in which Israel’s security will remain the central focus.

He who makes too many concessions can no longer demand anything or make any changes. Due to the fact that the Palestinian Authority is dependent on Israel and on a peace process that is focused on ensuring Israeli security, it cannot make any move that will place it in danger because Israel is devoted to supporting the PA so long as it remains loyal to certain political, economic and security-related commitments. One must note that the question of Israeli security remains at the top of this priority list and it comes as no surprise that if this is ever threatened, then Israel will dissolve the PA without question and establish alternative authorities that work in its favour.

There is reason to believe that all the talk surrounding new settlement expansion is nothing more than a distraction to suspend all the decisions made by the PLO Central Committee, which has allegedly exhausted itself by conducting a research project since last March. In order for society to take this research seriously, it must be part of a greater national strategy as opposed to an independent initiative. One cannot revive bones once they have been turned to ashes; hence, we cannot revive what was known as the “peace process” because it was used as a cover for the Israeli occupation and its settlement expansion and violence. This is especially true at a time when Israel has taken advantage of the chaos and violence in the region by encouraging national division and sectarianism for its benefit and in the hopes that it will achieve its dream of establishing Greater Israel.

France’s willingness to act is evidently a positive thing considering Israel’s angry reaction towards the French Initiative. However, Israel’s rejection of this plan is not sufficient evidence that the proposal will bear fruit, as it will be an action without any true blessing if it does not insist upon certain conditions. Yet, the real shortcomings are not found in France but on our side, for no one knows what we want and how we will achieve it in light of our national division and all of the other battles that we are fighting on the sidelines.

Translated from Palsawa, 2 February, 2016

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