The limits of the ‘French initiative’

The refusal of Netanyahu’s governments (three consecutive governments; four in total) to stop its policies of violence, Judaisation and settlement as a condition for negotiations is nothing new compared to the actions of previous Israeli governments, regardless of the parties and trends, since the Madrid Conference in 1991.

The aim of Netanyahu’s governments is to impose Israel as a “state for the Jewish people”. This is an implicit Zionist goal that the Labour party governments led by Rabin, Peres and Barack sought to achieve on the ground despite signing the Oslo Accords.

As for the demand of recognising the Jewishness of Israel that was proposed by the coalition government consisting of Kadima, led by Olmert, and the Labour party led by Barack, making it one of its policies and a condition to resume negotiations or determine their final outcome, before Netanyahu’s three consecutive governments openly expressed this.

The brief examples I have just mentioned are important, and I will build on them by saying that although Netanyahu’s governments are Israel’s most extremist, arrogant and ideological governments, the only thing they did was openly express these opinions and implemented them in light of the negotiations, while the previous governments did not. Netanyahu’s government loudly and arrogantly stated, in broad daylight, that Israel as a state, and therefore its government, not only reject a political settlement for the conflict that involves the acknowledgment of the Palestinians’ right to return, a state and self-determination, but also rejects the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with land-swaps, as part of the so-called two-state solution.

In other words, Netanyahu’s governments’ announcement of Israel’s impossible and restrictive negotiations conditions, has made clear to everyone, Arabs and non-Arabs, more than any time before and without any doubt the real reason and true purpose behind the Israeli governments’ holding of 25 years of negotiations and the failure of all the rounds of negotiations. The most recent round of negotiations are those held by Kerry between July 2013 and March 2014.

Hence, after Netanyahu’s previous government caused Kerry’s efforts to fail, the Obama administration openly announced that it would not make any more efforts to resume negotiations. However, on the inside, both in secret and in public, the administration put all types of pressure on the PA leadership to force it to accept the Israeli conditions and to prevent it from developing the Palestinian achievement of receiving recognition as an observer state by the UN General Assembly, by approaching the Security Council with a request to recognise Palestine as a member state, to determine an international legal reference, and a time frame for the negotiations to establish a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders.

At the time, France proposed an initiative that relatively touched on the Palestinian demand to appear before the Security Council, but it was quickly frozen after pressure from Washington and other major European capitals.

As for the draft bill that was proposed at the time by the Palestinians and Arabs to the Security Council, it was nipped in the bud by Washington by preventing it from receiving the required nine votes which would leave it open for a ballot. This is despite the fact that many amendments were made to the bill that essentially rendered it meaningless.

As a result, the Obama administration granted Israel more time (about two years so far) to go forward in implementing its settlement and Judaisation plans in the West Bank and Jerusalem, in addition to violating them on a military and security level and waging a premeditated war of annihilation and destruction (the third in the past seven years) on the Gaza Strip.

However, the unprecedented Israeli (political and ground) attack backfired and led to adverse results, including the European parliaments’ recognition of a Palestinian state, the increased boycott of Israel in many forms, the increased condemnation of Israel as a racist, expansionist, hostile, rogue state, and the outbreak of the Palestinian intifada that has been going on since last October.

However, instead of recognising the Palestinian state, like the French parliament did, instead of following in the footsteps of the Swedish government in its courageous recognition of the Palestinian state, and instead of following the example of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in his (late) understanding of the Palestinian national resistance and his holding of the occupation responsible for the continuation of the conflict and the failure of the “two-state solution”, the French government revived its initiative by calling for an international conference. It did not, however, explain whether the conference would determine the foundations and reference for the so-called “peace process”, a conference celebrating the resumption of negotiations, similar to the Annapolis Conference (for example), or a conference to expand the International Quartet in order to supervise the negotiations? Not to mention, the French government has known before anyone else and more than anyone else, that the Obama administration that thwarted the French initiative in 2014 is now in its last year of its term, and is distracted by the elections and Russia and its regional and international allies’ fight for control in the region, especially in Iraq, Syria and Libya, and that what matters the most to the administration in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is its attempt to end the intifada, and warn (or to be accurate, alert) its ally Israel against the consequences of widening its circle of boycott and isolation, and the collapse of the PA. This is also being warned against by Israel’s European ally, and by the Israeli army leaders and its security agencies.

If we want to just dive right in rather than beat around the bush, we could say that it is true that since its proposal in 2014, the French initiative has provided a relatively different position to that of the Americans, but it is more accurate to say that this difference is not significant and is no more than a difference in position between two allies (the US and France) whose higher interests meet and bring them together. Therefore, they have the same vision and basic approaches to resolving the Palestinian issue and ending the conflict. It is also worth noting that the relative difference in France’s position from that of the US ultimately decided in favour of the latter, as it is the leader of the “Western coalition” and the most powerful country in the world.

This was the case when France proposed its initiative in 2014, and it is still the case today, as proven by experience, since the establishment of Israel by means of a heinous ethnic cleansing in 1948 and its violent expansion in 1967. This means that the international conference that the French government is calling for, without defining its purpose or aim, will not be more than a platform to resume negotiations or relive the experiences of the past.

However, for the French government to reiterate its vow to recognise the Palestinian state in the event that its initiative fails is a positive thing, but its implementation may be delayed for years. These years will be taken advantage of by Israel to use the negotiations, as it has done for the past 25 years, as a cover to continue its hostile policies, its confiscation of land, and its settlements and Judaisation. This closes the door to the possibility of reaching a balanced settlement that involves the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, by means of negotiations, not to mention a fair settlement that involves the return of the refuges (the essence of the Palestinian cause and the origin of the conflict) the homes from which they were displaced, in accordance with UN resolution 194.

To say that France’s invitation to hold an international conference may have occurred after receiving the green light from the Obama administration, and that Washington will abstain from voting when this is proposed in the Security Council is something that was said two years ago and it was proven to be untrue.

However, even if this does happen, it will not happen without American amendments that would make sure the initiative does not detract from the United States’ monopoly over the conflict and the sponsorship of the negotiations and that it does not restore the Palestinian rights provided for in the legitimate international resolutions.

Otherwise, the American veto is ready, as it always has been, to curb the official Palestinian and Arab keenness on reviving the French initiative in order to avoid disappointment, once again. The French government, which was unable to stand strong in the face of the US and European pressures in 2014, will not be able to do so now either. In addition to this, France, as well as other major countries, will not be, in any case, “more royalist than the king”. These are the limits and horizons of the French initiative as long as direct negotiations, under American auspices, are the only options for the Arab officials, and as long as the factors of the Oslo Accords and the division of the PA are still existent, thus preventing the on-going intifada from armament and from having specific and unified national goals and from its actions on the ground developing into a new national political strategy for managing the conflict with the occupation.

Translated from Qudsnet, 10 February 2016.

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