Gershon Baskin

De-risking peace - Part 5

30.06.2016

Gershon Baskin. Photo: Otmar Steinbicker

Terrorist groups and organizations have emerged and morphed into increasingly dangerous manifestations, waging their war around the world and not only in our neighborhood. The Islamic State organization has threatened the regimes of many of the countries that surround us and the Iranians pose a constant threat not only to us but to their Arab neighbors as well. Hamas, committed to Israel’s destruction, is rebuilding its forces in the south and in the north, while Hezbollah, another organization committed to our destruction, has battlefield experience and some 100,000 rockets and missiles pointed at us. This is a dangerous period for Israel, but in this time of crises and threats there are also opportunities.

The most obvious is the Arab Peace Initiative (API) of March 2002. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has finally opened the possibility of engaging the Arab world on the basis of the API, but has still not said so explicitly.

From my discussions with leaders from the Arab League and with some of the authors of the API, I know that the Arab League never intended the API to be a “take it or leave it” deal. It was always intended to be a proposal to incentivize Israel to resolve the core of the Israeli-Arab conflict – the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

As changes have occurred in the region since its issuance, the main Sunni Arabs states have indicated to Israel, indirectly and directly, that the contours of future peace have also changed. This was first indicated several years ago when Arab leaders said that they, like the Palestinians, accept the idea of equal territorial swaps, recognizing that Israel would not withdraw exactly to the Green Line. Furthermore, no (existing and functional) state in the Arab League today would apply any pressure on Israel to return the Golan Heights to Syria.

Even if, after understanding this, Israel is still reluctant to state that it accepts the API as the basis for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, there are still steps that Israel could take that would advance the chances of peace and enhance Israel’s security and the region’s stability.

It is clear that Netanyahu does not believe in a bilateral deal with the Palestinians, even though he insists on bilateral negotiations with them, without other international involvement as proposed in the French initiative. Israel has peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan that have remained in place and fully implemented, even through some very difficult times. President Abdel Fattah Sisi of Egypt has already indicated Egypt’s willingness to assist Israel and the Palestinians to make peace. Israel’s security cooperation today with Egypt and Jordan is a key element of this part of the region’s security and stability.

The development of a negotiating and peacemaking framework which would encompass Israel, the PA, Egypt and Jordan could serve as the best possible platform for de-risking peace and creating regional frameworks for security, stability and economic development. The creation of the regional quartet, as I began proposing during the Summer 2014 war, would serve the interests and national security needs of all four. Israel could take the initiative for the creation of this regional quartet. If desired, Israel could request that the US serve as a convener, but the parties should agree that this quartet will be directed and run by the four parties directly, without outside intervention.

The agenda would be the creation of regional mechanisms to strengthen security, stability, economic development and peace. It would also entail resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Furthermore, a renewed peace process must become people-focused. Engaging citizens of Israel, Palestine and the region in aspects of peacemaking is the best guarantor of the success of the process. Peace must pay and the people on all sides of the conflict must have a stake in its success. Our experience from the onset of the peace process after the Madrid Conference in October 1991 was that too few non-officials were engaged in cross-boundary opportunities. Too much of the profits of peace making were distributed to too few people, the source of the infamous “peace industry.” The sarcasm of that name and cynicism for which it stood indicate the negative attitudes that were transmitted to the broader publics regarding the whole process itself. To de-risk peace will require putting a lot more effort and thought into designing means for common citizens on both sides of the conflict to engage each other positively. The people-to-people aspects of peacemaking cannot be an afterthought, as it was in Oslo, but must be a central pillar of what making peace means.

In this series of five articles I have tried to provide some insights into some of the lessons that we must learn from the failures and successes of the past. When Israelis and Palestinians talk about possibilities for a renewed peace process, there is a sense that we are doomed to fail, because that is what we have done until now. I propose that we can actually learn from those failures; we do not have to make the same mistakes again. We will make new mistakes and we will have to learn a lot more quickly than in the past how to repair the damage resulting those mistakes.

I am confident that we will eventually get there, because not doing so is an act of national suicide, which I believe neither side wishes for. Peace makers are by definition optimistic people. I am optimistic because I believe in the future of Israel and Palestine.

Gershon Baskin ist Autor des Aachener Friedensmagazins www.aixpaix.de. Seine Beiträge finden Sie hier


World Wide Web aixpaix.de

Beiträge von Gershon Baskin
2017

The inevitability of peace

From Washington to Jerusalem

Eight pieces of advice to Trump envoy Jason Greenblatt

Becoming a real, effective democracy requires a real, effective opposition

Only two states – nothing else

The fatal Israeli-Gaza mistake (2)

The fatal Israeli-Gaza mistakes

The wisdom to limit our rights

Where to, Israel?

Get out of our lives already!

The authority of the Authority

2016

The state of denial

Settlements, annexation and the death of Zionism

It’s not just the economy

Encountering peace?

Building a shared society

Excuse me for asking

Secret back channels

Anti-anti-normalization

The Left is right

A moment of opportunity

The worst negotiations, the best negotiations

Palestinian suffering makes no sense for Israel

Creating a compelling vision for peace

It is also in our hands

There is no partner

2015

The partnership challenge

A new intifada?

After Abbas

A bad agreement is better than no agreement

Israel’s strategic choices regarding Gaza

2014

Jerusalem of peace, Jerusalem of war

The Gaza challenge

Is Hamas prepared to end this war with a long-term ceasefire?

Some thoughts this morning

Regional forum for security and stability – Gaza first

After a long phone conversation with a Hamas leader in Gaza

Don’t destroy Gaza, build it!

Framework document for the establishment of permanent peace (part 3 of 3)

Framework document for the establishment of permanent peace (part 2 of 3)

Framework document for the establishment of permanent peace

2013

My Conversation With Hamas

Keine Fortsetzung des Unilateralismus!

Diesen Weg müssen wir einschlagen!

2012

Eine Ein-Staat-Realität ist nicht durchführbar

Mord an der Chance für Ruhe

Das Ende des Raketenbeschusses aus Gaza

Es gibt einen Ausweg

Atomwaffen raus aus dem Arsenal

Was Abbas Israel sagen sollte

Ist mein zionistischer Traum gestorben?