By Daoud Kuttab

As Palestinian and Israeli negotiators begin their second round of peace talks with a special focus on borders and security, an entirely Israeli set of judges will decide the fate of one Palestinian community south of Hebron.

The area, known to Palestinians as Masafer Yatta, spans over 12,200 cultivated dunums and contains 12 villages with a total population of over 1,300 people. On the other side of the Green Line separating Israel from the occupied territories is the Israeli Nahal Brigade training base in Tel Arad, just inside the 1949 armistice lines.

The Israeli army, by virtue of sheer military power and might, has turned the entire area across the border into a firing zone. Firing Zone 918, as this zone is called, is one of dozens of such zones that cover nearly 18% of the occupied West Bank. Almost all of the Jordan Valley area, which Israel has repeatedly said they will not relinquish in any peace deal, is considered a military firing zone. No Palestinians are allowed to build in or develop such areas. Continue Reading »

Daoud Kuttab

Whenever peace negotiators agree to hold secret peace talks, rumors tend to fill the information gap. The absence of regular, updated news and comments on the day’s events and statements plays into the hands of radical groups whose aim is to thwart and derail any potential progress in the negotiations.

When the second round of Israeli-Palestinian talks begins Aug. 14 in Jerusalem, a number of questions will have to be answered. They vary from the personnel participating in the talks to the agenda to the follow-up of the negotiations. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the launch of the talks will have any effect, positive or negative, regarding the situation on the ground, especially the conditions of the Palestinians living under occupation.

On the participants, it is uncertain whether the individuals who took part in the first round of talks will continue to be the lead negotiators. A big unanswered question will be the role of the Americans. Will Martin Indyk, the US envoy, and his support unit have a seat at the table? In other words, will their presence be formal, and for the opening photo-op only, or will they remain in the room after the cameras are gone?

The setup of the talks is also a mystery. In Washington, Secretary of State John Kerry stated that all five permanent status issues will be discussed. Left unanswered was whether borders, refugees, settlements, Jerusalem and security require five separate Israel, Palestinian and American teams. Will there be a primary team to receive reports from the subgroups? Will they meet concurrently or consequentially? If the latter, the unanswered question is which topics will take priority? Again, the key unknown is whether the US teams will be present in the subgroups or only in the umbrella teams. Continue Reading »

By Daoud Kuttab

Military occupation is not normal. Holding a population against its will using military power is considered by the civilized world in the 21st century an abnormal act that must be rectified. The issue, however, becomes complicated with 46 years of one people ruling over another. It is further complicated and can be counterproductive when in the name of refusing normalization with the occupier one rejects all forms of cooperation between the peoples, including those who are not directly responsible for the occupation.

This has been the dilemma facing Palestinians and Israelis. Can Palestinians normalize relations with Israelis without such acts giving the false impression of acquiescence to the continuation of the rejected system of occupation? For almost five decades, Palestinians and Israelis have experienced and rejected various acts of normalization and dialogue.

Before the escalation of travel restrictions, the permit system and separation wall, Palestinians and Israelis were able to move easily from one community to the other. Yet, even back then, the issue of dialogue and normalization was a hot topic among intellectuals. Continue Reading »

By Daoud Kuttab

Whenever peace talks are considered there are two elements that need to be attended to: the actual negotiations and the public at large. The negotiations themselves require agreement on the parties to the talks, the framework on which the talks are based, the duration of the talks and the various procedures that govern the negotiating process.

A parallel, and some would argue as more important, is the role of the general public. Negotiations are a peaceful means of resolving a violent conflict. Rejection by the public of a negotiating procedure or the eventual results can — and have often — ended up in a major spike in violence. Whenever cease-fire agreements fail, it is usually due to a lack of faith by the respective parties that the political elements attached to the cease-fire are acceptable and sustainable.

In the Palestinian-Israeli context there is a tremendous role in how the public reacts to the procedure of the talks, and eventually whether the public signs on and approves the results of the talks or not. Some would argue that negotiations over the final status of the occupied territories that were launched in the White House in 1993 failed because of the refusal of Palestinian and Israeli rejectionists. Islamic Hamas supporters launched suicide attacks, Israeli Jewish settlers killed 29 worshipers in Hebron and assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin as well as caused havoc in the occupied territories. Continue Reading »

By Daoud Kuttab

During the difficult reconciliation efforts between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Hamas, a resolution was found to deal with the issue of talks with Israel, which the latter refuses to recognize. The Hamas leadership conceded that the PLO could negotiate with Israel provided that any agreement reached is put to a public referendum.

A similar decision to hold a referendum in Israel has also been agreed to by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and some of his right-wing coalition members opposed to a two-state solution. The Israelis’ decision seems more unusual than the one by the Palestinians.

Normally, when leaders of sovereign countries reach a deal with a foreign entity, the executive branch initials the agreement and then the accord is ratified by a vote in the country’s legislature. That is what Israel did when Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed the landmark Camp David agreement with Egypt in 1978 and what Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin did when he signed the memorandum of understanding with the PLO in 1993 and the Wadi Araba peace agreement with Jordan in 1995. The Jordanian parliament approved the latter as well. Continue Reading »

By Daoud Kuttab

Following appeared in various publications.

One of the reasons for the success of social media’s Twitter platform is its ability to summarize a major issue in a few characters, while at the same time providing a link to give more details and credibility to the few words.

This week a political activist used some clever research to reveal the hypocrisy and double standards of a politician. Twitter user @bungdan juxtaposed two quotes of maverick US Senator John McCain regarding the situation in Egypt. In a tweet this week he quoted McCain as calling on the Egyptian army and the new powers-to-be to include members of the Muslim Brotherhood in the post-June 30 regime. At the same time, he dug up a quote given by McCain to the German magazine, Der Spiegel, in which the Republican senator states that he is “unalterably opposed” to the involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt’s transition.

It is not clear if McCain was speaking his mind then or now, and if his most recent statement is aimed at his party’s political opponent who is now in the White House.

This double standard is clearly not restricted to senators or to Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood. It can easily be seen in more basic American values enshrined so eloquently in the US constitution’s bill of rights. Continue Reading »

By Daoud Kuttab

Peace talks generally require a parallel strategy aimed at communicating and convincing a reluctant public of its importance, value and ultimate benefits to the warring parties. One might think that nine months of publicly stated “secret” talks would require little communication. But the contrary is the case.

The United States, which is the single and only direct patron and sponsor of the current peace talks, is pulling all the stops to make sure that the Palestinian and Israeli public “are well-informed” — even if all sides agree that the talks are to be private.

US Secretary of State John Kerry has told the world that both Palestinian and Israeli leaders have agreed that he is the only official who can make an authoritative comment or revelation about the peace talks.

Having added the role of peace communicator-in-chief to that of negotiator-in-chief, Washington now has the task of delivering information to the two publics. US officials called back from retirement one of their experienced hands in this area. Veteran communications diplomat Bill Cavness, who served as the information officer both in east Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, was asked to fill in at a position vacated in Jerusalem in the summer, when a sudden breakthrough in talks caught everyone off guard. Continue Reading »

By Daoud Kuttab

Students of political negotiations might remember the long and difficult discussions in Paris about the shape of the negotiating table for the talks to end the Vietnam War. In the Palestinian-Israeli context, the discussion is not so much on the shape of the table as it is about the participants at the table.

One of the most abused and repeated claims made in Washington is that the Americans cannot want peace more than the parties in the Middle East. The reason why this statement is so false is that the Americans have had a long history of involvement in the Middle East conflict, almost exclusively on behalf of the Israelis. Whether they want to admit it or not, the United States has for decades sided privately with the Israelis while publicly claiming to be neutral. Serious investigation into the motivation for this bias always points to domestic politics as the major, but not exclusive reason for it.

Yet despite the Palestinians’ knowledge of the Americans’ true position, they have generally wanted the United States to be involved. In fact, they have demanded it. When the Quartet — the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States — proved incapable of making headway against Israeli obstinacy, the Palestinians turned to Washington as the party that could, if it chose to, apply direct or indirect pressure on the Israelis. Continue Reading »