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 »