Jan
09
2014
By Daoud Kuttab
Multiple reports two weeks before US Secretary of State John Kerry’s 21st visit to Palestine and Israel focused on a new Israeli concern: unorganized and uncoordinated acts of violence. The conclusion was that Israel’s main problem was impromptu and independent acts by frustrated Palestinians. One of the implications of this Israeli security assessment was that the Palestinian government had been successful in helping stem organized violence against Israel.
However, when Kerry arrived with his newly formulated bridging proposal for a framework agreement, the Israeli leadership made a sudden U-turn. Standing next to the top US diplomat, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched a strange and unwarranted attack against Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas over embracing the released Palestinian prisoners. Netanyahu also went out of his way to repeat the Israeli broken record criticizing the incitement of violence and the embracing of terrorists.
“I know that I am committed to peace, but unfortunately, given the actions and words of Palestinian leaders, there’s growing doubt in Israel that the Palestinians are committed to peace,†said Netanyahu in the presence of Kerry. Continue Reading »
Jan
09
2014
By Daoud Kuttab
When the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) agreed to recognize Israel and sign a memorandum of understanding in 1993, the organization was experiencing an all-time low. The PLO had been routed from Beirut, and later from Tripoli. An internal struggle within the Fatah movement had erupted under the name Fatah al-Intifada, and the Berlin Wall had fallen, leaving Palestinians without their major international ally.
The agreement reached as a result of secret talks in the Norwegian capital, Oslo, allowed for the return of tens of thousands of Palestinian fighters, leaders and their families, but it failed to produce peace, independence or even a suspension of Jewish settlements. The West Bank was divided into areas A, B and C. In justifying their acceptance of this inadequate deal, Palestinians expected that the five-year interim agreement would soon translate into an independent state.
Now, 20 years later, Palestinian officials are finding themselves in a somewhat similar situation. The Arab world is deeply divided along sectarian lines. Egypt, the largest and strongest Arab country, is no longer involved in any Palestinian-related issue. On the contrary, Egyptians are extremely upset with the Hamas leadership in Gaza and have closed the Rafah crossing point after having demolished the tunnels. Even the United Kingdom, which was the colonial power just prior to the Nakba, is now publicly stating that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not one of its foreign policy priorities. Meanwhile, settlers have doubled since 1993, and the Gaza split has left Palestinian leaders even more vulnerable to pressure, similar to that which Arafat faced prior to the Oslo signing. Continue Reading »
Jan
09
2014
By Daoud Kuttab
Following appeared in today’s Jordan Times
The fast-approaching deadline to the 9-month face-to-face Palestinian-Israeli talks highlights the sense of urgency and fear that the April deadline might arrive without any breakthrough.
Palestinians, who were burned in 1993 with a five-year interim agreement that translated into two decades of no progress in the talks, are opposed to any kind of interim agreement.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat was blunt about it on January 4, after a long-winded meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas: “What Secretary Kerry is doing — and let me repeat it in front of him — is not an interim agreement. It’s not a transitional period that’s beyond us. We’re working hard to achieve an agreement on all core issues.â€
The framework agreement might not be an interim deal, but neither is it a peace agreement, meaning that at best, the framework will be a target, rather than an obligation.
Some suggest that it will not be a signed agreement and that its main purpose is to prepare the public on both sides for the eventuality of peace. Continue Reading »