U.S. must not repeat previous errors in Middle East peace efforts

Santis is right in hoping that the US will not repeat the errors of the past. Unfortunately, the toothpaste does not go back into the tubes. Once the United States committed itself to total settlement freeze and to total delegitimation of Israeli claims to Jerusalem, it is very difficult to reverse the policy. Moreover, it is not going to advance the peace process if the US does not come with a clear program. Obviously if the US position is biased against Israel, it won't be helpful for Israel but that doesn't mean that Mitchell's approach of coming with nothing new to offer is helpful. The Hamas presence in Gaza is in some ways an impetus to peace, but unless a way can be found to eliminate them, the Hamas is a clear obstacle to peace. They will not agree to any reasonable peace offer and they will not vacate Gaza without a fight. The problem cannot be ignored.

 

Opinion: U.S. must not repeat 2009 mistakes in new Middle East peace process

 

By Yitzhak Santis
 
Special to the Mercury News
Posted: 01/19/2010 08:00:00 PM PST

 

This week Special Middle East Envoy George Mitchell is in the region trying to restart peace talks with the aim of finalizing a deal within two years. On the surface at least, Israelis and Palestinians seem to be farther apart than ever. Nevertheless, while areas of common ground may not be obvious, they are there.

 

In November, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that Israelis and Palestinians quietly agreed to a text encompassing both their peoples' aspirations. The text declares "that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."

 

To give this document a chance, the administration appears to be taking a different approach than in 2009. Secretary Clinton, believing that "resolving borders resolves settlements," is now pushing for "borders first." Since many settlements would fall on the Palestinian side of the new border, the Israeli residents would have a choice: move back to Israel or stay within the new Palestinian state. Both Israelis and Palestinians have expressed concerns over this idea, but neither side has rejected it.

 

For Israelis, trading land for peace, including evacuating settlements, is nothing new.

Such was the case when Egypt signed a peace accord with Israel and Israel withdrew completely from Sinai. Israelis even gambled on leaving Gaza, vacating all the settlements there, but were "rewarded" with a Hamas takeover and a blizzard of rocket fire, with thousands of rockets fired at Israeli cities. Despite the disillusionment and continued Hamas threats, a substantial majority of the Israeli public is still willing to return most of the West Bank — if it brings real peace and security.

 

Another impetus for renewal of peace talks is the Iranian-backed Hamas in Gaza, whose hate-filled fundamentalist ideology rejects peace with Israel. Hamas also seeks to undermine President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah, which rules the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority. Abbas can ill afford to allow matters to drift for too long.

 

To move forward, the U.S. must not repeat last year's mistakes. Washington had made very public demands on Israel for a full and unconditional settlement freeze without making any reciprocal public requirements on Palestinians and other Arabs, creating a damaging dynamic.

 

Previously, Palestinians did not demand such a freeze as a precondition to talks, but now they expected just that, and yet again dug in their heels. President Abbas said, "Obama laid down the condition of halting the settlements completely. What could I say to him? Should I say this is too much?"

 

In turn, the Israeli public lost confidence in President Obama's ability to persuade Arab parties to re-engage in peace efforts. Even after Israel did agree to a 10-month moratorium on West Bank settlements, there still was no reciprocity from the other side.

 

But it is a new year and a more seasoned Obama administration may have a better lay of the land. For instance, despite European pressure, Mitchell brought no letters of guarantee for either side, and with good reason. Drafting such letters would create its own grueling set of talks that could drag on for months. Secondly, such letters must be secret, because if leaked they could give hard-liners an opportunity to undermine talks.

 

The bitter lemons of years of conflict can sour anybody on the prospects for peace. The difficult task before Mitchell and the president is to turn it all into lemonade, and sooner rather than later.

 

YITZHAK SANTIS is director of the Middle East Project of the Jewish Community Relations Council of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin, Sonoma, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. He wrote this article for the Mercury News.