Maybe the most important statement that US President George W. Bush made during his historic visit last week was when he told both the Palestinian and Israeli sides that "tough decisions have to be taken". One tends to doubt whether Bush was really serious, considering the domestic political ramifications of such "tough choices" on both the Palestinian president and the Israeli prime minister. No doubt Bush must feel very happy that he has spent two presidential terms without having to face any "tough decisions" vis-a-vis the Arab-Israel conflict. As usual, he is leaving the dirty job for others to do.
On the Palestinian side, President Mahmoud Abbas faces questions and dilemmas of paramount importance that raise serious doubts over his credibility as a leader who can deliver concrete results to his own people. Abbas insists to his people that the Palestinian leadership will cling to the Palestinian constants and legitimate rights as stipulated in international resolutions as the only way to achieve a "just peace". In other words, Abbas insists on a Palestinian state built on all the land Israel occupied in 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital and the right of return of Palestinian refugees, not only to that state, but to the lands and villages where they actually come from, i.e., to Israel.
So far so good, except that recent events and meetings with the US administration and the Israeli leadership point to a different trend. News reports said Abbas held "important, positive and candid talks" with Bush and that both leaders came out optimistic with regards to the peace process. However, Bush's statements about the "tough decisions" that both Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have to take, mean someone is lying or at least playing politics. Taking tough decisions means making "concessions" but the Palestinian leadership keeps singing the tune of "constants and legitimate rights" to its own people.
The Palestinian people do not have the luxury of employing diplomatic skills to interpret the statements of Bush, Abbas and Olmert. In addition to a belligerent and violent military occupation, they face severe poverty, high rates of unemployment and an at times violent domestic political split, all of which threaten their very existence. According to international criteria, President Abbas has to take tough decisions in order for the peace process to reach its goal: a Palestinian state next to the state of Israel. But Abbas has no room for maneuver in relation to Palestinian constants and rights.
The sad part of all this is that the international community is not doing anything to help or support Abbas take such decisions. Money, contrary to what the international community appears to think, cannot solve everything. A $7.4 billion pledge does not show Palestinians the respect they deserve; it does not allow them to breathe their own air safely, move freely on their own land or leave them alone to plant their crops and earn their livelihoods. It does not bring back the dignity of any man, woman or child humiliated at an Israeli checkpoint. In short, money does not buy Palestinians their freedom and without this it is money down the drain. Domestically, therefore, the Palestinian president has few cards to play and time is running out.
On the Israeli side, the domestic political situation is no better. Whenever an Israeli prime minister tries even to approach a minimum of commitments under a peace process, Israelis know they can start to prepare for early elections. Olmert faces the Winograd report, likely to weaken his position. A few days ago, a right wing party left his coalition government and another is considering following suit. Early elections, in any case, always seem the safest way out of the trap of "tough decisions".
Considering the domestic situation on both sides, it is clear that there is no way on earth that either party is ready to take any "tough decision" at the moment. The Palestinian side clings to constants and rights that the Israeli side rejects, instead being willing to make "painful concessions" that do not come even close to Palestinian demands. The only way out of this deadlock is a strong third party role. The United States has failed at this task, opting instead for a pro-Israel bias. But can we expect the United Nations to step in and risk US financial sanctions? Indeed, no one is willing to mediate properly. And so the game continues.
Front Page Features