Leaders often speak out on certain issues in order to communicate what they are doing for the country, but they sometimes do so simply to remind the public that they exist. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erekat both spoke of the peace process this past week and seem to have expressed their basic desire to remain relevant in the political sphere.
At a recent conference in Herzliya dealing with political marketing, PM Olmert remarked that the peace process cannot move forward unless the next prime minister makes even farther reaching concessions than former Prime Minister Ehud Barak had offered in 2000 at Camp David. This comment is somewhat disturbing in that, as an outgoing PM, Olmert should not be saying anything that can create diplomatic ripples or pose potential difficulties for the incoming government.
Not only is it pointless to have made that suggestion but his remarks now make any subsequent government with a different peacemaking approach as appearing hard line and incompatible with peace or the peace process. It appears that PM Olmert, having failed miserably to capture the love of the Israeli public, is looking to satisfy the Israeli left-wing political constituency by taking such a naive and conciliatory stance in preparation for his political comeback as soon as the public forgets about the Talansky and Rishon Tours affairs.
The second set of comments this week, by Saeb Erekat in an op-ed published in the Washington Post, appears as an attempt to erase Palestinian responsibility for progress towards conciliation and lays the blame on Israel’s strategically responsible measures designed to stave off Palestinian terror attacks.
In the article, Erekat urged the next government to establish an independent Palestinian state based on 1967 borders. Erekat knows that Hamas is an Iranian proxy. He also knows that Hamas gained control because Israel pulled out of Gaza in an effort to show that it is ready and willing to make huge sacrifices for peace. Erekat is also aware that a Palestinian state established on the basis of the 1967 ceasefire lines will lead to an additional Iranian proxy on Israel’s eastern border, a further reign of terror on Israel’s population and a continuous threat to its existence.
With this in mind, it is difficult to see how he believes such a settlement would be considered as contributing to peace. It appears Erekat and his colleagues have left the “peace” out of “peace process.”
Erekat also wrote that, “peace is not a word that sits comfortably with the Israeli right, which will dominate Israel's new government.” It is difficult to see what he means by this since between the two sides, Israel is the only one that ever makes the concessions and has demonstrated serious effort in its commitment to the peace process. Historically, right-wing Israeli governments have been more prone to make concessions and advance the peace process than have any left-wing governments.
Veiled threat
Furthermore, he makes some comments which resound like masked threats. He remarked that, “...the peace process lives on borrowed time. With its credibility at stake, it will not survive another round of failed negotiations - and neither will the two-state solution.”
This veiled threat echoes the popular and delusional belief that peace can only be achieved now and only through the current peace process. It almost sounds as if Erekat is threatening a third intifada if the next round of negotiations fails. This certainly does not contribute to the peace process.
PM Olmert made a similar remark when he addressed the recent 8th Herzliya Conference in January 2009. Referring to the peace process, he said that, “we must understand that we do not have time.” What both Erekat and Olmert fail to understand is that the peace process cannot be rushed and time is not of essence at this point. In truth, peace can be achieved only when the time is ripe for peace. This means both sides must be willing to make serious concessions and maintain the ability to form a government focused on making peace with its neighbors. While Israel fits both of these criteria, the Palestinians do not.
Erekat and PM Olmert are deeply mistaken if they believe that peace can only happen now. The notion that peace is in jeopardy is deeply disappointing. The chief Palestinian negotiator’s attitude should be one of optimism. Certainly the Palestinian public expects and rightfully deserves that their representatives remain hopeful and optimistic. If these are their leaders, then the main problem for Palestinians is not the attitude of Israeli leaders but of their own leaders.
Likewise, PM Olmert has failed to recognize that his approach to peacemaking has led to nowhere and will continue to produce few tangible results. His top-down approach irresponsibly negates the more logical bottom-up approach adopted by PM-designate Benjamin Netanyahu and former IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Ya’alon in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.
As wars start in the mind, so does peace. If Erekat and other Palestinian leaders would drop the usual rhetoric so often mentioned in defense of the Palestinians, this would already be a step towards peace. If natural expansion of Israeli settlements in the disputed territories is a problem for Erekat, then his references to the separation barrier as a “wall” which it clearly is not, is problematic for Israelis. His references to the “occupied Palestinian territories” are problematic as well and do not contribute to an atmosphere conducive for peace-making.
Palestinian and Israeli leaders must recognize that time is in our hands and peace is attainable. A rushed negotiation will result in rapid disintegration of any peace settlement. In contrast, a well-constructed peace agreement will lead to security, rapid growth and development as both sides benefit from a resolution built from the bottom up.
Front Page Features