The one country which should be most worried about the current unrest in the Arab world is Israel. Though its leaders did express anxiety, particularly when Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak finally announced his political demise, Israel's actions do not betray any sense of nervousness; otherwise, it would have taken some initiative to revive the long-dead peace process and end its political vulnerability. It is concentrating its energy to thwart the Palestinian plan to move the United Nations, in autumn this year, for a formal recognition of a Palestinian state — that has received a ringing endorsement from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank which have certified the Palestinian Authority as fully capable of running the economy of an independent state — but does not see the need to offer incentives to the Palestinians to rethink their strategy. On the contrary, it continues to build hundreds of new settlements in complete disregard of the sentiment among the international community. Israel knows U.S. President Barack Obama is already in re-election mode and will not jeopardise his chances by alienating Israel and the all-powerful Jewish lobby. Having been snubbed once by the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Obama is understandably reluctant to take him on again. Furthermore, Israel seems to be getting ready for another strike — Cast Lead II — against Gaza in retaliation for the rockets launched against its territory from the Gaza strip. The deployment of the ‘Iron Dome,' which is the latest Israeli gadget to shatter incoming missiles, is evidence enough of Israel's intentions. From Israel's viewpoint, the timing may be right as world attention is focussed on Libya and the Arab countries.
The Arab public is not hostile to America as such, but strongly disapproves America's foreign policy. The single most important cause of resentment is America's stance on the Palestinian issue. Mr. Obama's decision to tackle this problem at a very early stage in his presidency was recognition of this fact. But the Palestinian issue ought to be of great interest and concern to the rest of the international community as well. It provides an immensely popular excuse to Al-Qaeda and other assorted terrorists. An unstable Middle East, that is likely to become more volatile following the current unrest in the Arab world, will have disastrous consequences for the energy sector. The new Arab administrations will be more supportive of the Palestinian cause, partly because they will be more reflective of their peoples' sentiments and partly to counter the growing influence of Iran in the region, which has acquired an unprecedented amount of clout in the affairs of the region. The Palestinians have had nothing to do with this phenomenon of increased Iranian influence. In fact, it is Israel and the U.S which have created the space for Iran in the Palestinian dispute by refusing to recognise the result of a democratic election back in 2006, but that does not prevent Israel from using the Iranian card vis-à-vis the West. The old Shia-Sunni and Saudi Arabia-Iran rivalry has grown fiercer than ever.
The basic problem is Israel's continued illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. So long as the occupation continues, the tensions and probability of another Arab-Israeli conflict, or at least another intifada, with its attendant disastrous consequences will remain. There are three possible scenarios for dealing with the issue. Of these, continuation of the status quo is not tenable and is less in the interest of Israel than of the Palestinians, since it will eventually lead to a Palestinian-majority single state. For this very reason, the Palestinians need not show too much impatience with the current situation because time is on their side. Of the other two alternatives, namely a one-state or two-state solution, the first one, as a conscious decision, has to be ruled out as being completely unacceptable to the Jewish side, one should add, for understandable reasons. The whole world, including even Israel at least in words, favours the two-state solution. It is the world as a whole which needs to stir itself if it is serious about tackling the issue while there is time. India, as a part of this world — we think an important part — must do its bit in this effort.
The contours of a possible two-state solution have been defined for a long time. They were first outlined in a non-paper, known as the Abu Mazen-Yosi Beillin document of 1995. There have been several other efforts since then — the Clinton parameters, the Taba negotiations, the Geneva Initiative, etc. Dozens of meetings held between the former Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Ehud Olmert, and the Palestinian President, Mr. Mahmoud Abbas, had helped in narrowing differences on most issues. WikiLeaks have revealed the extent of concessions which the Palestinian side was ready to make to reach the goal of two states; the Israelis have absolutely no justification in claiming that they do not have a ‘partner' on the Palestinian side. The division in the Palestinian national movement should not become a pretext for inaction. On the contrary, the Palestinians could, with good reason, argue that they are lacking an interlocutor with the required political courage to take what would undoubtedly be difficult decisions. The international community must endeavour to help both sides overcome their political weaknesses. They can do this by offering, not a detailed blueprint, which the two parties must directly negotiate with each other, but a set of principles or parameters which would demand each side to make matching concessions, while at the same time protecting their core concerns.
The principles could be along the following lines:
The right of the Palestinian people to national self-determination must be recognised
The aim is to have two states, Israel and Palestine, living within secure, defined and recognised borders
The area of the Palestinian state should be equal in size to the total area of the West Bank which is 22 per cent of the mandated Palestinian territory
Palestine must be compensated, in quality and quantity, for any land that might be absorbed in Israel to enable large, concentrated groups of Israeli settlers to live in Israel
Palestinian refugees will have the right to settle in the territory of the new Palestinian state. They will have the option of claiming compensation for their properties and settle in the countries of their domicile subject to the consent of the ‘host' countries. The international community shall set up a fund to compensate the refugees as well as the ‘host' countries. A certain number of refugees, whose exact number will have to be agreed among the parties, will return to Israel on family reunification and other humanitarian considerations
The Palestinian capital, Al Quds, shall be located in East Jerusalem. Appropriate arrangements, involving international or United Nations supervision, shall be put in place to guarantee access for adherents of all faiths to their places of worship
A fair and equitable system providing for access to water for both states will have to be worked out. Water is an appropriate subject for regional cooperation.
These parameters could be amended, added to or subtracted from, with new ones added, etc.
India, as a responsible and concerned member of the international community, must not be content with merely repeating the usual mantra of supporting ‘two states living side by side in good neighbourly relations.' It can and should take the lead in promoting an approach on the lines indicated above. India can do this by itself, but it would be more effective if it could persuade its partners in the India, Brazil and South Africa Dialogue Forum (IBSA), BRIC or BRICS (Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa), etc, all of whom consist of like-minded countries, to subscribe to some such principles for a just settlement of the Palestinian issue. It is the duty and obligation of the entire global community to do what it can to make it easier for the two principal parties to take the needed political courage to reach a compromise solution, instead of merely blaming the Americans for not doing enough to bring about a settlement to this long-festering dispute.
The Arab public is not hostile to America as such, but strongly disapproves America's foreign policy. The single most important cause of resentment is America's stance on the Palestinian issue. Mr. Obama's decision to tackle this problem at a very early stage in his presidency was recognition of this fact. But the Palestinian issue ought to be of great interest and concern to the rest of the international community as well. It provides an immensely popular excuse to Al-Qaeda and other assorted terrorists. An unstable Middle East, that is likely to become more volatile following the current unrest in the Arab world, will have disastrous consequences for the energy sector. The new Arab administrations will be more supportive of the Palestinian cause, partly because they will be more reflective of their peoples' sentiments and partly to counter the growing influence of Iran in the region, which has acquired an unprecedented amount of clout in the affairs of the region. The Palestinians have had nothing to do with this phenomenon of increased Iranian influence. In fact, it is Israel and the U.S which have created the space for Iran in the Palestinian dispute by refusing to recognise the result of a democratic election back in 2006, but that does not prevent Israel from using the Iranian card vis-à-vis the West. The old Shia-Sunni and Saudi Arabia-Iran rivalry has grown fiercer than ever.
The basic problem is Israel's continued illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. So long as the occupation continues, the tensions and probability of another Arab-Israeli conflict, or at least another intifada, with its attendant disastrous consequences will remain. There are three possible scenarios for dealing with the issue. Of these, continuation of the status quo is not tenable and is less in the interest of Israel than of the Palestinians, since it will eventually lead to a Palestinian-majority single state. For this very reason, the Palestinians need not show too much impatience with the current situation because time is on their side. Of the other two alternatives, namely a one-state or two-state solution, the first one, as a conscious decision, has to be ruled out as being completely unacceptable to the Jewish side, one should add, for understandable reasons. The whole world, including even Israel at least in words, favours the two-state solution. It is the world as a whole which needs to stir itself if it is serious about tackling the issue while there is time. India, as a part of this world — we think an important part — must do its bit in this effort.
The contours of a possible two-state solution have been defined for a long time. They were first outlined in a non-paper, known as the Abu Mazen-Yosi Beillin document of 1995. There have been several other efforts since then — the Clinton parameters, the Taba negotiations, the Geneva Initiative, etc. Dozens of meetings held between the former Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Ehud Olmert, and the Palestinian President, Mr. Mahmoud Abbas, had helped in narrowing differences on most issues. WikiLeaks have revealed the extent of concessions which the Palestinian side was ready to make to reach the goal of two states; the Israelis have absolutely no justification in claiming that they do not have a ‘partner' on the Palestinian side. The division in the Palestinian national movement should not become a pretext for inaction. On the contrary, the Palestinians could, with good reason, argue that they are lacking an interlocutor with the required political courage to take what would undoubtedly be difficult decisions. The international community must endeavour to help both sides overcome their political weaknesses. They can do this by offering, not a detailed blueprint, which the two parties must directly negotiate with each other, but a set of principles or parameters which would demand each side to make matching concessions, while at the same time protecting their core concerns.
The principles could be along the following lines:
The right of the Palestinian people to national self-determination must be recognised
The aim is to have two states, Israel and Palestine, living within secure, defined and recognised borders
The area of the Palestinian state should be equal in size to the total area of the West Bank which is 22 per cent of the mandated Palestinian territory
Palestine must be compensated, in quality and quantity, for any land that might be absorbed in Israel to enable large, concentrated groups of Israeli settlers to live in Israel
Palestinian refugees will have the right to settle in the territory of the new Palestinian state. They will have the option of claiming compensation for their properties and settle in the countries of their domicile subject to the consent of the ‘host' countries. The international community shall set up a fund to compensate the refugees as well as the ‘host' countries. A certain number of refugees, whose exact number will have to be agreed among the parties, will return to Israel on family reunification and other humanitarian considerations
The Palestinian capital, Al Quds, shall be located in East Jerusalem. Appropriate arrangements, involving international or United Nations supervision, shall be put in place to guarantee access for adherents of all faiths to their places of worship
A fair and equitable system providing for access to water for both states will have to be worked out. Water is an appropriate subject for regional cooperation.
These parameters could be amended, added to or subtracted from, with new ones added, etc.
India, as a responsible and concerned member of the international community, must not be content with merely repeating the usual mantra of supporting ‘two states living side by side in good neighbourly relations.' It can and should take the lead in promoting an approach on the lines indicated above. India can do this by itself, but it would be more effective if it could persuade its partners in the India, Brazil and South Africa Dialogue Forum (IBSA), BRIC or BRICS (Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa), etc, all of whom consist of like-minded countries, to subscribe to some such principles for a just settlement of the Palestinian issue. It is the duty and obligation of the entire global community to do what it can to make it easier for the two principal parties to take the needed political courage to reach a compromise solution, instead of merely blaming the Americans for not doing enough to bring about a settlement to this long-festering dispute.
No comments:
Post a Comment