Former American peace negotiator Dennis Ross argued in a New York Times op-ed today that it is time to hold the Palestinians accountable for their failure to make peace. At the beginning of his op-ed, Ross recalled a recent conversation he had with a European official sympathetic to the Palestinians. Ross told him that if he really favors the creation of a Palestinian state, “it’s time to stop giving the Palestinians a pass” and “to make it costly” for them to continue rejecting offers of peace.
Since 2000, there have been three serious negotiations that culminated in offers to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Bill Clinton’s parameters in 2000, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer in 2008, and Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts last year. In each case, a proposal on all the core issues was made to Palestinian leaders and the answer was either “no” or no response. They determined that the cost of saying “yes,” or even of making a counteroffer that required concessions, was too high.
Ross explains that the reason neither Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, nor his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, agreed to any of these proposals was because Palestinian politics is “rooted in a narrative of injustice … and its deep sense of grievance treats concessions to Israel as illegitimate.”
Ross argues that to change this dynamic the Palestinians must be made aware that there is a cost to rejecting peace offers and refusing to compromise. The Palestinian campaign of going to international institutions “puts pressure on Israel and requires nothing of the Palestinians,” as these actions only make demands of Israel.
Palestinians care deeply about international support for their cause. If they knew they would be held accountable for being nonresponsive or rejecting a fair offer or resolution, it could well change their calculus.
Ross suggests that if the Europeans are inclined to pursue a United Nations resolution to advance Palestinian statehood it must include “security arrangements that leave Israel able to defend itself by itself, phased withdrawal tied to the Palestinian Authority’s performance on security and governance, and a resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue that allows Israel to retain its Jewish character.” If the Palestinians refuse to accept such terms, “there ought to be a price for that.”
Former Israeli peace negotiator Tzipi Livni recently recalled how Abbas torpedoed the American-sponsored negotiations last year. Last week the editors of The Washington Post asserted that by pursuing unilateral actions, Abbas was “insisting on failure.”
After the collapse of the American-sponsored talks last year, Jonathan D. Halevi wrote in a paper for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs that the talks’ failure was the result of “a premeditated effort to participate in talks without the intention of compromising on any issue of significance to the U.S.–and thereby to reap the benefits of negotiating without allowing any deal to emerge” by Abbas. Abbas’ tactic of eschewing negotiations in favor of unilateral actions has been dubbed the Palestine 194 strategy by Jonathan Schanzer, Vice President for Research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
[Photo: Nrbelex / WikiCommons ]