In focus: The 'no partner' myth It's not so much that the state of Israel cannot find a partner as that it refuses to negotiate or recognise others, writes Galal Nassar In his visit last week to Washington, Ehud Olmert stuck to the line that Israel has no Palestinian partner. Israel is hoping to absolve itself of all culpability for the continued conflict, blaming the Palestinians for the lack of progress. So long as the Palestinians carry arms and engage in terror, Israel won't talk to them, Olmert suggested. The question is: is Israel capable of recognising others? Is it ready to have a partner, rigid or flexible, in the peace process? Or does it want everyone, in the region and beyond, to endorse its policy without question? Israel refused to negotiate with Yasser Arafat, saying he was illicitly supporting terror. Israel refused to recognise Arafat as partner although he accepted UN resolutions 242 and 338 and made a series of other concessions. Arafat negotiated and signed the Oslo Accords. Arafat recognised Israel in return for Israel's recognition of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO). And yet Arafat was besieged in Beirut then Ramallah, before being reportedly poisoned. Mahmoud Abbas negotiated for the Palestinians and got nothing back. Israel claimed that Abbas failed to dismantle the infrastructure of terror, end financial corruption, unify security services and disarm the resistance. In other words, Israel wanted Abbas to do its bidding even before talks started. Hamas came to power through free and democratic elections. Yet Israel claims that Hamas is not eligible as a partner. Israel is upset because Hamas's political programme calls for the destruction of Israel and because Hamas carries arms and supports "terrorist" organisations. The truth of the matter is that Hamas is willing to accept the Arab peace initiative. Hamas is willing to accept full withdrawal for full peace. Hamas is willing to accept a Palestinian state on 4 June 1967 borders. Hamas has endorsed all previous agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority. Still, Hamas is besieged and denied recognition, and the entire Palestinian people face starvation. Israel decided to withdraw unilaterally from Gaza under pressure from the resistance. Israel is now preparing for a second withdrawal from the West Bank. In both cases, Israel said it couldn't find a Palestinian partner. That the Palestinians have a president, head of government, and the PLO -- which officially Israel recognises -- seems of little importance. From the beginning, Israel refused to sit down and negotiate with all the Arabs as a group. Israel has refused to negotiate with Egypt, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon unless talks were bilateral. Israel wanted to talk to every country alone, so as to maximise its gains. Egypt ended up signing the Camp David accords in 1978 and a peace treaty in 1979. Jordan followed in the Wadi Araba talks. Yet although Egypt regained Sinai (demilitarised at least) and Taba (by a ruling from the International Court of Justice), Jordan has not regained the West Bank, which was under its control until 1967. Israel doesn't recognise Islamic negotiators, not even from countries such as Turkey and Pakistan that recognise Israel. Jerusalem remains a central issue for all Muslims, Al-Aqsa Mosque sacred for 1.25 billion believers worldwide. And yet Israel cannot find a partner. Israel cannot find a partner even from the various sides of the Quartet (EU, UN, US and Russia). It cannot find an international negotiator to speak to about the implementation of international resolutions. The Arabs have treaties with EU countries. Europe still buys Arab oil. Russia has been a long-time partner of the Arabs, in peace and war, in liberation and development. And yet Israel cannot find anyone to speak on behalf of the Arabs. The problem is not an absence of partners, but a country that doesn't recognise others. For Israel, partners should listen and obey. Israel is the homeland of the chosen people; hence the chosen should be adhered to, and others remain secondary. Zionism has epitomised this racist and centrist doctrine. Zionism condones the colonial acquisition of land by force. This is the same right Europeans afforded themselves and that led to two world wars. Europe used to think of itself as the centre of the world; Zionists learned the lesson and think likewise. Israel rejected the Arab peace initiative even before it was declared in the Beirut Arab summit. It helped bring about the end of the Soviet Union and the Socialist bloc, the traditional friends of the Arabs. Israel now controls major US corporations and US decision-making bodies. Israel is engaged in updating the Chinese air force. It is making electronic chips in cooperation with India. And its nuclear arms are ready to strike at any moment against Arab capitals and Islamic countries, including Iran and Pakistan. Israel claims that it has no one to negotiate with. The truth is that its counterpart negotiators need to impose their presence on Israel. Those who capitulate from the beginning and beseech international conscience are destined to be ignored. That's why occupation forces in Iraq are interested in talking to the resistance. The resistance (in Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Kashmir) is in a position to negotiate because it has stood its ground. Even Latin America is now resisting, for it needs to make its voice heard. Israel has only two options. One is the Andalusian model, where the Jews live alongside others, with equal duties and obligations for all, from Grenada to Seville. The other option is to bring down the temple, as Samson did once.
