In Focus: Reverse logic The rationale for continued negotiations with Israel is inherently flawed, writes Galal Nassar It is hard to understand the motives that led Arab foreign ministers to sanction the restart of indirect Palestinian- Israeli talks. The decision was made only months after Arab heads of state said that there would be no going back on their demand that Israel freeze the building of settlements and stop Judaising Palestinian areas before talks could resume. Among the leaders who made that decision was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Arab disillusion with Israel is the outcome of two decades of dead-end negotiations, talks that the Israelis used to buy time to expand their settlements and tighten their grip on the occupied territories while sapping the energy of the Arabs and dividing them. Truth to be said, we're not the only ones disillusioned with Israel. Not one neutral observer in the world believes the Netanyahu government wants peace. The Israeli government is clearly using negotiations to cover up its ferocious land grab. The Israelis want us to give up. They want us to accept the new status quo and live with an ever expanding Israel. Likewise, there is not one neutral political observer, including among US Democrats, who believes that, following the humiliating blow the Obama administration received when the Netanyahu government refused to comply with the freeze on settlements, Washington is capable of leading successful peace talks in the Middle East. Sure, Obama once spoke of a feasible and geographically contiguous Palestinian state, but those were optimistic days. Can we still doubt Israel's intentions regarding peace? Can we still believe in US guarantees after Washington beat a shameful retreat on its own decisions when faced by the intransigence of the Netanyahu government? If we have to go back to the UN Security Council, why wait for another four months? Wouldn't that give Tel Aviv the chance to trigger acts of violence that may undermine international support for the Palestinian issue? Also, why take the issue to the UN Security Council, now or in a few months, without first having a clear plan of action? Let's not forget that the Quartet countries have done nothing in recent years to stop Israel's settlement plans or prevent Israel from undermining the peace process? Besides, what guarantees do we have that Washington will not veto any resolution concerning Israel? What use is another UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel? Unless it is supported by Chapter VII of the UN charter, which allows for the use of force to implement resolutions, it makes no sense. Also, can we really expect the US and other major countries to send troops to Palestine to impose peace and end the occupation? Are we acting with reason, or have we lost perspective? There have been arguments to back the decision to resume talks. One is that the Arabs and Palestinians are being subjected to strong pressure by the Americans and Western countries in general. Another is that the Palestinian Authority (PA), which is surviving, along with its people, on international aid, has been threatened with the discontinuation of aid unless it complies with the wishes of donor countries. For the donors, the main purpose of their aid is to stimulate the peace process. The Palestinian refusal to negotiate, regardless of the circumstances, is therefore interpreted as a breach of contract, reason enough to discontinue donations. Should aid be discontinued, the Palestinian Authority would not be able pay its employees and the nation -- with no economy to speak of -- would starve. Another argument is that to reject the Obama initiative -- the best, some say, that the Arabs have had so far -- will open the door to uncertainty; unless the Arabs are willing to risk growing internal and regional pressures they must play along. The peace process is a euphemism for two decades of frustration. But for some Arab leaders the freeze on talks is worse than the non-freeze on settlements. The end of negotiations is less desirable than the non-end of occupation. Why should this be so? Because to end talks is to create a political vacuum in the region and when a political vacuum is created other countries can step in. Other countries would increase their influence in our societies and manipulate us. In addition, some argue that the value of negotiations is not derived from their success in regaining Palestinian rights, but in their ability to stop war. This is what Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul-Gheit said when he justified the decision to resume talks. Development, stability and peace, he insisted, are the main objective. As such war needs to be avoided whatever the cost. Yet to submit to Israeli hegemony is to increase the risk of war, not the opposite. Arab countries have every right to see development, peace, and stability -- regardless of the nature of this development and the way in which wealth is being accumulated, consumed, or wasted -- as a major objective. It is also true that war jeopardises economic prosperity. But who says that weakness, capitulation, and constant concessions are going to spare us war. Is it not just possible that by acting in a weak manner we are encouraging the Israelis to wage war, or continue to wage war? Is there a name for what Israel is doing in Palestine other than war, however low-heat and slow-going the war may be? Doesn't this remind you of Europe in the 1930s? It was Europe's appeasement of Hitler that made him go for broke. Once major European countries were OK with smaller countries going down, there was no stopping the Nazis. Who can say that Israel, a state with an insatiable appetite for expansion, will not set its eyes on other Arab land, anywhere between the Nile and the Euphrates? There will be no stopping Israel once it succeeds in gulping up already occupied land and incarcerating the Palestinians in towns that resemble concentration camps. Knowing what we know about the corruption of Arab elites, who can vouch that Israel and its allies will not manipulate regional leaders, foment religious and ethnic grievances, and exploit what is rampant opportunism and selfishness to keep us down forever? Arab countries have a right to fear the end of negotiations. Once there are no more negotiations, fear for the future will compound a host of existing Arab worries, such as the lack of decent living conditions and the absence of genuine political and civil life. Arab countries are right to fear the mounting influence of capitals such as Tehran. But negotiations in the current circumstances can only produce more frustration, disillusion and bickering, things that will make it easier for Iran to expand its influence in the region. Negotiations are not going to take us anywhere. It is the right of the Palestinian leaders to argue that standing up to Israel is a luxury they can no longer afford. As the spokeswoman for the Syrian presidency said, defiance is easy only for the elites, for politicians who live in independent countries, sometimes in such luxury that it invites the envy of the Israeli occupiers. But for the Palestinians who suffer every day and who have trouble making ends meet, for the Palestinians who see their land dwindle by the day, a more practical solution is needed. Rights make sense only when they are achievable, not kept in drawers like moth-eaten title deeds that can only be redeemed by a political miracle. And too often it seems it will take nothing less than a miracle to deliver us from a life of humiliation and suffering. Still, will the Palestinians be better off when we engage in negotiations just to cover up Israel's continued building of settlements? Or will they be better off when the Arabs insist on altering the unfair terms of negotiations? Don't we all need a new strategic alternative to deal with the occupation? What will the Palestinians and Arabs gain from postponing decisions that need to be taken? Is it our aim to enable Israel to consolidate its position on the ground or to exonerate America from all blame? Is it our aim to relieve other countries of their responsibility and make them feel better about their capitulation to the Israeli lobby? Or is it our aim to deepen the mistrust between Arab nations and governments and augment the despair to the point where it turns into violence? The decision to extend negotiations that have gone nowhere for over two decades is wrong. In view of the failure of George Mitchell's mission, and of Israel's insistence on building more settlements and Judaising Palestinian areas, Arab countries should do the following. First, they must insist on a complete Israeli freeze on settlements and a cessation of all attempts at Judaisation before restarting talks. Second, they should go to the UN Security Council without delay in order to force the international powers, not least the Quartet, to face up to their responsibilities. They should then act in coordination to make clear they are not going to beg for peace and will retain the right to use force to regain occupied territories. By undermining the terms for peace Israel has chosen war, and that it is waging war everyday inside and outside Palestine. This is not a call for war, or an encouragement of war. Among Arab countries, there is not one nation that is not aware of the horrors of armed conflict. The aim is to avoid war, not encourage it. And the best way to stop war is to prepare for it. It is because we are unprepared that Israel has been able to wage war against us for decades now. By ordering an extension of negotiations the Arab League Council has done the opposite of what it claims to be doing. Because we are not willing to stand up to Israel the Israelis go on bullying us. In today's Israel the left is divided, the peace camp weakened and moderates are silent. Meanwhile, the Israeli public grows more rightwing and racist. The Arab League Council decision has brought us closer to war. In four months' time we will be closer still.
