Participants at a debate on the current round of peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians gave mixed assessments on their likelihood of success, writes Mamoon Alabbasi* in London A debate on the Middle East peace process was held in London recently, during which six analysts argued for and against the motion that the current Israeli-Palestinian negotiations were "merely a charade". Shlomo Ben-Ami, historian and former Israeli government minister, expressed "serious doubts" about the validity of the negotiations, since both sides were in a "state of indifference" and not ready to make significant commitments. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Ben-Ami argued, does not have the political power and right-wing backing to make peace, and what he is willing to offer clashes with the concept of a "sovereign Palestinian state". On the other side, Ben-Ami continued, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas does not have a real mandate to negotiate a lasting deal on behalf of all Palestinians in the absence of a national unity government with Hamas. Ben-Ami expressed his astonishment at the manner in which a "democratically elected majority has been marginalised" in the peace process. Ben-Ami said US efforts must focus on bringing about Palestinian national reconciliation, especially between Fatah and Hamas. His views were challenged by Manuel Hassassian, Palestinian ambassador to the UK, who insisted that the Israelis and the Palestinians were "still in earnest about the peace process". Hassassian said he saw "no alternative" to the negotiations, in which neither side can afford to see the talks fail. However, he also urged the Israelis not to miss the opportunity to make the process succeed and to forge peace. "We Palestinians are the only ones who can give Israel a birth certificate," Hassassian said, in a reference to the legitimacy Israel is expected to acquire once it ends its occupation of the Palestinian territories and allows an independent Palestinian state to come into existence. Yet, for the two-state solution to materialise, Hassassian said, the weaker side in the negotiations -- the Palestinians -- would have to have the support of the US administration, in addition to US civil society, in order to protect Palestinian rights and uphold international law with regard to the MidEast conflict. Hassassian's compatriot Mustafa Barghouti, a Palestinian democracy activist and presidential candidate in 2005, took a different view on the talks, saying that the "peace process has become a substitute for peace". It aims to silence protest against the suffering of the Palestinians, who were now living under the longest military occupation in modern history, he said. Barghouti said that the peace process was based on a historical compromise, in which the Palestinians would get less than half of what they were entitled to under the original UN partition plan. Thanks to the illegal Israeli settlements being built in the occupied territories, even that "compromise is being compromised." "The expansion of the settlements is killing the possibility of a Palestinian state, killing the possibility of a two-state solution," warned Barghouti, pointing to maps that compared the effects of the Israeli settlements to segregation in apartheid South Africa. Barghouti said that the problem was not just the settlements, but also the resulting "closed areas, apartheid walls and endless number of checkpoints". Among the factors damaging the credibility of the peace talks, he said, was the "lack of a frame of reference" for the negotiations, in which Israel "can determine what can be discussed" and ignore international law. Barghouti cited problems arising from the thorny issue of Jerusalem, where Israeli officials cannot publicly endorse the division of the holy city between Palestinians and Israelis. No Palestinian could give up the right to occupied East Jerusalem without being regarded as a traitor, he said. Peace negotiations would be more likely to be successful if Palestinian democracy were allowed to flourish, Barghouti said, citing US-Israeli assaults on Palestinian unity and democracy and pointing to the current weakness of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which was expected to comply with the wishes of Tel Aviv. "This is the first time in human history that an occupied people have been asked to provide security for their occupiers," Barghouti said. He added that Israel will continue to look for excuses not to make a peace deal, citing Tel Aviv's rhetoric against Egypt, Iraq and Iran, in order to divert attention away from its own policies. Also at the debate, Jonathan Paris, an author and Middle East analyst, defended the talks, which he said were in the interest of both sides. Paris said he was "cautiously optimistic", about the talks, hailing the efforts made by PA security forces and the "slowing down" of the Israeli settlements, which he attributed to "Bibi" (Netanyahu)'s influence. If Netanyahu opts for peace, Paris argued, other Israeli parties will follow suit. Paris stressed that US President Barack Obama is committed to the peace process, which he said also enjoyed the support of the Palestinians and Israelis, adding that the success of the talks would result in the "containment" of Iran. Since expectations of the success of the talks were low, Paris said, "we have less to lose", being a hint that the outcome of the negotiations could be more positive than initially thought. Edward Luttwak, a historian and military strategist, voiced strong objections to holding the peace talks under the auspices of the United States and with the involvement of foreign diplomats, stressing that for the negotiations to succeed they must be conducted by Palestinians and Israelis alone, where the terms would be in favour of the "victorious" side. This was standard practice following a "war", he said. "Peace is not a charade. The charade is the peace process," Luttwak said, mocking the non-Israeli and non-Palestinian players involved in the negotiations. Luttwak portrayed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as being a war between the two sides and made almost no reference to the ongoing occupation and dispossession of the Palestinian population. "It was war that brought peace," Luttwak argued, adding that to achieve peace "you must make a deal, not ask for rights and justice." Martin Indyk, former US ambassador to Israel, appeared upbeat on the progress of the negotiations. He laid the blame for the failure of past MidEast peace talks squarely on the Palestinian side, but expressed optimism that this round would be different because "Abbas is committed to making peace." Indyk saw in Netanyahu's comment to Abbas that "you are my partner" a positive choice of words by a right-wing Israeli prime minister with regard to a Palestinian leader. Indyk expressed his confidence in "Bibi". Should Netanyahu make a deal, then the rest of Israel will support him, he said. * The writer is an Iraqi journalist based in London.
