The US-sponsored indirect negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel are essentially a test. For the US, they are a test of its credibility and its ability to fulfil its promises, proving itself to be a superpower capable of securing peace in this strategically vital region. For the Israelis, the negotiations are a test of their credibility. They will also reveal whether their Premier can lead his internal allies to achieve peace. They are also a test of Israeli intentions: Are they serious about peace, which is doubtful, or they are using the time to maintain the status quo? For the Palestinians, it is a test of their ability to fix red lines and to stop giving priceless concessions to others and their capacity to plan for other options. For the Arabs, it is the final test of survival, their ability to preserve their interests against regional powers that use the Arab system's files to serve other causes and also the final test of their capacity to plan for other options. The Qatari Prime Minister, who doubles as the Foreign Minister, said that the move of the Arabs giving Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas a green line to negotiate indirectly for four months was because they have no other options. In fact, the Arabs have many other options but the Arab system does not want to use them. The simplest option for the Arabs to show the Americans their anger is to change the reserve currency from the dollar to a currency basket and to divert investment to the Arab countries and international rising forces, such as the (Brazil, Russia, India and China) BRIC group. The Gulf countries are the leading buyers of weapons and diversifying arms sales is another option. Withdrawing cash from US banks and diverting it to European and other international banks is a third option. Opening dialogue with the Taliban to reach a deal with the Afghan government is the carrot that the West and the US need to withdraw their forces in order to save their faces. Recognising Palestine as a state and asking the UN to recognise it is another option. Declaring the end of the two-state solution and brokering for the one-state solution is the most dramatic option. Withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty as an Arab League group would make both the US and Russia, which proposed discussing a Nuclear-Free Middle East Zone after achieving peace, rethink the whole situation. They cannot confront the whole Arab League group. Then the Arab system holds very powerful cards to press both the US and Israel but it does not want to use them. Another thing the Palestinians and the Arab League should expect is attempts by Israel and Iran to ruin negotiations. The row between the UAE Foreign Minister and Iran's Revolutionary Guard officers over the Iran-occupied islands and the last Iranian military manoeuvres to close the Gulf show that Iran is still threatening the other side of the Gulf. Iran could not confront either the American navy or an international navy alliance by deciding to close the Gulf through which nearly forty per cent of exported oil transits. The actual message was to terrorise Gulf countries into depending more on Western military bases and to check many of the above cards the Arab system has, so that the Palestinian file serves the Iranian nuclear ambitions. The recently smashed Kuwaiti spy ring shows that Iran has penetrated security institutions in the Gulf countries. Israel has some alternative ways to undermine the negotiations. The first is being prepared now by claiming that Syria provided Scud rockets to Hizbollah and using this as a pretext to attack Lebanon, with Syria, consequently, perhaps returning to square one. Another Israeli alternative is to force some right-wing parties to withdraw from the government and go for elections to freeze negotiations. The third is to show a sincere intention to reach a deal and ask the Palestinian Authority about implementing solutions in the Gaza Strip, giving the authority two bad choices. One choice is to freeze the negotiations, giving Israel an opportunity to claim that it has no peace partner, while the other is to instigate another Palestinian civil war to control the Gaza Strip. If the Americans are serious about peace, which serves their international strategy, and in meeting General James Jones' request to save lives of US soldiers by stopping Israeli atrocities, they should impose a solution during the indirect talks. This would serve as a framework for direct negotiations to reach final solutions based on the two-state solution and saving East Jerusalem. They should also be ready to form an international military alliance from the UN Security Council big five forces, NATO and Islamic countries to protect the nascent Palestinian state, which should be associated in parallel with opening the Israeli nuclear file. Could US President Barack Obama do that? Regardless of the answer, many American strategists believe that the Palestinians and the Arab League should build on these concepts. [email protected] Hany is an Egyptian writer, who regularly contributes to the Mail.
