Palestine: | |||||
|
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political analyst Dmitry Kosyrev) -
Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan. It was not one, but
hundreds of observers who hastened to declare the November international
conference in Annapolis America's success that allegedly gave a fresh start to
the Palestinian-Israeli peace process.
Now that the process has hiccupped, no one seems eager to
take the blame.
But, I repeat, it is only a hiccup: Israeli and Palestinian
diplomats have quarreled during a working group meeting. One may expect it to
be defused by another meeting between the two prime ministers, Mahmoud Abbas
and Ehud Olmert; they meet for negotiations roughly once every two weeks. But,
as always, the nuts and bolts of these talks are discussed in meetings at the
working level. And these meetings make it clear that Annapolis has not solved
any substantial issues.
The main issue is land. The Palestinian delegation demanded
a stop to building settlements in the occupied territories. The Israelis
countered by reminding the Palestinians of their commitment to neutralize the
radical groups on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. But that is not a very
credible response because building houses in the occupied territories is just
as real a problem as radicals and terrorists.
It was after Annapolis, early this month, that Israel
announced it was building houses in East Jerusalem. Such plans have also been
unveiled for the Jewish settlement of Maale Adumim and so on. All this is being
done within the existing settlements since Israel has promised not to take any
new Palestinian territories. But in general one of the issues in the Middle
East peace process is the Jewish development of the territories which, based on
the results of the talks, theoretically may not belong to them. In other words,
ahead of the negotiations, Israel is stepping up the activities that Palestine
wants it to stop.
Or take the question of Jerusalem where new developments are
planned. It is Israel's capital, but the negotiating process implies a joint
negotiated solution of the city's status. For the time being, in terms of
international law, the eastern quarters of Jerusalem are occupied territories.
The Israelis say they are ready to discuss the city's status with the
Palestinians, but what is the point of talking if new Jewish homes are already
being built there?
The settlements are only one item in the overall peace
process.
For "the father of the Annapolis victory," George
Bush, the problem now is that he is scheduled to go to the Middle East in
January. Even if he manages to wriggle out of that trip, he will still have to
come to grips with concrete issues, for example, to say what he thinks about
the building of Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands in parallel with the
talks. America's support for Israel is the Achilles heel of all its policy in
the greater Middle East and further afield, for example, right up to Muslim
Indonesia. These problems will have to be grappled with.
A land that has for centuries been inhabited by people of
one creed (or, to put it in other words, of one ethnic identity) and which as a
result of the use of force is now inhabited by a different people is not only a
problem of Palestine and Israel. The same is true of Kosovo. Russian Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov and other Russian diplomats have repeatedly pointed out:
if the world has been wrestling with the Palestinian problem for half a century
and will continue to do so, why such a hurry in the case of Kosovo?
And indeed, the "settlement activities" of the Albanians
who infiltrated into Kosovo are very similar to what the Israelis have been up
to all this time: to create settlements taking advantage of the weakness of
their opponents and then to present the other side with an accomplished fact
during the course of negotiations, hoping to wrest at least partial
concessions.
What will happen to Europe if it tries to settle a similar
problem between the Serbs and the Kosovars after both are admitted to the
European Union as "independent states"? It may or may not pan out
because Kosovo's independence would not be legally complete without a formal
recognition by the UN. That would give the Serbs reason to seek redress for
half a century or for as long as they feel like it. It is unclear who will play
the role of the U.S., which, let us face it, is disliked in the Muslim world
because of Israel. America's other missteps (i.e. wars) look in many ways as a
derivative of the starting point of its Middle East policy.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and
do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071227/94407036.html
Powered by ScribeFire.
