Ingredients for Peace

untitled_wa

What a pleasantly surprising headline! In a ceremony held in the Washington headquarters of the World Bank yesterday, Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority signed an agreement green-lighting the construction of the Red Sea-Dead Sea pipeline. The Red Sea–Dead Sea conduit, also known as the Two Seas Canal, will carry some 100 million metric cubes of water to the north annually, thus hopefully slowing down the desiccation of the Dead Sea. As part of this cooperation, a joint water purification plant will be constructed and Israelis, Jordanians and Palestinians will share the water.

I can’t recall the last time I heard such positive news. We are now in the midst of yet another crisis in the talks between Israel and the Palestinians, and are confronted almost daily with pessimistic and negative reports of the flailing process. As if taken from a different reality, this report serves as a optimistic reminder that agreements in this difficult region are possible. Before the cynics object to this flowery proclamation, let me put things into proportion myself. The agreement is not a peace accord, merely a practical confluence of interests: the Palestinians and the Jordanians are in dire need of water, and Israel seeks to stop the receding water line of the Dead Sea, and to top it all – international funding will help fund the project.

So, we have practical interests, together with international sponsorship, bringing Israelis, Jordanians and Palestinians to sign a deal. Now, why am I getting this nagging feeling that perhaps this model can and should be applied elsewhere? Ah, yes. The Israeli – Palestinian peace process.  Those never ending negotiations that never actually seem to achieve anything. Those countless summits, conferences, meetings and discussions that never seem to culminate in real progress, only in frustration and violence. Surely, both the ingredients of the successful model above can be applied to the bigger and more crucial framework of the Israeli – Palestinian talks?

Practical Interests

Let’s try and redraw the Israeli and Palestinian map of interests to prove the existence of the first ingredient of the Two-Seas Canal model:

Israel

  • The assurance of a democratic Israel with a Jewish majority
  • Improved status within the international community
  • Thawing of relations with a large part of the Arab world

Palestinians

  • A free and independent state/autonomy
  • Improved economic and social conditions
  • Acceptance into the international family of nations

Oh, and there’s that small matter of ending one of the most intractable conflicts in the history of the region, thus putting an end to the endless bloodletting and accompanying agony on both sides.

International Backing

The second ingredient – international sponsorship – hardly needs specifying here. The world has repeatedly expressed it’s willingness to pay in real and concrete terms for any deal ending this long lasting conflict. The Americans have committed a huge amount of time and resources to its resolution, and even the Saudis have offered economic incentives to the Palestinians to try and lift off their diplomatic initiative.

Admittedly, making a comparison between the two cases is an over simplification of reality. The stakes in the case of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict are extremely high, and the political circumstances are entirely different. But the reason I insist on drawing a parallel line is to point out what’s lacking today and what’s obstructing any real progress. Because the benefits of a peace deal are less tangible than in the Two-Seas Canal case, where a 4 year construction project of a pipeline will result in millions of cubes of water, it is much harder to see the abstract benefits of a peace deal. Diplomatic recognition, international acceptance, Jewish majority and democracy  – all these terms are much harder to understand, let alone visualize. But that is precisely what is needed at this point in time – visionaries. Leaders who are not afraid of taking risks and making historical compromises. Helmsmen steering their respective ships through stormy weather but to a better future.

With all due respect to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s  self-perception as a great statesman, and his repeated declarations of his willingness to make the historical compromises needed to resolve the conflict – Netanyahu is no visionary. Neither does he have the strength of character and political willingness to make any historical decision. And that is why simple practical interests and international backing are not going to cut it in this case. To be fair, there is also an obvious lack of leadership on the Palestinian side, though Abu Mazen is probably the most moderate Palestinian leader Israel will find on the other side of the negotiating table in the near future. Moderate – yes, willing to make an historic compromise – not sure.

The sad truth is, and I’ve said this before, the majority of Israelis side with Netanyahu’s obsession with Iran. The Palestinian issue is of secondary importance at best. So I’ll end with the words of Yuval Diskin, Israel’s ex-Shin Bet chief, who was quoted last week as unequivocally asserting that the “implications of failing to solve the Israeli – Palestinian conflict are far more existential than the Iranian nuclear issue.”

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

5 responses to “Ingredients for Peace”

  1. Russell Chapman says :

    Thanks for an interesting article. As you say, if only the different parties could work together to find a peace solution in the same way as they have to find a water solution.

    I don’t understand the preoccupation with Iran either. Yes, they come across as bellicose on a regular basis but I get the impression it is more grandstanding than anything else. As for Iran getting the bomb, it seems pretty clear that they already have enough enriched uranium and is why they agreed so quickly to the Nuclear deal , the hard part is making a deliverable weapon. Iran needs the sanctions lifted so it will have enough money to support Assad.

    You are right, Netanyahu is no great visionary and he allows himself to be controlled by those who would see all Palestinians driven from the land. At the same time the Palestinians don’t exactly do themselves many favours. Honestly, sometimes I wish I could bang both sides heads together and tell them to grow up.

    Shalom

    • Daniel Berman says :

      Shalom! The preoccupation with Iran, I think, stems from two interlinked causes: a) the collective history/trauma of the Jewish people and the resulting “never again” mentality – the promise that there will never be another Holocaust. So never mind the grandstanding – Israelis feel the Iranian threats hitting those painful chords. And b) Netanyahu’s personal crusade to go down in history as Israel’s savior and protector, and his unwillingness to make any real progress on the Palestinian issue, thus seeing the Iranian nuclear program as a great diversion.

  2. Russell Chapman says :

    I agree with you entirely. Definitely ‘never again’. Also going way back in history to biblical times the Persians weren’t exactly allies. It would appear that Iran knows how to press these buttons, for them it is a psychological game.

    I don’t know if you saw what I wrote on my blog about what is happening in Syria and the geo-political games that are being played?

  3. Dave Swindells says :

    Some really interesting comments on this blog. Its hard to see a way forward to break the current situation but the water sharing agreement does demonstrate progress really is possible, if all sides see there’s something in it for them.

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: