Rejectionism, Not Settlements, Is Why Conflict Lingers

In his Feb. 19 Globe and Mail opinion piece, “The latest U.S. Mideast position: lots of noise signifying nothing,” Michael Bell argued the following points, which express a widely-held view in the West about the current diplomatic impasse in Israeli-Palestinian affairs:

• The Americans have abandoned their previous demand that Israel halt all settlement activity, much to the delight of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
• The Palestinians, having demanded an end to all housing construction as the condition for a return to negotiations, therefore feel dejected.
• Only sustained U.S. pressure on Israel short of threatening the stability of his coalition, including cutbacks on diplomacy and loan guarantees, might induce Israel to be more pliant toward the Palestinians.

Although Bell framed the third point as the expression of “frustrated policy wonks” one might fairly assume that Bell counts himself among them, especially since nowhere else in his article does he mention any factor other than settlements as an issue impairing the resumption of negotiations.

Bell omitted to mention that Netanyahu did what no previous Israeli prime minister including Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert - has done: ordered a 10-month moratorium on settlement activity in the West Bank (he excluded housing activity in east Jerusalem, which the majority of Israelis view differently). But such is the cynicism about Netanyahu in many western circles that even this step can be simply overlooked as insignificant.

What underlies the cynicism is the assumption that if only Israel would cease all settlement activity the peace process would unfold in a way the Palestinians are anxious to see. This assumption is as false and misleading as it is pervasive.

We must recall that former Palestinian Authority president Yasser Arafat negotiated with Israel (1994-2001) during the Oslo process, despite the fact that Oslo did not bar settlement activity, yet some progress was made in negotiations (Israel relinquished land to the Palestinians) until Arafat rejected Barak's offer of Palestinian statehood. His rejection was not over settlements – a complicated but resolvable issue.

Arafat's successor, Mahmoud Abbas, negotiated with former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert during the Annapolis talks (2006-08) under the same conditions (of settlement activity). While Olmert's offer of Palestinian statehood was reportedly even more generous than what Barak had offered Arafat, Abbas, too, spurned the historic chance for statehood. Like Arafat, Abbas arguably could not put an end to the conflict by accepting the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty and giving up the "right of return" of Palestinians to Israel. These principles, not settlements, are the core issues on which the Palestinians have refused to compromise. And this refusal to compromise is why the conflict lingers.

Journalists and pundits who write constantly only about settlements but who ignore or sidestep the deeper, seemingly intractable problems are telling just one part of the story, and not even its most vital part. Yet their preoccupation plays into the reigning narrative that views Palestinians as helpless victims of Israeli greed and triumphalism.

In a news story in the Globe just days before Bell’s piece appeared, GLORIA Center head Barry Rubin was cited as saying that U.S. President Barack Obama has adopted fromer president George W. Bush’s policy, one he previously ridiculed. The context was that, to the delight of Netanyahu's officials, Abbas is being squeezed to return to a form of negotiations by having to accept less than a total settlement freeze which Obama previously promoted.

What was not reported, however, is Rubin’s central argument: that there can be no genuine peace process, because the Fatah leadership “is still radical, more eager to reconcile with Hamas than to make peace with Israel. T[heir] world view is extremist and geared toward total victory. PA media and clerics encourage violence and teach that Israel is temporary and illegitimate.” (“Quick, look busy!” Jerusalem Post, Feb. 14.)

Unless and until that attitude changes, no Israeli-Palestinian agreement will be possible. And until assorted experts and reporters pay attention to this attitude, western understanding about what’s at issue will remain severely constricted.