Cynicism is idealism gone sore in the face of reality.’ In case of the Middle East there are so many variables of reality that even the most optimists will shudder to bet on any of them. Although Mr Bush is now using the word “Palestine” rather than the vaguer phrase “Palestinian State,” and Condoleezza Rice is trying to act neutral, Israel’s latest acts demonstrate glaring insincerity to peace and stability in the region.

There is reengagement of Mr Bush’s administration in the Middle East and Israelis and Palestinians are also talking with each other, yet the objectives spewed out by all parties are so incompatible and irreconcilable that they rarely have any meeting grounds. In such situation if the parties found themselves at loggerhead with each other after a few weeks or months, whereas it is bound to happen in an atmosphere of incompatibility and incongruity, then who is to be blamed.

The first problem is that the present engagement of America is for greater security and not for the final settlement of the issue which according to certain perception in the White House can be put on hold for foreseeable future. Ms Rice’s interest is to ensure that each side takes steps to calm the other.

She wants that all parties should live up their “obligations.’ In the American view, this means Palestinians should end the ‘terrorist’ attacks inside Israel and Israelis should take no unilateral steps to change the status quo, such as the acquisition of land in East Jerusalem from alleged absentee Palestinian landlords and no further settlements. Although Ms Rice during her latest tour to Europe announced, ‘we will be very active’, their activism is pro-Israel and not pro-just and fair settlement of the issue.

An indication of where the current American interest lies came with the  appointment of a US officer, General William Ward, as an American ‘security coordinator.’ He will oversee in some way the process of reform among the Palestinian security services and encourage security contacts between the Israelis and Palestinians.

This points out that present engagement is for greater security — not a final settlement. Presently toeing the lines of the US and Israel Mr. Mahmood Abbas is supposed to clean his own Augean Stable in his backyard-to neutralise all militant apparatus in occupied territories. This is the Herculean task which is beyond any power to accomplish easily let alone Palestinian Authority which has largely been marginalised by frequents excursions of Israeli Army.

Meanwhile Israel is consolidating its positions in the occupied lands which it wants to annex in case some arrangement is made with Palestinian  Authorities regarding their civil government. Although it has already handed over four of the five occupied towns, Tulkarm, Jericho, Ramallah, Bethlehem and Qalqilya , back to Palestinian Authorities which it promised to do at February’s Sharm al-Sheikh summit in Egypt, it is in no way respecting the promises it made in the road-map agreement in which Israel has pledged to freeze the growth of settlements on land occupied since 1967. Flouting the road-map plan which has been sponsored by the “quartet” of the US, Russia, European Union and United Nations, the Israeli Govern-ment on Monday 21st March confirmed plans to increase the size of its largest settlement in the West Bank.

Defence Ministry spokeswoman Shiri Eden said the expansion of the settlement is part of an overall development plan for Maale Adumim approved by the government in 1999. According to Israeli new expansion plan in the occupied territories approximately 3,500 housing units are planned for Maale Adumim, east of Jerusalem.

The settlements at Ariel in the northern West Bank, and Gush Etzion, south of Jerusalem, are also expected to be expanded. Israeli officials confirmed that Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz has approved the construction of the new homes in Maale Adumim. (BBC-21st March). Reacting to Israeli new settlement plans Mr. Saib Erekat, Palestinian Chief negotiator said “We ask the Quartet and American President George Bush: what happened to the two-State vision and how can we have peace while settlements and the wall continue to be built?” (21st March BBC)

This signifies nothing but glaring disrespect to international community by Israel, which it has been showing even in the past with immunity, because of the US full backing in all weathers. One fails to understand how the peace process can be kept on track whereas Israel’s new settlements and the construction of wall continue unabated. The controversial wall itself now is taking a new turn and encompassing in its pale the whole of Eastern Jerusalem. Once it is done all hopes for a viable Palestinian State will dash to the ground.

Lately Israel has flouted an Arab League proposal on 23rd March which has called on Israel to withdraw from Arab land it occupied in 1967 in exchange for normal relations with all Arab States. Earlier the same proposal was put forth by Saudi Arabia in 2002 in Arab Summit in

Lebanon. Adding insult to injury Israel called the summit, ‘out of touch with reality.’ The glaring reality is that beggars cannot be choosers. About 400,000 Jewish settlers living in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem have precedence over more than four million Palestinians living alongside them.

The most daunting flaw in the peace process is that it is not being considered and treated as peace between equals. There is always a mention of two States, two nations living peacefully side by side; however, in fact, what is expected is that Palestinian should not live as independent, sovereign and economically free nation. They should remain dependent on Israel so that its industry continues to be fed by Palestinian cheap labour. In the roa-dmap, no final settlement of the issue is being sought after because no understanding so far has been reached on any of the most touching issues such as the borders of the Israeli and Palestinian States, the future of Israeli settlements and Palestinian refugees, and the status of Jerusalem. If both sides stick to their pronounced positions, there will be no agreement on a final settlement.

What is really being done is that a strategy has been evolved so that slowly all active resistance to occupation is neutralised and the organizations like Hamas are alienated. Once it is done and security for Israel has been ensured then peace cane be taken care of at its own pace. Unfortunately our own house is divided. King Abdullah of Jordan, who was conspicuous because of his absence from the Arab Summit this March, sent a proposal asking the Arab States to normalize relations with Israel before any territorial withdrawal was to be considered. Graciously enough, of course, the proposal was dismissed by all Arab leaders ahead of the summit. The writer is a noted columnist and analyst presently teaching at a foreign university.

Information

The first problem is that the present engagement of America is for greater security and not  for the final settlement of the issue which according to certain perception in the White House can be put on hold for foreseeable future. Ms Rice’s interest is to ensure that each side takes steps to calm the other.

First appeared in Pakistan Observer on  March 30, 2005