Shifting the Paradigm Lessons from the peace process and a new road map for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Israel Piekrash Shifting the Paradigm Lessons from the peace process and a new road map for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Israel Piekrash In 1993, Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat The political process in the first period stepped onto the White House lawn and culminated at the negotiations over a signed a historical declaration of principles permanent agreement at the Camp David that led Israel and the PLO down a new path summit in 2000. After the deadlines set of political agreement. Roughly a quarter of out in the Oslo Accords passed, and despite a century later, we have to ask ourselves: stubborn, and at times, violent opposition What went wrong? from both sides, the leaders of Israel, the PA and the US decided to hold a peace The mutual consensus was that summit at the highest levels. But even״ “nothing is agreed until everything before they convened, it became clear that the distance between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat’s priorities was great. In a letter he ״”is agreed sent President Clinton ahead of the summit, The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has Arafat stated that as early as 1988, he had been waging for decades, in a never- expressed a willingness to make do with ending cycle of military, economic and 22% of historic Palestine, and therefore social confrontations alongside several expected Israel not to demand further reconciliation attempts between the two territorial concessions. He also made it clear sides. However, since the First Intifada that he did not intend to give up the right of in 1987, several changes have occurred return for refugees. However, if the issues that converged in two main periods. In of Jerusalem, refugees and territory were the first period, 1988-2000, support grew adequately addressed, he would have no among both Israelis and Palestinians for problem compromising on security issues. the formula of “land for peace” and a [3] Meanwhile, Barak made a speech in the small majority was formed on both sides Knesset ahead of the peace summit, laying supporting a political arrangement based out the opposite principles: Israel would not on the two-state solution. In the second return to the 1967 borders, Jerusalem would period, from 2000 and up to the present day, remain united under Israeli sovereignty, the trend reversed and faith in a diplomatic there would be no foreign army in Palestine, arrangement shrank on both sides.[1] After and Israel would not take responsibility for Israel’s 2005 disengagement from Gaza, the refugee problem.[4] support for a political arrangement re- emerged, but collapsed again after the war in Gaza a decade later.[2] Heinrich Böll Stiftung Tel Aviv 2/16 Shifting the Paradigm Israel Piekrash Despite the vast differences between the to control another people.[6] As a result, parties’ opening positions, the Americans Prime Minister Sharon decided to implement managed to force them to compromise. the disengagement plan and, in 2005, the [5] Throughout the entire summit, it was Israeli government withdrew all its military evident that not all core issues were equally forces and civilians from the Gaza Strip. important to both parties. For example, for In 2006, Ehud Olmert was elected prime the Palestinians Jerusalem was the most minister in Israel and Hamas won the important issue in the summit, while Israel Palestinian elections. In response, Israel prioritized security and territory. The mutual imposed a partial but tight blockade on the consensus was that “nothing is agreed Gaza Strip.[7] Since then, the Palestinians until everything is agreed”. However, the in Gaza have been imprisoned in a severe talks failed and about two months later, humanitarian crisis, while Israelis living the Second Intifada erupted, embroiling the nearby suffer from ongoing rocket barrages. two sides in a violent, protracted struggle In 2007, the Annapolis process was launched that marked the beginning of the second between Israel and the Palestinians, with period in Israeli-Palestinian relations. In international mediation. In 2008, Olmert 2001, Ariel Sharon was elected prime offered Abbas a new, detailed proposal minister; in 2002, Israel launched Operation to resolve all the core issues. Yet despite Defensive Shield, sending IDF forces into the minor differences between positions, combat throughout the West Bank. After Abbas chose not to respond. In December the operation, Israel began building a long 2008, war broke out between Hamas and wall separating its sovereign territory from Israel, later followed by two large-scale Palestinian centers of population. Since wars and limited rounds of fighting. The then, Israeli security forces have continued Obama administration tried to promote to operate throughout the West Bank. These several rounds of negotiation, but both actions led to a turning point and a decline sides hardened their positions and refused in Palestinian terrorism. The Israeli public to make any conciliatory gestures. Today, grew convinced that military action had there is no longer an Israeli or Palestinian succeeded where negotiations had failed. majority that believes in the feasibility of The Palestinian public concluded that the a political agreement.[8] Oslo Accords had not managed to end Israel’s military and civilian occupation. In addition, Yasser Arafat passed away in The Failure of the Peace 2004, and Mahmoud Abbas replaced him Process as head of the PA, the PLO and Fatah. Political support for a permanent agreement The Israeli public grew fell for two reasons: (a) the failure of the negotiation attempts in the period 1988- ״ convinced that military 2000 and 2008, and (b) the weakening of action had succeeded where the PA’s autonomous institutions as of the .Second Intifada in 2000 ״.negotiations had failed Yet the international community continued Why did the negotiations for a permanent to demand that Israel end the occupation. At agreement fail? Explanations can be the time, the majority of Israelis refused to organized into four groups: continue to pay the heavy toll of continuing PEACEMISM | What Happened to the Israeli Peace Camp? 3/16 Shifting the Paradigm Israel Piekrash The first group of arguments contends that to improve their position leading up to the the talks failed due to random problems final status negotiations. Israel expanded not related to the agreement itself. For the settlement infrastructure and the example, the fact that Israeli PM Olmert Palestinians knowingly turned a blind eye was under legal investigation at the time to terror. Second, Israel’s lack of clarity caused the Palestinians to fear reaching drove Ehud Barak to initially present tough a compromise with him, as he might be positions and quickly withdraw from them. replaced.[9] This explanation seems to As a result, the Palestinians concluded fall short though: If the Palestinians were that Israel could be pressed into further indeed willing to accept Olmert’s offer, they concessions, which made them harden could have publicly declared that it was their own positions.[10] Yet this group acceptable in principle. At the very least, of explanations can only account for the they could have declared in real time that failure of the talks between Arafat and the proposal was closer to their positions. Barak in 2000. In contrast, eight years later, Representatives on both sides did so, seven Olmert presented the Palestinians with a years earlier, at the conclusion of the Taba comprehensive, detailed vision. His proposal Summit in 2001, although it was clear that was preceded by Israel’s withdrawal from Ehud Barak would be replaced in the next Gaza and without further expansion of elections within weeks. Therefore, the settlements. It was clear to all concerned overwhelming Palestinian response to that the proposal was final and would be the Israeli proposal cannot be explained dropped from the agenda if the Likud party by Olmert’s fragile legal status. was elected; yet the Palestinians did not respond. There is no longer an Israeli or״ Palestinian majority that believes The third group of explanations focuses on the mass psychology of conflict. According in the feasibility of a political to this approach, both the Israelis and the Palestinians fostered the false notion that ״agreement the other party is cruel and not interested The second group of explanations addresses in peace. The longer the conflict lasts, the ambiguity inherent to the Oslo Accords. the more each party has to justify its From the outset, the Israeli side and the victims and therefore more staunchly Palestinian side had different and even refuses compromise. According to these contrasting expectations from a permanent explanations, Palestinians believe that the agreement. Already in 1988, the Palestinians Jewish minority in the otherwise Arab space established the determined vision of a will eventually collapse, while Israelis believe Palestinian state alongside Israel, while that their strength will force the Palestinians Israel progressed slowly without presenting to compromise. Both communities have a firm public vision. The Oslo Accords a large religious population that believes stipulated that progress should be made God supports their political policies and through irreversible interim measures therefore there is no need to adjust them. on the ground, consciously ignoring the All this created aggressive opposition conflicting expectations of the parties and on either side that impeded the peace without a clear Israeli vision for a permanent process.[11] This group of explanations settlement. This led to a breach of trust. highlights the considerable difficulties First, throughout the 1990s, the loss of trust that strengthened the opposition, reducing caused both sides to try to act unilaterally the leaders’ margins for negotiation. Yet it Heinrich Böll Stiftung Tel Aviv 4/16 Shifting the Paradigm Israel Piekrash cannot be denied that, despite the hostility its successor, the State of Israel, gained between the two peoples, the peace process power at the expense of the Palestinians.