by Ghassan Khatib - Bitterlemons - Feb. 26, 2007
There has lately been a spike in talk about creating a diplomatic horizon for settling the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, causing politicians and analysts to ponder how such a horizon might stand a better chance of success than previous approaches.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice`s position that the roadmap does not contradict attempts at fixing final status issues first is an encouraging sign not only because it indicates a seriousness in reviving a political process, but also because it represents a willingness to think outside the box.
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, meanwhile, has been promoting ideas contradicting the traditional order of events as established by the Madrid and Oslo processes, in which an open-ended and possibly reversible process of interim arrangements should lead to a final negotiations phase.
These "new" thoughts have probably arisen in response to stronger pressure in the last few months from Arab states, especially Egypt, to fix final status issues first. This pressure, in turn, is informed by the lessons of the failures of the past.
The reasons for the past failures of Madrid and Oslo are many and varied. They range from problems with the structure of the processes themselves, the behavior of the two players and in particular their leaderships and the role of external players, especially the US and regional powers, to the imbalance of power between the sides.
The leaders on the two sides currently seem desperate for political progress mainly because both leaderships lack any strategy or initiative of their own. At the same time the external players, international as well as regional, seem to have realized that the longer this conflict lasts without solution, the greater effect it has on their vital interests. It is clear that Arab countries and international powers are showing greater interest in jump-starting a political process.
In such a situation, it is natural to try and change variables from the past to see the effect that might produce. One important variable is the structure of any process and one way to change that variable is to turn it upside down.
Thus, instead of proceeding with incremental, open-ended, and possibly reversible interim steps that may or may not lead to a negotiated agreement on final status issues, a promising approach would be to agree on the final outcome first. With the terms of reference for such an outcome already agreed as being UN Security Council resolutions, the outcome should be two states living peacefully on the 1967 borders with a mutually acceptable solution to the Palestinian refugee issue.
Once that point has been reached, a process of gradual implementation should stand a better chance of success.
An additional advantage of this approach is the fact that not only the Palestinian leadership but all Arab governments are willing to enter into normal and peaceful relations with Israel in return for an Israeli willingness to go down this route and accept, first in principle and then in reality, to end the occupation of Arab lands. That is the basis of the Arab initiative.- Published 26/2/2007 © bitterlemons.org
Ghassan Khatib is the coeditor of the bitterlemons family of internet publications. He is vice- president of Birzeit University and a former Palestinian Authority minister of planning.
