Brussels, 13/04/2010 (Agence Europe) - The announcement by Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos of a Euro-Mediterranean initiative for reactivating the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab peace process (EUROPE 10116) has not yet given rise to any direct comments. Indirectly, however, Israel is examining the possible scenarios and should make its opinion known in the next few days when Israeli officials visit Madrid (probably the foreign minister at the end of April, as the Spanish press reports). Miguel Angel Moratinos is mainly deploying his good offices to avoid failure of the Union for the Mediterranean summit scheduled to be held in Barcelona on 7 June. Although, when it comes to security, Israel gives the impression that it is acting in a way that could nurture feelings of revolt resulting in another intifada, the international community, including the EU, seems determined to take action.
At present, Israel is facing growing pressure from the international community and is preparing to respond to the new American and European plans and initiatives in gestation. It must deal with the activity deployed mainly by Paris and Madrid, which are providing direct support for Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who is also receiving assistance from the EU for setting up state structures. The greatest risk for Israel would be that of a Palestinian “fait accompli” - the unilateral proclamation of a sovereign state in line with the provisions of international law. “This is possible”, Moratinos has said. It is mainly expected that there will be an American peace plan and all observers of the conflict predict this to be imminent. According to some analysts, this initiative would mean strong EU involvement in order to prevent a worsening of the dispute that has developed between Israel and the United States on halting the settlements - a dispute that could be made worse by one-to-one confrontation. The new American plan, they say, would therefore involve a sort of European “subcontracting”. It is, however, far too early to support such a hypothesis
“We are ready for any negotiations - either direct or through mediators. Bu we believe that direct negotiations are the only real alternative for reaching an agreement”, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman states on 6 April during an interview with an Israeli radio channel broadcast on his Ministry's site. However, he warned, “a unilateral announcement would release us of all of our obligations”. He added that Israel could respond by “unilateral decisions” of its own “such as extending our sovereignty over settlement blocs in the West Bank, construction in the A1 zone (controlled by the Palestinian Authority), and so forth”. Lieberman also noted that “the pressure is growing … because pressure always grows, whenever they feel our weakness”.
In this context, Israel is wondering how it should conduct itself, as can be seen by a report in the right-wing daily, Jerusalem Post, which expects that 2011 will be marked by the Palestinian issue. “The scenario is in fact quite simple”, it explains, saying “Fayyad is managing to carry out his ambitious plan - which will put an end to Palestine's economic dependence (Ed.: directly supported by the EU), and will unify the Palestinian Authority's legal system. He will then decide it is time to proclaim a state”. The problem is that of “Israeli settlements in Judea-Samaria” (Ed: West Bank) as the only way to get rid of them is to trigger a “Palestinian war of freedom”. The second scenario would be less worrying - once the Fayyad plan is applied, the head of government (Fayyad) will turn directly towards the UN Security Council to obtain recognition of a Palestinian state freshly formed. In this case, Europeans will no doubt vote in favour, as will the Russians and Chinese also. Only the opinion of the United States could topple the balance. On one side, Washington has always resorted to its right of veto. On the other, if the current crisis between Jerusalem and the White House is not rapidly resolved, President Obama could choose the Palestinian side. This decision would therefore mean the immediate call for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. If the Hebrew state fails to cooperate, it would inevitably fall into the category of “pariah states”. The third scenario - the rapid conclusion of an agreement - would, according to the Jerusalem Post, be the alternative preferred by the army from among all possible solutions. The daily considers that “if indirect negotiations - agreed before the announcement of the building plan in Ramat Shlomo - are well and truly reactivated in coming weeks, it is quite possible to foresee the conclusion of an agreement by summer 2011. The context seems favourable”, even though “the Abbas-Fayyad government is not as sound as some would like to believe” and these would be tempted to move forward through fear of triggering another intifada.
On the ground, the atmosphere is tense further to a decision by the Israeli army, a decision highly criticised by humanitarian NGOs, to ban the movement of people between Gaza and the West Bank, thus paralysing economic and social life. The media mainly report on a declaration by the Centre HaMoked, an Israeli human rights NGO, which denounces the Israeli military decree (applicable from Tuesday 13 April), which fixes new conditions of stay in the West Bank. According to the NGO, this would mean that tens of thousands of resident Palestinians would have to uproot. France has stated its great concern at the Israeli decision.
The Washington Post confirms that the concordance of interests is in favour of a diplomatic move. Peace will be in everyone's interest, those directly involved and the major diplomatic players with the United States in the lead. “However, a routine unveiling of a US peace proposal, as is reportedly under consideration, will not suffice. Only a bold and dramatic gesture in a historically significant setting can generate the political and psychological momentum needed for a major breakthrough”, the daily states. In order to give more meaning to such a gesture, the daily suggests that President Barack Obama “should travel to the Knesset in Jerusalem and the Palestinian Legislative Council in Ramallah to call upon both sides to negotiate a final status agreement based on a specific framework for peace. He should do so in the company of Arab leaders and members of the Quartet, the diplomatic groping of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations that is involved in the peace process. A subsequent speech by Obama in Jerusalem's Old City, addressed to all the people in the region and evocative of his Cairo speech to the Muslim world in June 2009, could be the culminating event in this journey for peace”. (F.B./transl.jl)