Who should Be Blamed for the Political Deadlock Between Israelis and Palestinians?

• 02.22.2016, 19:07
• Greta Avetisyan
•  Near East,  "Insight" Analytical Center ,  World,  Analytics

©timesofisrael.com

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of those prolonged conflicts of the world the resolution of which does not seem to be near. The reason is that there are issues the sides are not ready to compromise, in addition to this violence and hostility remains almost at the same level, with certain escalations from time to time. In early October of 2015 the situation again escalated with both Israelis and Palestinian being killed in separate attacks.

The two-state solution is the most advocated one by the world, especially by the US. This envisages creation of an independent State of Palestine along with the State of Israel. However, the boundaries between the two states is not being specified in this solution, as this is the main subject for dispute and it is left to be agreed through negotiations.  During the last meeting of the US State Secretary John Kerry and the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, Kerry again emphasized his desire to achieve a two-state solution to the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict.  Main emphasis was made an inflammatory rhetoric, regarding it as a hindering factor for deescalation of the situation. "The Secretary continued to urge for calm and a decrease in violence, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric," State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement, Deutsche Welle reports.

Now the two-state solution is very actively being circulated by France. The former French Foreign Affairs Minister Laurent Fabius, when still in his post, said that France wants to initiate Israeli-Palestinian peace talks - a three-step process, which presupposes to consult with both sides, convene an international support group, and convene an international summit to restart talks. "France will engage in the coming weeks in the preparation of an international conference bringing together the parties and their main partners, American, European, Arab, notably to preserve and make happen the two-state solution," France24 quotes Fabius’ words. 

The reactions to this initiative by the Israeli and the Palestinian sides were, as expected, different. Taking into account the tendency of recognizing Palestinian state in Europe, the last one being the Vatican, Israel, of course, rejected this proposal, not even wanting to try to change the format of negotiations and the mediator, as the US is still regarded by Israel as the most reliable ally.

"The French initiative, as it has been published, is questionable. It says, ‘we will hold an international conference, but if you do not succeed, we are already predetermining the result and we will recognize a Palestinian state,’" Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, adding that the conference is doomed to fail, BreakingIsraelNews reports. 

The Palestinian side, however, was more than happy for this initiative and welcomed the proposal, the Palestinian leader Abbas expressing hope that an international group would be formed after the conference to support the negotiations.

The US, which is the international mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has not expressed any position on the French proposal. This was not even discussed during Kerry-Abbas meeting on February 21, instead Abbas requested that the US intervened in the political deadlock between Israelis and Palestinians.

Of course, it is not in the interests of the US to lose its leverage on Israel and quit its role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the time showed that the efforts of the US has not given much results and the reason is that the sides do not show any political will to the resolution of the conflict, none of them are ready for compromises and do not lose the opportunity to threaten each other with the use of force, which, actually, witness today. These are the main reasons for the deadlock of the negotiations and the failure of the US as a mediator. In addition to this, in regard with the Iranian nuclear deal, the US-Israeli relations became quite strained, as Israeli Prime Minister was blaming the US that the deal was not enough to restrain Iranian nuclear projects with bomb-making potential, claiming that Iran is a threat for the existence of Israel.

During the recent period the passivity of the US in this conflict is also conditioned by another factor – presidential elections. Most likely, no serious steps, except statements and calls by the US President Barack Obama would be expected and the burden of further steps would be left to the next president and those steps would depend on the position of the elected president.

Currently the most popular US presidential candidates have different positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hillary Clinton from the Democratic Party claims that Israel is the US ally and if she becomes the US president, she will defend and do everything she can to support Israel, at the same time adding that the Palestinians deserve to have a state of their own. "That's why I support a two-state solution," Haaretz.com quotes Clinton’s words.                                                                                                                                   ©news.wgbh.org

The Republican Trump, on the contrary, prefers to be neutral on this issue - words, which were blasted by another Republican candidate Ted Cruz. "As president, I have no intention of being neutral. As president, I will be unapologetically alongside the nation of Israel," Cruz said, The Hill reports. As for the Jewish American US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, the US should play a "leading role" in creating a two-state solution based on "compromise". "The Palestinians must unequivocally recognise Israel's right to exist, and hold accountable those who have committed terrorist acts. The Israelis must end the blockade of Gaza, and cease developing settlements on Palestinian land." This is how Sanders imagines the settlement of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Al Jazeera reports. 

To sum up, it becomes obvious that the US policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would change only in case the US President becomes either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. As for the conflict and its future developments in general, unless the sides express willingness to stop violence, war rhetoric, sit down around a negotiation table and be ready for compromises, no international player will be able to record a step forward in this process.