Al-Jazeerah History  
	 
	
	
	Archives  
	 
	
	
	Mission & Name   
	 
	
	
	
	Conflict Terminology   
	 
	
	Editorials  
	 
	
	
	
	
	Gaza Holocaust   
	 
	
	Gulf War   
	 
	
	Isdood  
	 
	
	Islam   
	 
	
	News   
	 
	
	
	News Photos 
	  
	 
	
	
	Opinion 
	
	
	Editorials  
	 
	
	
	
	US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)   
	 
	
	www.aljazeerah.info
	  
      
       
      
        
        
     | 
     | 
    
       
      The Photo Before the Storm:  
	  Peace Talks Already Failed  
	  By Ramzy Baroud 
      Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, September 13, 2010 
	     A picture is not always worth a thousand words. The recently 
	  released photographs of Palestinian and Israeli leaders in Washington 
	  during their first direct talks in many months certainly don’t say 
	  anything new.    It was the status quo at its best, a mere 
	  procession of regional and US leaders before hungry cameramen. The leaders 
	  promised “not to spare any effort” and praised the undeniable altruism 
	  embedded in the very concept of “peace”. Israeli Prime Minister repeated 
	  the martyr-like emphasis of past Israeli leaders regarding the “painful” 
	  compromises and sacrifices required to defeat the many obstacles standing 
	  before them. Mahmoud Abbas – with his expired presidency over a corrupt 
	  Palestinian Authority - smiled, shook hands and spoke unconvincingly about 
	  his hopes and expectations.   Jordanian and Egyptian leaders also 
	  attended. Their presence was purely an endeavor to mark a difference 
	  between this event and the last failed attempt at reaching a peace 
	  agreement. When late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israel’s Ehud 
	  Barak were herded into Camp David under the auspices of then President 
	  Bill Clinton, Arafat was left to fend for himself without any Arab 
	  backing. This left Barak, fully backed by the US, with all the cards. The 
	  process was a mockery then, as it is now.    Today’s badly staged 
	  talks are actually much less promising than the ones of July 2000. Barak 
	  had a considerably serious mandate, while Netanyahu runs a discontented 
	  coalition of largely rightwing fanatics. Arafat, although his popularity 
	  had dwindled, also represented a moral authority and a unifying figure 
	  among all Palestinian factions, including Hamas. Abbas, on the other hand, 
	  sits on the helm of hugely discredited and ineffectual band of contractors 
	  and self-serving politicians. More, Abbas operates with an expired 
	  mandate, and his cabinet members are handpicked to replace the 
	  democratically elected government of Hamas, whose members are either under 
	  siege in Gaza or held in Israeli prisons.   Needless to say, this 
	  latest round of peace talks is seriously lacking in legitimacy and 
	  goodwill.    Firstly, Israel has no interest in guaranteeing any 
	  positive outcome. It is hell-bent on carrying on with its colonization of 
	  the already disconnected West Bank and East Jerusalem. Netanyahu’s 
	  government intends on speeding up such efforts once the temporary 
	  settlement construction freeze expires, only a few days after the second 
	  round of negotiations resume on September 14-15. On the very first day of 
	  talks, Israeli troops also invaded parts of northern Gaza and expanded the 
	  so-called buffer zone by around 300 meters.   As for Abbas, the 
	  problem is compounded. His power is truly feeble in comparison to Israel’s 
	  political supremacy both in Tel Aviv and Washington, and also its near 
	  total control of Abbas’ own domain in the West Bank. Knowing this, one 
	  cannot be both realistic and still hope for ‘painful’ Israeli concessions. 
	  Still Abbas continues to hang around. He might feel he has no other 
	  option, as his absence would both chip away from his miniscule political 
	  worth and risk raising the ire of Washington, his greatest sustainer. 
	     But even if the one-year-long talks miraculously yield an 
	  agreement, Abbas will not be able to sell this agreement to his own 
	  people. The aging leader is barely capable of uniting his own party, which 
	  is no longer the main player in Palestine’s political milieu. Today’s 
	  Fatah is a different Fatah to the one under Arafat in 1993. Its corruption 
	  has grown to the extent that it now functions as a self-serving welfare 
	  organization, whose members get richer through international handouts and 
	  business monopoly orchestrated by Israel.   Equally significant is 
	  the fact that yesterday’s ‘enemies of peace’ have become the legitimate 
	  parties that should actually be involved in any substantial talks with 
	  Israel. They are dismissed because they insist on a paradigm shift in how 
	  talks with Israel are conducted. They argue that any meaningful talks – 
	  especially between vastly unequal powers - must take place with a clear 
	  frame of reference, involving an even-handed third party, and predicated 
	  on the concept of ‘justice’ - not Kissinger’s deceptive ‘peace process’. 
	  The talks must also guarantee the welfare and security of the Palestinian 
	  people in the interim, through a long-term truce guarded by the United 
	  Nations. Peace talks held at gunpoint while the population is forcibly 
	  starved and besieged hardly promises any positive outcome.    What 
	  we can be sure of is that that the halfhearted peace attempt will garner 
	  nothing good. If an agreement is somehow concocted, it is doomed to fail. 
	  The Palestinian people, the absent but real party in any lasting solution, 
	  will simply not allow it. The Palestinian collective has the tendency to 
	  watch charades to their end, and then react at the opportune moment to 
	  defeat them. Almost every Palestinian revolt in the past has resulted from 
	  similar processes, the Second Palestinian Uprising of 2000 being the most 
	  pertinent example. When Arafat was being humiliated and forced into 
	  submission to US-Israeli diktats, Palestinians of all parties and from all 
	  sections of society rose in anger. Israel understood the revolt as a 
	  Palestinian attempt at extracting concessions and used unprecedented 
	  violence to quell their revolt. Many thousands were killed and wounded, 
	  and the rest is history.    If violence spirals this time around, it 
	  promises to be much worse than before. Those who cling to resistance in 
	  Palestine have been bolstered by the success of Hizbullah in Lebanon and 
	  Hamas in Gaza. More, they are emboldened by their political legitimacy as 
	  a result of the democratic elections of 2006. Predictably, Netanyahu will 
	  not shy away from interpreting Palestinian protests as a conspiracy to 
	  intimidate Israel. The problem with violence is that once it reaches a new 
	  threshold, it rarely retreats to old parameters. What took place in Gaza 
	  at the hand of the Israeli army in 2008-09 was frighteningly genocidal in 
	  its scope. Future violence is likely to stay within this category.   
	  To avoid this, Washington’s strategists really need to reconsider the 
	  long-term consequences of their government’s policies. Obama’s 
	  choreographers might succeed in getting a few leaders to stand in perfect 
	  order before a crowd of reporters, but they will fail to contain the 
	  political chaos that will ensue when the talks fail, as they surely will.
	     - Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) 
	  is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of 
	  PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom 
	  Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on 
	  Amazon.com. 
	  
	  
       | 
     | 
     
      
      
      
      
     |