As already mentioned Dennis Ross was in South Africa last week. He spoke on Wednesday night at a fantastic Gala Dinner which I was lucky enough to attend. Tickets were expensive but all proceeds went to victims of terror in Israel. Here is my summary of what Dennis Ross had to say:
Ross spoke about the prospects for hope in Israel. He used a metaphor of a father with two sons, one optimistic and one pessimistic to describe the different realities that one can see when analysing the Israel/Palestinian conflict. The father decides to give each son a gift tempered to the way they see the world. The father buys each son a barn. Inside the pessimistic son’s barn the father places a pony. The pessimist opens the barn door, sees the pony, and agonises at all the manure he will eventually have to clean up. Inside the optimist’s barn the father places heaps of manure. The optimist sees the manure, his eyes sparkle and he thinks to himself “Manure! Great, there must be a pony somewhere!”
When looking at the Middle East you can either see the pony or you can see the manure. I myself am not certain what I see, but I lean towards the pessimistic outlook. Ross however, sees a pony. He relates the three factors that create an enormouse opportunity for peace.
Three Reasons for Hope
1. No Arafat
Without doubt the greatest and most enabling change has been the death of the inveterate obstacle to peace, Yasser Arafat. Ross knew Arafat well. He knew how Arafat operated and he knew the impediments to peace that Arafat constantly engineered. Ross said that his most painful lesson throughout Oslo was the realisation that no change was possible whilst Arafat was alive. Ross said that this analysis is not an argument; it’s an observation.
Whilst travelling through Gaza during the mourning period for Arafat Ross saw pictures of Sheikh Yassin and of Mahmoud Abbas, but none of Arafat. Let me repeat that. During the period of mourning for Yasser Arafat there were virtually no posters of Arafat in Gaza – his own people didn’t mourn him. Near the end of the mourning period at Arafat’s Muqata compound in the West Bank where Arafat was buried Ross saw no people at the grave. There were no physical signs of people mourning Arafat’s death. Ross reiterated that this is an observation and not an argument by turning to some statistical polls. Before Arafat’s demise the percentage of Palestinians optimistic about their future sat at 35%. Within weeks after his death the figure shot up to 60%.
What does it say about a leader when his death makes his people more hopeful? Arafat gave the Palestinians a past but he could not give them a future.
2. Abu Mazen.
Ross said the second sign of hope is the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas. Ross said that Abbas has consistently been in favour of a secular Palestinian government and is the only real leader to have spoken out against violence in Arabic – not just English. In contrast to Arafat, Abbas has never created pockets of power for himself.
For me the jury is out on Abbas. Abbas has at times shown signs of cooperation with Israel, but he has also frequently failed to act on intelligence provided by Israeli security forces.
3. Ariel Sharon
The third hopeful factor is the decision taken by Israeli PM Ariel Sharon to disengage from Gaza and northern Samaria. Ariel Sharon’s courageous disengagement plan has created a window of opportunity that will allow both sides to get back to the core of peacemaking - freedom for security. Sharon is giving the Palestinians an historic opportunity – a chance for them to start building instead of destroying. A chance to demonstrate that they are making an honest attempt at establishing a good model of governance in Gaza which will lead people to believe that it can work in the West Bank.
Three Measures of Success
Despite the signs of hope Ross reminded all that psychologically the two sides are still yards apart. Sharon needs to contend with the opposition in his party, the settlers, and with threats to his life. At this sensitive stage it will be difficult for Sharon to concentrate on the needs of Abu Mazen.
The same is true for Abu Mazen. He has major problems inherited from the inept, factionalist, and corrupt system designed by Arafat. Arafat designed this system so that only Arafat could lead it.
So both sides at the moment can only realistically concentrate on their own needs. A timeout will therefore be needed after disengagement where a third party (the US) can begin to build bridges between the two sides.
So what are the signs to watch out for that will signal the arrival of the pony on the horizon? Ross posed three questions, the answers to which will indicate whether things are on track.
1. What does it take for Abu Mazen to succeed?
Ross says that Abu Mazen needs to display a readiness to make decisions. He needs the will to take on, change, and cooperate with Hamas on his terms. He also needs to overcome the various differences that exist within the many factions of Fatah.
Abu Mazen must demonstrate that non violence works. To get people hopeful he needs to create jobs. The more he builds a model of governance that works the harder it will be for people to oppose him.
Abu MAzen needs to show the world that that he can provide the rule of law in the Palestinian territories. There must be one government, one authority, and one law.
Abu Mazen also needs financial aid. He needs the aid promised by the West, but more importantly he needs aid from his Arab brothers. The miniscule aid from the Arab world has been a disaster for the Palestinians. In 2002 Saudi Arabia promised the Palestinians $100 million per annum. Today their oil income has more than doubled from their income levels in 2002 when this promise was made but alarmingly they have not increased their paltry levels of aid. The world needs to be aware of the small amount of aid donated by the Arab world. It is the Arab world that leads the anti-Israel diatribe, it is the Arab world that postures for UN resolutions condemning Israel, yet they are marked only by their absence when it comes to giving the Palestinians aid.
In sum, we need to ask “Is Abu Mazen doing what he needs to do and is the outside world doing what they need to do?”
2. Does disengagement work?
The principle of disengagement must be freedom for Palestinians and security for Israel. Before Sharon’s plan to disengage the Palestinians believed that the Israelis would never give up control and the Israelis believed that the Palestinians would never give up violence.
Sharon has made a decision and he will stand by it, a decisions that will allow both sides to view each other in a new light. The Palestinians will see that the Israelis are willing to give up control. After disengagement will the Israelis see that the Palestinians are willing to renounce violence? Probably not. It will be difficult to decide whether the Palestinians are willing to do this. Their promises have historically carried much less weight than Israeli promises. With Sharon it is exceedingly difficult to obtain any commitments because he always sticks to his commitments. Arafat however, always made commitments, but never implemented them.
The disengagement process is not about peacemaking. The designers of the plan are not foolish enough to believe that it will bring peace. Its intention rather, is to end the war. Only then can we rush to peace. The top three values behind the Disengagement rationale for Israel are security, Jewish majority, and democracy.
Ross is optimistic that disengagement will take place but he is not optimistic that it will go well.
3. Are bridges being built after disengagement?
After the disengagement Sharon will call for a timeout. He will say that Israel has just undergone a traumatic process…and he will be correct. It will be almost intolerantly painful for Israel to see pictures of people being forcibly evicted from their homes and the Israelis will need to take a step back and absorb what happened.
Abu Mazen on the other hand will start pushing the Israelis in an attempt to show that it was “Gaza first” and not “Gaza last” and Europe will support him.
This means that the Americans will need to allow the Israelis a pause, yet at the same time they will need to build bridges for future peaceful negotiations. Ross says that we already have a bridge to a framework for a peaceful solution – the roadmap.
The problem with the roadmap is that there is not one obligation that is understood by the Israelis and Palestinians in the same way. Ross does, however believe that it is the much needed bridge because both sides accept it as a framework for a political solution.
Ross believes that after the disengagement the Bush administration should promise to sit down and get an agreement of each side’s obligations in terms of the roadmap.
Finally, Ross ended with the most fundamental lesson he has learned from his time as a negotiator in the Middle East – “Nothing implements itself, it always takes effort”. Peace will not be achieved by agreements made; peace will only be achieved when agreements are implemented.
So to sum up, Ross sees glimmers for hope in the death of Arafat, the leadership of Abu Mazen, and the resolve of Ariel Sharon.
How do we know if things are on track? By asking, “what will it take for Abu Mazen to succeed”, “has Disengagement worked”, and “are bridges for peace being build?”
Comments