If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for reading!

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is not a zero-sum game, but it often seems that politicians treat it that way. Increasingly, the discourse in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has revolved around the demands Palestinians should accept to achieve peace and very rarely does Israel discuss concessions at all. Yet this has become entirely acceptable as framed by the efforts to jump-start the moribund peace process in recent years.

Apologists for Israeli policy often hail the Jewish state’s willingness to make this sacrifice and that sacrifice for peace… Recall the popular talking point that Israel made an amazing offer to Arafat during the Camp David talks. Yet presented with this rhetoric, it is seldom analyzed what Israel is actually entitled to concede under international law. The illegal settlements continuing to cantonize and divide the West Bank are just one example of this. Of course, part of the “deal” offered to Arafat indeed included the removal of some settlements, but not all. Given the context, a bank robber may as well offer to return some (but not all) stolen money to the banker. Yet, this scenario is simply absurd. Rather than praising the robber for making a difficult decision and overcoming his attachment to some of the stolen goods, we should (indeed, we are obliged!) to condemn the robber for failing to fully comply with the law. Yet it is precisely the opposite that has been occurring in Israel: limited compliance masquerading as significant sacrifice.

The peace conference being held (maybe) next month and hosted by the United States will resemble something of a farce if it gets off the ground. Besides the unrealistic nature of the United States suddenly deciding to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the last few months of Bush’s Presidency (ahead of many other problems… Iraq among others), why should we trust the U.S.? The Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas is regarded by most Palestinians as a puppet of American and Israeli interests and is a weak leader despite the best efforts of the U.S. to prop him up financially. With the West Bank cut off from Gaza and Gaza cut off from the world, the Palestinian political stance is the weakest now since Oslo… opening the way for exploitation on Israel’s behalf.

Then we come to the ever-persistent demand that Hamas reject violence and accept Israel’s right to exist. But can we expect the same of Israel?—to reject violence and accept the Palestinians right to exist. They never have. This refusal to make even the slightest effort at negotiation is certainly another example of years of Israeli rejectionism at the cost of Palestinian national aspirations.

If Mahmoud Abbas were truly a bold leader, he would refuse to negotiate until representatives from Gaza are invited to attend this conference, assert his power as leader of the Palestinian people and insist that international law be applied. There can be no solution and no peace by ignoring the 1.5 million people living there. Until Israel is willing to sit at the table with representatives of Hamas, Abbas should insist on no conversation without representation.