Once again hopes are being raised towards a negotiated settlement between Palestinians and Israelis on the foundation of the two state solution.  But “cynics” are probably more common among us than “hopefuls,” given the endless trail of failed talks over several decades.  The Palestine Israel Network is made up of members who are committed to a just peace, but not everybody agrees on how to achieve it or what a peace agreement would look like.  Some commentary may be helpful.

Applying non-violent economic pressure (as has been used in other international campaigns) through boycotts, divestment and sanctions is seen by many as a legitimate expression of resistance to Israel’s 47 year Occupation.  The Episcopal Peace Fellowship governing board endorsed BDS in 2010 and its Palestine Israel Network affirmed this position in 2011.  But not all members of EPF or PIN agree with this position or have variations on their interpretation of how BDS should be carried out. Generally, BDS campaigns target those corporations and governments whose actions or investments contribute to maintaining the infrastructure of Israel’s Occupation of Palestine in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.  The Episcopal Church supports corporate engagement, which calls on corporations in the Church’s stock portfolio to end any business associations with the Occupation.  What role might BDS play in the negotiations?

Answering that question, the European Union is applying pressure through its decision on July 17 to ban cooperation with or funding of Israeli settlements built on occupied Palestinian lands — including east Jerusalem — and prohibit the financing of any settlement related faction.

The EU is Israel’s biggest trading partner, and Israel’s growing isolation in the world is being felt despite its unshakeable alliance with the United States where criticism is muted. The idea that Israel may be facing hard core economic measures from its largest trading partner shows that while the movement has produced little momentum within the United States, especially in Washington, D.C., BDS may be having an impact on Israeli calculations.

Another issue is the two state solution versus one bi-national state.  Many members of PIN believe the door has already closed on the two state solution because Israel’s settlements and the separation barrier built on much Palestinian land make it impossible to negotiate a Palestinian state that Episcopal Church policy says must be viable, contiguous and sovereign.  Israel will be required to reverse huge projects that have taken prime land from Palestinians throughout the West Bank, including east Jerusalem.  As negotiations begin, settlement expansion continues, including in sensitive Palestinian areas of Jerusalem; and Israel plans major settlement expansion that would cut off east Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank, ending Palestinian dreams of establishing their capital in the City of Peace, a dream the Episcopal Church supports.

An alternative bi-national, democratic state (one person, one vote, one state for two peoples), is rejected out of hand by the Israeli government because it would end the idea of Israel as a Jewish state.  The problem within Israel proper today is how Israel can be a Jewish and democratic state when there are 1.5 million Palestinians living within that state. Palestinians have restricted rights within Israel, making the status of Palestinians at best second class. Comparisons have been made to segregation in the U.S. prior to the civil rights movement.

If the bi-national state formula were to be implemented, that would add 4 million more Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza to those already living In Israel, making the two peoples roughly equivalent in population.

There is a third option which is to maintain the West Bank and Gaza as part of Israel, but treated as cantons or bantustans, making Israel an apartheid state, which is in reality what Israel is maintaining today. This was noted in a speech by lead Israeli negotiator Tzipi Livni.  Responding to Israeli youth who had protested against Israel’s decision to export oil reserves she said “the time has come for the same youth to ask, to what kind of state do they want to leave their gas reserves?  To a Jewish democratic Israel?  Or to a binational Arab state?  Or to an apartheid state? It is impossible to deal with economic issues and to ignore the important diplomatic issues related to two states for two peoples.”

There is an additional incentive for Israel to be serious about negotiations.  They are no longer occupying just a foreign land. They are now occupying a foreign state, since the United Nations has formally recognized the state of Palestine as an observer state and may move to grant full and permanent status.  And Palestine now has access to international bodies like the International Court of Justice where charges can be brought against Israel for its human rights violations and illegal settlements, the barrier and other accoutrements of the Occupation.

Considering these realities, is it possible that Prime Minister Netanyahu sees these options and has determined that it is in Israel’s long term interest to carve out a Palestinian state in order to insure Israel’s own survival?  Or will the determined view within his own Likud party to hang onto the West Bank which holds the lands of Biblical Judea and Samaria lead to yet another charade that goes nowhere?

Looking at why these negotiations may be doomed from the start, perhaps the biggest sign for cynics is the choice of Martin Indyk as the “honest broker” appointed by President Obama and Secretary Kerry to be mediator in the negotiations.  Richard Falk, long time Middle East expert, professor of international law at Princeton and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights, writing in Aljazeera notes:  “Does it not seem strange for the United States, the convening party and the unconditional supporter of Israel, to rely exclusively for diplomatic guidance in this concerted effort to revive the peace talks on persons with such strong and unmistakable pro-Israeli credentials?

What is stranger, still, is that the media never bothers to observe this peculiarity of a negotiating framework in which the side with massive advantages in hard and soft power, as well as great diplomatic leverage, needs to be further strengthened by having the mediating third-party so clearly in its corner. Is this numbness or bias?”

This leads Falk to ask: “The only remaining question is why the Palestinian Authority goes along so meekly. What is there to gain in such a setting? Having accepted the Washington auspices, why could they not have demanded, at least, a more neutral or balanced negotiating envoy?”

His conclusion is that “we can expect to witness yet another charade falsely advertised as ‘the peace process’.  Such a diversion is costly for the Palestinians and beneficial for the Israelis. Settlement expansion and associated projects will continue, the occupation with all its rigours and humiliations will continue, and the prospects for a unified Palestinian leadership will be put on indefinite hold.”

So there are arguments why Israel might be waking up to see that it cannot continue to thumb its nose at the international community.  And there are arguments to show that the renewed talks will once again end in futility.  What do you think?  Are you a “hopeful” or a “cynic”?  Please leave your comments in a reply window below. And, if not already, join PIN and be part of our witness.

The Palestine Israel Network of the Episcopal Peace Fellowship is committed to a prophetic witness for justice for all the peoples of the Holy Land: Palestinians and Jews; and Muslims, Jews and Christians.  As the negotiations continue during the coming months, PIN will do its best to sort the wheat from the chaff, to speak truth to power both within the Church and without, and to bring a word of hope to the oppressed, especially our Palestinian sisters and brothers, who will continue to suffer under the brutality of Occupation while negotiators parry proposals.  For their sake and for all those of good will, we will attempt to hold high the Church’s vow to “strive for justice and peace, and respect the dignity of every human being.”