COLUMN: Is the road map leading anywhere?
In June of this year, the United States unveiled a new initiative that would purportedly bring peace and stability between the state of Israel and the Palestinian people. The plan, or the road map as it is better known, was supported by the other members of the Quartet – European UnionU, Russia and China. It envisioned a viable Palestinian state by 2005, living in peace and security alongside an Israeli one. It was thought that the swift victory of the U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq would create enough of a momentum for the U.S. administration and the interested parties, i.e. Israeli and Palestinian peoples, to make some headway toward peace. The facts on the ground currently point toward a different direction underscored by misgivings regarding the prospects of peace in the region, a feeling reinforced by the mood of the Quartet during the meeting in New York last week. Once again, it appears that the road map may become one more casualty of missed opportunities, self-serving politicians and nonsensical violence.
The road map follows closely the incremental nature of previous proposals, most notably the Oslo Accord of 1993. The underlying idea of such initiatives is a quid pro quo relationship between the conflicting sides, in this case Israelis and Palestinians, where one’s actions or concessions are followed by similar actions of good will by the other party. Among many things, this process presupposes willingness on either side to make the necessary adjustments as well as the involvement of a disinterested party committed to the successful outcome of such a process. On both counts, the road map is destined to fail.
First, it is evident that both the Israeli government and the Palestinian authority refuse to reciprocate any acts of good will. Yassir Arafat, the elected president of the Palestinian Authority (created as a result of the Oslo Accords), is seen as an obstacle to the peace process by declining to yield control of security forces over to the office of the prime minister and keeping a tight lid on militant organizations. Such a move was seen as a prerequisite to satisfy Israeli demands in dealing with, what they call, terrorist organizations such as Hamas or Islamic Jihad. The latest power struggle between Arafat and the former Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas highlights the internal divisions over the best course of action.
On the other hand, Sharon’s government in Israel refuses to acknowledge a duly elected representative of the Palestinian people and even suggests assassination as means of making headway in the peace process, a contradiction in itself. In addition, Sharon not only refuses to make any meaningful efforts to dismantle settlements in West Bank and Gaza, but continues to expand them and is currently building a Berlin-type wall deep into Palestinian territory for ostensibly defensive purposes. Meanwhile, targeted killings against political figures continue, and violence escalates every passing day.
Secondly, it has become sorely apparent that the third party pressing the process forward lacks the consequential aspect of neutrality in dealing with the two sides. Rightly or not, the United States is perceived as aggressively pressing the Palestinian Authority for reforms and ensuring Israeli demands are met, while looking the other way as Sharon’s government blatantly tramples over the terms of the road map. The experience of previous attempts at a peaceful resolution of the conflict has left an indelible mark in the minds of many regarding the lack of impartiality of the United States as a mediating party.
While some contend that the road map can be saved, others have risen the possibility that the approach, meaning the step-by-step process, could be faulty. It is argued that allowing politicians with a vested interest in the status quo to execute a plan that requires change presumes the process dead before it begins. None other than Khofi Anan, the secretary general of the United Nations, suggested last week that a broader approach should be taken to solve the conundrum between the Israelis and the Palestinians. According to Mr. Anan, instead of agreeing on incremental accords one issue at a time, both parties should propose a broad plan that addresses all the major issues at stake, such as the future of a Palestinian state, the security of the state of Israel, the status of Jerusalem, the right of return of the Palestinian refugees, and the future of the settlements in the occupied territories. Once agreed in principle, the proposal should be presented to the respective populace for approval. Such an initiative would surely have the legitimacy needed to make a momentous achievement, such as peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, a reality. Whereas, the prospects of such an accord may be distant, it might be worthwhile to consider a fresh perspective on an otherwise stuffy situation.
Medlir Mema is a senior majoring in political science. Comments can be sent to medlirm@cc.usu.edu.