Tipping Point? Palestinians and the Search for a New Strategy

[Rex Brynen]

The latest from the International Crisis Group:

Tipping Point? Palestinians and the Search for a New Strategy

After almost two decades of unsuccessful U.S.-sponsored negotiations, Palestinians are re-evaluating their approach to peace.

Tipping Point? Palestinians and the Search for a New Strategy, the latest International Crisis Group background report, discusses why Palestinians, who are most in need of a resolution, balk at resuming negotiations; why, although President Obama appears willing to be engaged and confront Israel, Palestinians have denied him the chance to advance talks; and why, seventeen years after Oslo, the best that can be done is get the parties to talk indirectly. The answer is not that the PLO or its leadership have given up on talks and the two-state solution. They have invested too much for too long to shift course swiftly and radically. Rather, they seek to redress the power imbalance with Israel by pressing their case internationally, reinvigorating statebuilding, and encouraging a measure of popular resistance...

[Sylvan]

There is no concession that Israel can make that the Arabs will accept. As long as they are international victims, the free money flows in.
The minute they accept peace and can be held accountable, the whole game is up and they know it.
Israel has figured this out.
Obama has too, its just perpetual victimhood is his gig too.

[Rex Brynen]

There is no concession that Israel can make that the Arabs will accept. As long as they are international victims, the free money flows in.
The minute they accept peace and can be held accountable, the whole game is up and they know it.
Israel has figured this out.
Obama has too, its just perpetual victimhood is his gig too.

Are these generic Arabs (in which case the term isn't terribly useful), or do you mean the Palestinians? And why wouldn't this logically apply to Israel's c$3 billion per year? (I don't think it does--I'm just highlighting the logical inference.)

If you mean the Arabs in general, of course, the amount flowing in to Jordan and Egypt increased after signing a peace agreement, and the Palestinians assume it would too. Certainly, every World Bank and IMF analysis that I've ever seen of the Palestinian economy (probably several dozen since 1994) suggests that the economic costs of occupation to the Palestinians (in terms of trade and mobility restrictions) exceeds the economic benefits of foreign aid.

By contrast, the Syrians don't receive significant amounts of external aid any more, and certainly have no economic interest in perpetuating the conflict--rather, they have an interest in securing the return of the occupied Golan Heights.

If one examine the actual negotiating record in either 2000-01 or 2007-08 (the only two periods of actual permanent status negotiations), I think its rather hard to conclude that either side didn't want a deal. Rather, their views of what that deal should include were still too far apart for a deal to be reached, and external mediation was very poorly done indeed.

[Sylvan]

Are these generic Arabs (in which case the term isn't terribly useful), or do you mean the Palestinians? And why wouldn't this logically apply to Israel's c$3 billion per year? (I don't think it does--I'm just highlighting the logical inference.)

If you mean the Arabs in general, of course, the amount flowing in to Jordan and Egypt increased after signing a peace agreement, and the Palestinians assume it would too. Certainly, every World Bank and IMF analysis that I've ever seen of the Palestinian economy (probably several dozen since 1994) suggests that the economic costs of occupation to the Palestinians (in terms of trade and mobility restrictions) exceeds the economic benefits of foreign aid.

By contrast, the Syrians don't receive significant amounts of external aid any more, and certainly have no economic interest in perpetuating the conflict--rather, they have an interest in securing the return of the occupied Golan Heights.

If one examine the actual negotiating record in either 2000-01 or 2007-08 (the only two periods of actual permanent status negotiations), I think its rather hard to conclude that either side didn't want a deal. Rather, their views of what that deal should include were still too far apart for a deal to be reached, and external mediation was very poorly done indeed.

The economic costs of occupation? LUL WUT! What great economic tiger is being withheld? IMF and World Bank analysis is based upon the assumption that something will be created, but they have no idea what. The fact is the complete withdrawl from the West Bank would have the same result as it did in Gaza. A civil war and degradation of the conditions for the people.

The withdrawl ended in Gaza, boy, things got better there, didn't they?

Egypt received essentially no foreign aid prior to Camp David from the West. There was nothing to lose.
The 3B to Israel is specific to camp david. We bought the Sinai from Israel and gave it to Egypt. Why we pay Egypt is the mystery.
And by Arabs, yes, the arab world. They receive the great benefit of a focal point of blame. The 2 minute hate the whole arab world can focus their wrath upon. Even Jordan and Egypt, despite the nominal peace accords, still whip up their jew-hating frenzy on a regular basis. All this made possible by the lack of a comprehensive peace. Give that up?

We have the true international welfare state. wholely dependent upon the world's good graces and able to beat themselves with the martyr whip. At best you would have another dicatorial pariah state in the mold of Syria. At worst you would have lebanon of the 70s.

No matter what israel offers, the arabs will never accept comprehensive peace. The established states neither want it or need it (indeed, the benefit by having the conflict on-going is tangible) Hamas and the PLO benefit both by profit grabbing (Arafat did quite well financially) and by never being responsible.

[Entropy]

The problem with the Palestinians is pretty simple IMO - they lack credible, unified leadership. Who can speak for all Palestinians? There isn't anyone or any single organization.

[Rex Brynen]

The problem with the Palestinians is pretty simple IMO - they lack credible, unified leadership. Who can speak for all Palestinians? There isn't anyone or any single organization.

While it's obviously not unique to peace negotiations outside of conventional war--indeed, its more often the norm--I agree. It all leads to a rather dysfunctional vicious circle whereby Palestinian disunity stalls the peace process, and the stalled peace process discredits the Palestinian leadership.

[Rex Brynen]

The economic costs of occupation? LUL WUT! What great economic tiger is being withheld? IMF and World Bank analysis is based upon the assumption that something will be created, but they have no idea what.

Actually, no it's not. It's variously calculated on the basis on growth rates during period of lessened restrictions, the measurable incremental costs of of doing business under occupation, various econometric models, the performance of comparable economies, and past historical data. More the the point, in every donor meeting I'm aware of, Israel has accepted, with relatively minor quibbles, that mobility restrictions do indeed have these effects. They argue that the measures are necessary on security grounds--not that they are cost free.

The withdrawl ended in Gaza, boy, things got better there, didn't they?

Yes, but this was not only anticipated, but expected by the Israeli government at the time. No serious analyst of the conflict thought that a partial withdrawal from Palestinian territory that left most of it occupied would result in Hamas ceasing rocket fire--not the US, not the EU, not the PA, and certainly not Israel (having worked on the planning for Gaza disengagement for the donor community, I'm quite confident of that).

The 3B to Israel is specific to camp david. We bought the Sinai from Israel and gave it to Egypt.

The Israelis withdrew from Sinai because it was in their strategic interest to do so: it neutralized Egypt, and in so doing lifted any serious conventional military threat to Israel (quite an act of strategic far-sightedness, in my view). The CD dividend sweetened the pot, but I think if you ever get a chance to talk to any of the surviving Israeli decision-makers of the day you'll find it was very much a secondary consideration.

Why we pay Egypt is the mystery.

In the context of the Cold War, confirming Sadat's dramatic realignment out of the Soviet camp was a major strategic coup. The continuation of that subsidy post-Cold War is (like the $3b to Israel) partly a product of foreign policy inertia. Israel also tends to lobby for the Egyptian $2B to continue, as a way of helping to ensure it receives its $3B. Congress doesn't really question either.

Even Jordan and Egypt, despite the nominal peace accords, still whip up their jew-hating frenzy on a regular basis. All this made possible by the lack of a comprehensive peace. Give that up?

I doubt that anyone who spends much time in Jordan can accuse the state of whipping itself of whipping up Jew-hating frenzy. Quite apart from that, both regimes' relations with Israel are, in the absence of a resolution of the conflict, a significant threat to regime security. If you were to tell a Jordanian GID official that the conflict somehow makes his job of keeping the regime in power easier he would frankly wonder if you somehow missed the assassination of King Abdullah I, the coup attempts of the 1950s, British intervention in 1958, the 1970-71 civil war, or recent al-Qa'ida terrorism.

Hamas and the PLO benefit both by profit grabbing (Arafat did quite well financially) and by never being responsible.

Hamas, of course, has no access to Western foreign aid--its finances come from Iran and some private Arab donors. As the IMF forensic audit showed, Arafat didn't profit personally from diversion of funds, but largely used those funds (most of which were provided by Israel, over the objection of donors, through diversion of the petroleum excise taxes to a Bank Leumi account and from there to offshore holding companies) to pay for his patronage system and the off-the-books expenses of the Palestinian security services. That particular channel was eventually closed by former PM (and current President) Abbas and former Finance Minister (and current PM) Fayyad. Fayyad in particular, as an economist and former IMF official, is quite a critic of long-term Palestinian dependence on foreign aid.

[Sylvan]

Whatever benefits derived from a complete withdrawl and independence would not off set the international contributions. Being the poor palistinians keeps the money flowing.


Yes, Israel anticipated what would happen because they know who they are dealing with. All or nothing is not a bargaining tactic, its an intimidation tactic. Again, there is NOTHING that Israel could offer that the arabs won't claim, "It isn't enough JIHAD!" Gaza proved that. The international community knows that, but its easier to blame the eternal jew and keep those friendly arab ties going and the oil sorta flowing.

Even without the money, Israel would have given the Sinai up. Israel gave up something tangible and got paid. Egypt gave up nothing tangible, but still gets paid.
good deal all around, except for the taxpayer.

A true palistinian state would be a huge threat to the Hashemites. The circassians aren't that good and an armed and unified palistian entity on the west bank would enjoy huge support from the palistinian-jordanians. Especially when the first act of that state will be to proclaim their never ending struggle to reclaim jaffa and haifa While Jordan doesn't extend to mini-series on the protocols of zion, I missed the Israeli embassy my last trip to Amman.

Hamas still benefits from the status quo as they are still paid to be an irritant to the zionist entity. That they don't get western money doesn't mean they aren't getting paid.
Arafat's wealth was pretty well established and his wife lived quite well in Paris. I non-concur with your assessment. http://www.betar.co.uk/articles/betar1070202773.php

The international desire to cast all blame on Israel is fairly ludicrous on the surface. Israel has given up tangible concessions to make peace with Egypt and Jordan. They have made peace with Germans. They have given Gaza to the palistinians, who had the opportunity to prove themselves capable of governing.
The international communities continued excusal of the arabs terrorism only emboldens them. Their only quasi friend is the United States, coincidently the only remaining country with any sizable jewish population.
Canada's feelings on the subject can be amply summed up from WWII. None would be too many.