May
12 , 2006
Dennis Ross
on the Middle East
Last week I attended a small
gathering at UCLA where Dennis Ross, Clinton’s
special Middle East envoy, gave his impressions
of the current situation and future US policy
as regards Israel and the Palestinians. Dennis
Ross was in charge of the Israeli-Palestinian
issue during the Clinton years, and was deeply
involved in all the US negotiating efforts, including
the Camp David Summit of 2000. He remains well
connected with the players and with the policy-makers
inside the State Department, and is well aware
of the current dynamics.
Within Israel, Ross stated that there is now a
broad consensus to get out of significant portions
of the West Bank without getting anything tangible
in return from the Palestinians. This means that
up to 80,000 settlers (out of a total of 450,000)
would be evacuated, perhaps forcibly. The Israelis
at this point want to be done with the Palestinians,
and have accepted that this will require at least
some withdrawal.
The Palestinians have just elected Hamas, but
Ross stated that Hamas was elected on a platform
of reform and anti-corruption, not war. Hamas
promised a new education policy, a new industrial
policy, a new health policy, and a general improvement
in government services. But Hamas rejects recognition
of Israel and negotiation at present. War though
is not an option for Hamas as it requires calm
with Israel in order to fulfill its election promises
to the Palestinians. As such, Hamas has been diligent
about honoring its one-year long truce that it
unilaterally declared in 2005.
Hamas has a quandary. It is supposed to be the
vehicle of Palestinian resistance, and yet it
also needs a truce to hold and calm with Israel.
Hamas itself does not strike Israel, but so far
it has refused to stop other smaller groups (such
as Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which carried out
a recent suicide bombing in Israel) from attacking.
This is not an acceptable truce to the Israelis,
and they will continue their attacks, which will
prevent Hamas from making progress as a government.
Ross was critical of the Bush administration which
pushed for elections but now wont deal with the
choice of the Palestinian people. Ross stated
that US government should have made clear to the
Palestinians before the election that they were
free to vote for anyone they chose, but that the
US would not deal with any government that did
not abide by previous treaties and agreements
of the Palestinian Authority, including recognition
of Israel.
Ross stated that Israel plans to withdraw to the
wall that it is building in the West Bank. This
wall is meant to allow Israel to incorporate a
large fraction of the settler population. Israel
wants the US to recognize the wall as the new
official boundary of Israel, and to get the international
community to recognize that border. This will
allow Israel to get what it wants without negotiating
with the Palestinians. If the Israelis do pull
back to the wall, and also give up the Jordan
River Valley (which is unclear at present), then
the Palestinians will end up with 90% of the West
Bank. Of course this is only 21% of the original
Palestine.
Ross recommended that the US should not recognize
the wall as Israel’s permanent border. Instead,
he put forth the idea that it be recognized as
a “political border”, and the final
border will be set by negotiations between Israel
and the Palestinians at such time that the Palestinians
are capable and willing to negotiate the border.
The Palestinians have done a terrible job of trying
to advance their own interests over the last few
years. The suicide bombings cost them both sympathy
and moral standing as the victim. Israel’s
PR machine has run circles around them, convincing
the world that the Palestinians are the main impediment
to peace. The real impediment remains the settlers
and Israel’s desire to grab as much of the
West Bank as possible. When the Israelis are willing
to give those up, this conflict will be over.
Comments can reach me at Nali@socal.rr.com
