Bitterlemons has another great series, this time about the renewal of a U.S.-brokered peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.
Two of the scholars in the series seem to differ on the need for an immediate renewal of negotiations. George Giacaman expressed urgency, calling the current proposals a “last chance,” in attempting to solve the decades-long conflict through a peace process based on a two-state solution. Giacaman said in an interview:
“I don’t think we can expect, after 18 years of negotiations, another 18 years of negotiations. The Palestinian leadership, even during the Annapolis process, insisted on going straight to final status negotiations. This is the conclusion Palestinian leaders have drawn from the Oslo process. It is no good to leave all the outstanding issues to the end and never get there. I think everyone understands that they don’t have an additional 10 or 15 years for negotiations. This is it.”
Conversely, Ghassan Khatib urged caution in pursuing a premature peace process due to the detrimental effects that failure could cause the Palestinian leadership. Moreover, unsuccessful negotiations would only fuel the jaded attitude that both Palestinians and Israelis feel towards the prospects for peace. Khatib writes:
“There is, undeniably, an urgent need to resume peace talks. But the foundation for such talks must be laid carefully. There is great danger in entering into premature talks just in order to get a process going. Another dead-end process will simply remind Palestinians of Annapolis and the public will no longer tolerate talks for the sake of talks. Such a process will only backfire and damage any renewed credibility for the Palestinian leadership.”
