5 apr 2014
By Khalid Amayreh
With frustration and helplessness easily detected in the tone of his voice, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has admitted that U.S.-mediated talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) is going nowhere.
And in an implicit warning to the two sides, the head of American diplomacy said the U.S. is evaluating its role as broker of the Middle East peace process.
"This is not an open-ended effort, it never has been. It is reality check time, and we intend to evaluate precisely what the next steps will be. "There are limits in the amount of time and effort that the United States can spend if the parties themselves are unwilling to take construction steps in order to be able to move forward," Kerry said.
Futile talks
I don't know if John Kerry has ever believed in the depth of his heart that there is a real chance for a truly dignified and equitable (let alone just) solution for the Palestinian issue.
He has paid numerous visits to Occupied Palestine and held numerous meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, but to no avail. The same thing was done by his many predecessors, including Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice and Madeline Albright, to mention just a few secretaries of State, and no breakthrough was reached.
That is why, instead of reproducing the same failures all over again, Kerry and the Obama administration ought to devote some time to vigorously and honesty study the reasons for the chronic failure of the so-called America peace efforts in Occupied Palestine.
But, given the huge subservience of the US government to Jewish pressure groups such as AIPAC, I am not sure any American administration would be able to objectively re-assess American policy in the Middle East. Such a feat would probably trigger a no-holds-barred war with Israel's powerful supporters at the U.S. arena, a war any U.S. administration would probably lose given current political balances in Washington.
Well, one of the most scandalous aspects of U.S. government subservience to Israel manifests itself in the fact that the U.S. itself has always enabled Israel to reject and sabotage American "peace efforts" in the region. The U.S. gave Israel hundreds of billions of dollars throughout the years and helped turn Israel into a first-class military power, thanks to the unbridled transfer of American military technology to the “Jewish state”.
None the less, instead of utilizing this virtually unlimited and unrestricted support to restrain Israel, Israel became ever more insolent, more intransigent and more recalcitrant. And instead of giving up the spoils of the 1967 war, Israel continued to build Jewish-only settlements on occupied Arab land and transfer its citizens to the West Bank and East Jerusalem to live on land that belongs to another people.
The US knew too well what Israel was doing. However, instead of calling the spade a spade, successive American administrations refused to act to save whatever hope there was for peace in the region.
In fact most of these U.S. administrations behaved like obsequious whores vis-à-vis Israel to the point of enabling Israel to call the shots in Washington. A Former American President and several American political scientists and intellectuals repeatedly raised serious questions about this scandalous imbalance in America's relations with Israel.
But the state of denial continued unabated in Washington until Israel was able to effectively decapitate the two-state solution through the intensive building of Jewish settlements in the Occupied West Bank.
Hence, John Kerry is only trying to salvage the bitter harvest of more than 50 years of American failure vis-à-vis Israel. Needless to say, his success chances are close to Zero.
The truth of the matter is that there is no longer a real chance for peace in the Middle East. Israel, thanks to America's overwhelming support for Israel's lebensraum policy at the Palestinians' expense, has killed almost all realistic prospects for a genuine peace settlement.
Indeed, while an equitable peace deal should see an absolute end to Israel's decades-old occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, along with the repatriation of millions of Palestinian refugees to their former towns and villages in what is now Israel, Israel understands peace as implying the liquidation of the Palestinian cause through a deceptive process enabling the “Jewish state” to arrogate the bulk of historical Palestine.
Under such an unthinkable deal, at least as far as the Palestinians are concerned, the Palestinians would get a "state" made up of small patches of scattered territories, without Jerusalem and without real sovereignty.
Such a deformed state wouldn't control its borders and border crossings, nor exercise any control over its land, airspace and sea waters. But the Palestinians would have to use the grandest of names to call their "state."!!!
There is no question that accepting such a solution would be tantamount to committing adultery with the Palestinian national cause. Hence, any Palestinian leader voicing a willingness to accept this thundering treachery would be committing the ultimate treason against his country, people and faith.
With frustration and helplessness easily detected in the tone of his voice, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has admitted that U.S.-mediated talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) is going nowhere.
And in an implicit warning to the two sides, the head of American diplomacy said the U.S. is evaluating its role as broker of the Middle East peace process.
"This is not an open-ended effort, it never has been. It is reality check time, and we intend to evaluate precisely what the next steps will be. "There are limits in the amount of time and effort that the United States can spend if the parties themselves are unwilling to take construction steps in order to be able to move forward," Kerry said.
Futile talks
I don't know if John Kerry has ever believed in the depth of his heart that there is a real chance for a truly dignified and equitable (let alone just) solution for the Palestinian issue.
He has paid numerous visits to Occupied Palestine and held numerous meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, but to no avail. The same thing was done by his many predecessors, including Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice and Madeline Albright, to mention just a few secretaries of State, and no breakthrough was reached.
That is why, instead of reproducing the same failures all over again, Kerry and the Obama administration ought to devote some time to vigorously and honesty study the reasons for the chronic failure of the so-called America peace efforts in Occupied Palestine.
But, given the huge subservience of the US government to Jewish pressure groups such as AIPAC, I am not sure any American administration would be able to objectively re-assess American policy in the Middle East. Such a feat would probably trigger a no-holds-barred war with Israel's powerful supporters at the U.S. arena, a war any U.S. administration would probably lose given current political balances in Washington.
Well, one of the most scandalous aspects of U.S. government subservience to Israel manifests itself in the fact that the U.S. itself has always enabled Israel to reject and sabotage American "peace efforts" in the region. The U.S. gave Israel hundreds of billions of dollars throughout the years and helped turn Israel into a first-class military power, thanks to the unbridled transfer of American military technology to the “Jewish state”.
None the less, instead of utilizing this virtually unlimited and unrestricted support to restrain Israel, Israel became ever more insolent, more intransigent and more recalcitrant. And instead of giving up the spoils of the 1967 war, Israel continued to build Jewish-only settlements on occupied Arab land and transfer its citizens to the West Bank and East Jerusalem to live on land that belongs to another people.
The US knew too well what Israel was doing. However, instead of calling the spade a spade, successive American administrations refused to act to save whatever hope there was for peace in the region.
In fact most of these U.S. administrations behaved like obsequious whores vis-à-vis Israel to the point of enabling Israel to call the shots in Washington. A Former American President and several American political scientists and intellectuals repeatedly raised serious questions about this scandalous imbalance in America's relations with Israel.
But the state of denial continued unabated in Washington until Israel was able to effectively decapitate the two-state solution through the intensive building of Jewish settlements in the Occupied West Bank.
Hence, John Kerry is only trying to salvage the bitter harvest of more than 50 years of American failure vis-à-vis Israel. Needless to say, his success chances are close to Zero.
The truth of the matter is that there is no longer a real chance for peace in the Middle East. Israel, thanks to America's overwhelming support for Israel's lebensraum policy at the Palestinians' expense, has killed almost all realistic prospects for a genuine peace settlement.
Indeed, while an equitable peace deal should see an absolute end to Israel's decades-old occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, along with the repatriation of millions of Palestinian refugees to their former towns and villages in what is now Israel, Israel understands peace as implying the liquidation of the Palestinian cause through a deceptive process enabling the “Jewish state” to arrogate the bulk of historical Palestine.
Under such an unthinkable deal, at least as far as the Palestinians are concerned, the Palestinians would get a "state" made up of small patches of scattered territories, without Jerusalem and without real sovereignty.
Such a deformed state wouldn't control its borders and border crossings, nor exercise any control over its land, airspace and sea waters. But the Palestinians would have to use the grandest of names to call their "state."!!!
There is no question that accepting such a solution would be tantamount to committing adultery with the Palestinian national cause. Hence, any Palestinian leader voicing a willingness to accept this thundering treachery would be committing the ultimate treason against his country, people and faith.
John Kerry's high-stakes gamble that he could finally achieve the dream of generations and bring peace to the Middle East seems to be collapsing as easily as a house of cards.
Despite a dozen visits to Israel and the West Bank since he became US secretary of state 14 months ago and many more late-night meetings with his recalcitrant partners in capitals around the world, it appears after all that he may have been trumped.
While there was always a certain hubris to his mission impossible, the political dangers facing wily Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu conspired this week with decades of pent-up anger among Palestinians to throw up the most serious crisis to the fragile peace negotiations since they resumed in July.
Yet at the start of Kerry's latest overseas trip there was little to suggest he would return to the US 13 days later with his peace effort in trouble and a blunt admission that he and the White House needed to "evaluate" the next steps.
Indeed, Kerry had not visited Israel in three months in a tacit recognition that each trip raised expectations and usually triggered some kind of provocative move from one of the parties.
His monthly commute between Washington and Jerusalem had also begun to raise eyebrows with little tangible progress to show and an April 29 deadline looming.
Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon had called Kerry "obsessional" and "messianic" and at home some critics said he was "delusional."
'Reality-check time'
All roads to Jerusalem are littered with past failed peace negotiations which have wound through places such as Madrid, Oslo and Camp David.
But this time Kerry felt there was something within his grasp, a deal under which both sides would agree to keep talking into next year, as some of the nitty-gritty contours of a pact began to emerge.
He deeply believes that a comprehensive peace treaty is the only way to secure Israel's future and build a better tomorrow for Palestinians, with both peoples having suffered too much.
So the 70-year-old former senator, the son of a diplomat, stepped willingly into the quagmire that is Middle East peace.
He has invested huge amounts of energy, setting a punishing schedule which would defeat many half his age and remaining eternally optimistic and unflappable even after hours locked in tense negotiations.
It was sobering therefore on Friday as he prepared to head home -- after the Israelis canceled the last prisoner releases and the Palestinians said they would seek statehood at 15 agencies at the UN -- that in a rare moment of frankness and frustration he admitted "it's reality-check time."
"There are limits to the amount of time and effort that the United States can spend if the parties themselves are unwilling to take constructive steps in order to be able to move forward," Kerry told reporters in Rabat.
With the war in Syria, Iran's nuclear program and the crisis in Ukraine, "we have an enormous amount on the plate," he said.
No-one walking away yet
Exactly what Kerry's next move will be remains uncertain, and he has insisted that the negotiators remain at work on the ground.
But it's more than possible that he'll give both sides a little space to figure out what they want to do, as he huddles with the White House.
There will be another three-way meeting likely on Sunday in the region to assess the way forward, officials close to the talks say, and the US insists the negotiations are not dead.
Only a few months ago, Kerry's stock had been rising with his brand of face-to-face diplomacy winning praise.
He had helped kick-start the peace talks after a three-year gap, sealed a deal with Russia to rid Syria of its chemical weapons, and negotiations with Iran over its suspect nuclear program had made the first progress in a decade.
Now critics will be sharpening their pencils in glee.
But he has three more years in office, and almost boundless patience.
The White House Friday defended the "tireless" Kerry, saying his long-odds Middle East peace bid had not been a waste of time because the stakes were so high.
But Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman, admitted that the chances of Kerry succeeding when he embarked on his Middle East peace quest a year ago had never been high.
"I don't know if people in Las Vegas are betting on these kinds of things these days, but I'm sure the odds ... would be very long."
Earnest refused to say that Washington had given up.
"That presupposes an additional step here, that at some point somebody throws up their hands and walks away. Secretary Kerry's certainly not willing to do that."
Despite a dozen visits to Israel and the West Bank since he became US secretary of state 14 months ago and many more late-night meetings with his recalcitrant partners in capitals around the world, it appears after all that he may have been trumped.
While there was always a certain hubris to his mission impossible, the political dangers facing wily Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu conspired this week with decades of pent-up anger among Palestinians to throw up the most serious crisis to the fragile peace negotiations since they resumed in July.
Yet at the start of Kerry's latest overseas trip there was little to suggest he would return to the US 13 days later with his peace effort in trouble and a blunt admission that he and the White House needed to "evaluate" the next steps.
Indeed, Kerry had not visited Israel in three months in a tacit recognition that each trip raised expectations and usually triggered some kind of provocative move from one of the parties.
His monthly commute between Washington and Jerusalem had also begun to raise eyebrows with little tangible progress to show and an April 29 deadline looming.
Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon had called Kerry "obsessional" and "messianic" and at home some critics said he was "delusional."
'Reality-check time'
All roads to Jerusalem are littered with past failed peace negotiations which have wound through places such as Madrid, Oslo and Camp David.
But this time Kerry felt there was something within his grasp, a deal under which both sides would agree to keep talking into next year, as some of the nitty-gritty contours of a pact began to emerge.
He deeply believes that a comprehensive peace treaty is the only way to secure Israel's future and build a better tomorrow for Palestinians, with both peoples having suffered too much.
So the 70-year-old former senator, the son of a diplomat, stepped willingly into the quagmire that is Middle East peace.
He has invested huge amounts of energy, setting a punishing schedule which would defeat many half his age and remaining eternally optimistic and unflappable even after hours locked in tense negotiations.
It was sobering therefore on Friday as he prepared to head home -- after the Israelis canceled the last prisoner releases and the Palestinians said they would seek statehood at 15 agencies at the UN -- that in a rare moment of frankness and frustration he admitted "it's reality-check time."
"There are limits to the amount of time and effort that the United States can spend if the parties themselves are unwilling to take constructive steps in order to be able to move forward," Kerry told reporters in Rabat.
With the war in Syria, Iran's nuclear program and the crisis in Ukraine, "we have an enormous amount on the plate," he said.
No-one walking away yet
Exactly what Kerry's next move will be remains uncertain, and he has insisted that the negotiators remain at work on the ground.
But it's more than possible that he'll give both sides a little space to figure out what they want to do, as he huddles with the White House.
There will be another three-way meeting likely on Sunday in the region to assess the way forward, officials close to the talks say, and the US insists the negotiations are not dead.
Only a few months ago, Kerry's stock had been rising with his brand of face-to-face diplomacy winning praise.
He had helped kick-start the peace talks after a three-year gap, sealed a deal with Russia to rid Syria of its chemical weapons, and negotiations with Iran over its suspect nuclear program had made the first progress in a decade.
Now critics will be sharpening their pencils in glee.
But he has three more years in office, and almost boundless patience.
The White House Friday defended the "tireless" Kerry, saying his long-odds Middle East peace bid had not been a waste of time because the stakes were so high.
But Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman, admitted that the chances of Kerry succeeding when he embarked on his Middle East peace quest a year ago had never been high.
"I don't know if people in Las Vegas are betting on these kinds of things these days, but I'm sure the odds ... would be very long."
Earnest refused to say that Washington had given up.
"That presupposes an additional step here, that at some point somebody throws up their hands and walks away. Secretary Kerry's certainly not willing to do that."
By Ramzy Baroud
Ramzy Baroud is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com.
As the US-imposed April 29 deadline for a "framework" agreement between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority looms, time is also running out for the American administration itself.
The Obama administration must now conjure up an escape route to avoid a political crisis if the talks are to fail, as they surely will.
Chances are the Americans knew well that peace under the current circumstances is simply not attainable. The Israeli government's coalition is so adamantly anti-Arab, anti-peace and anti- any kind of agreement that would fall short of endorsing the Israeli apartheid-like occupation, predicated on colonial expansion, annexations of borders, land confiscation, control of holy places and much more.
Ideally for Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies in the right, far-right and ultra-nationalists, Palestinians would need to be crammed in disjointed communities, separated from each other by walls, Jewish settlements, Jewish-only bypass roads, checkpoints, security fences, and a large concentration of Israeli military presence including permanent Israeli control of the Jordan Valley.
In fact, while politicians tirelessly speak of peace, the above is the exact "vision" that the Israelis had in mind almost immediately following the 1967 war -- the final conquest of all of historic Palestine and occupation of Arab lands.
Palestinians are currently paying the price of earlier Israeli visions, where Vladimir Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall" of 1923 was coupled with the Allon plan, named after Yigal Allon, a former general and minister in the Israeli government, who took on the task of drawing an Israeli design for the newly conquered Palestinian territories in 1967.
Not only would it not make any sense for a Zionist leader like Netanyahu -- backed by one of the most right-wing governments in Israeli history -- to bargain with Palestinians on what he considers to be Eretz Yisrael -- the Whole Land of Israel -- he has shown no desire, not even the most miniscule, to reach an agreement that would provide Palestinians with any of their rightful demands, true sovereignty notwithstanding.
It is implausible that the Americans were unaware of Israel's lack of interest in the whole undertaking. For one, Israeli extremists like Naftali Bennett -- Israel's minister of economy and the head of the right-wing political party the Jewish Home -- are constantly reminding the US through unconstrained insults that Israel is simply not interested in peacemaking efforts. The Americans persist, however, for reasons that are hardly related to peace or justice.
Previous administrations suffered unmitigated failures in the past as they invested time, effort, resources, and reputation, even to a greater extent than to Obama’s, in order to broker an agreement. There are the familiar explanations of why they failed, including the objection to any US pressure on Israel by the pro-Israel Zionist lobby in Washington, which remains very strong despite setbacks. The lobby maintains a stronghold on the US Congress in all matters related to Israel and Israeli interests anywhere.
Preparing for the foreseeable failure, US Secretary of State John Kerry remained secretive about his plans, leaving analysts in suspense over what is being discussed between Mahmoud Abbas' negotiators and the Israeli government. From the very start, Kerry downgraded expectations. But the secrecy didn't last for long. According to Palestinian sources cited in al-Quds newspaper, the most widely read Palestinian daily, PA president Abbas had pulled out of a meeting with Kerry in Paris late February because Kerry's proposal didn’t meet the minimum of Palestinian expectations.
According to the report, it turned out that Kerry's ambitious peace agenda was no more than a rehash of everything that Israel tried to impose by force or diplomacy, and Palestinians had consistently rejected: reducing the Palestinian aspiration of a Jerusalem capital into a tiny East Jerusalem neighborhood (Beit Hanina), and allowing Israel to keep 10 large settlement blocks built illegally on Palestinian land, aside from a land swap meant to accommodate Israel's security needs.
Moreover, the Jordan Valley would not be part of any future Palestinian state, nor would international forces be allowed there either. In other words, Israel would maintain the occupation under any other name, except that the PA would be allowed a level of autonomy over Palestinian population centers. It is hard to understand how Kerry's proposal is any different from the current reality on the ground.
Most commentary dealing with the latest US push for a negotiated agreement would go as far back as Bush's Roadmap of 2002, the Arab peace initiative earlier the same year, or even the Oslo accords of 1993.
What is often ignored is the fact that the "peace process" is a political invention by a hardliner, US politician Henry Kissinger, who served as a National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State in the Nixon Administration. The idea was to co-opt the Arabs following the Israeli military victory of 1967, the sudden expansion of Israel's borders into various Arab borders, with full US support and reinforcement. It was Kissinger himself who lobbied for massive US arms to Israel that changed the course of the 1973 war, and he was the man who worked to secure Israeli gains through diplomacy.
While many are quick to conclude that the "peace process" has been a historical failure, the bleak estimation discounts that the intent behind the "peace process" was never to secure a lasting peace, but Israeli military gains. In that sense, it has been a splendid success.
Over the years, however, the "peace process" became an American investment in the Middle East, a status quo in itself, and a reason for political relevance. During the administration of both Bushes, father and son, the "peace process" went hand in hand with the Iraq war. The Madrid Peace Talks in 1991 were initiated following the US-led war in Kuwait and Iraq, and was meant to balance out the extreme militancy that had gripped and destabilized the region.
George W. Bush’s Roadmap fell between the war on Afghanistan and months before the war on Iraq. Bush was heavily criticized for being a "war president" and for having no peace vision. The Roadmap, which was drafted with the help of pro-Israel neoconservative elements in his administration, in consultation with the lobby and heavy amendments by the Israeli government, was W Bush's "peace" overture.
Naturally, the Roadmap failed, but until this day, Bush’s insincere drive for peace had helped maintain the peace process charade for a few more years, until Bill Clinton arrived to the scene, and kick started the make-believe process once more.
In the last four decades, the "peace process" became an American diplomatic staple in the region. It is an investment that goes hand in hand with their support of Israel and interest in energy supplies. It is an end in itself, and is infused regularly for reasons other than genuine peace.
Now that Kerry's deadline of a "framework agreement" is quickly approaching, all parties must be preparing for all possibilities. Ultimately, the Americans are keen on maintaining the peace process charade; the Palestinian Authority is desperate to survive; and Israel needs to expand settlements unhindered by a Palestinian uprising or unnecessary international attention. But will they succeed?
Ramzy Baroud is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com.
As the US-imposed April 29 deadline for a "framework" agreement between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority looms, time is also running out for the American administration itself.
The Obama administration must now conjure up an escape route to avoid a political crisis if the talks are to fail, as they surely will.
Chances are the Americans knew well that peace under the current circumstances is simply not attainable. The Israeli government's coalition is so adamantly anti-Arab, anti-peace and anti- any kind of agreement that would fall short of endorsing the Israeli apartheid-like occupation, predicated on colonial expansion, annexations of borders, land confiscation, control of holy places and much more.
Ideally for Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies in the right, far-right and ultra-nationalists, Palestinians would need to be crammed in disjointed communities, separated from each other by walls, Jewish settlements, Jewish-only bypass roads, checkpoints, security fences, and a large concentration of Israeli military presence including permanent Israeli control of the Jordan Valley.
In fact, while politicians tirelessly speak of peace, the above is the exact "vision" that the Israelis had in mind almost immediately following the 1967 war -- the final conquest of all of historic Palestine and occupation of Arab lands.
Palestinians are currently paying the price of earlier Israeli visions, where Vladimir Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall" of 1923 was coupled with the Allon plan, named after Yigal Allon, a former general and minister in the Israeli government, who took on the task of drawing an Israeli design for the newly conquered Palestinian territories in 1967.
Not only would it not make any sense for a Zionist leader like Netanyahu -- backed by one of the most right-wing governments in Israeli history -- to bargain with Palestinians on what he considers to be Eretz Yisrael -- the Whole Land of Israel -- he has shown no desire, not even the most miniscule, to reach an agreement that would provide Palestinians with any of their rightful demands, true sovereignty notwithstanding.
It is implausible that the Americans were unaware of Israel's lack of interest in the whole undertaking. For one, Israeli extremists like Naftali Bennett -- Israel's minister of economy and the head of the right-wing political party the Jewish Home -- are constantly reminding the US through unconstrained insults that Israel is simply not interested in peacemaking efforts. The Americans persist, however, for reasons that are hardly related to peace or justice.
Previous administrations suffered unmitigated failures in the past as they invested time, effort, resources, and reputation, even to a greater extent than to Obama’s, in order to broker an agreement. There are the familiar explanations of why they failed, including the objection to any US pressure on Israel by the pro-Israel Zionist lobby in Washington, which remains very strong despite setbacks. The lobby maintains a stronghold on the US Congress in all matters related to Israel and Israeli interests anywhere.
Preparing for the foreseeable failure, US Secretary of State John Kerry remained secretive about his plans, leaving analysts in suspense over what is being discussed between Mahmoud Abbas' negotiators and the Israeli government. From the very start, Kerry downgraded expectations. But the secrecy didn't last for long. According to Palestinian sources cited in al-Quds newspaper, the most widely read Palestinian daily, PA president Abbas had pulled out of a meeting with Kerry in Paris late February because Kerry's proposal didn’t meet the minimum of Palestinian expectations.
According to the report, it turned out that Kerry's ambitious peace agenda was no more than a rehash of everything that Israel tried to impose by force or diplomacy, and Palestinians had consistently rejected: reducing the Palestinian aspiration of a Jerusalem capital into a tiny East Jerusalem neighborhood (Beit Hanina), and allowing Israel to keep 10 large settlement blocks built illegally on Palestinian land, aside from a land swap meant to accommodate Israel's security needs.
Moreover, the Jordan Valley would not be part of any future Palestinian state, nor would international forces be allowed there either. In other words, Israel would maintain the occupation under any other name, except that the PA would be allowed a level of autonomy over Palestinian population centers. It is hard to understand how Kerry's proposal is any different from the current reality on the ground.
Most commentary dealing with the latest US push for a negotiated agreement would go as far back as Bush's Roadmap of 2002, the Arab peace initiative earlier the same year, or even the Oslo accords of 1993.
What is often ignored is the fact that the "peace process" is a political invention by a hardliner, US politician Henry Kissinger, who served as a National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State in the Nixon Administration. The idea was to co-opt the Arabs following the Israeli military victory of 1967, the sudden expansion of Israel's borders into various Arab borders, with full US support and reinforcement. It was Kissinger himself who lobbied for massive US arms to Israel that changed the course of the 1973 war, and he was the man who worked to secure Israeli gains through diplomacy.
While many are quick to conclude that the "peace process" has been a historical failure, the bleak estimation discounts that the intent behind the "peace process" was never to secure a lasting peace, but Israeli military gains. In that sense, it has been a splendid success.
Over the years, however, the "peace process" became an American investment in the Middle East, a status quo in itself, and a reason for political relevance. During the administration of both Bushes, father and son, the "peace process" went hand in hand with the Iraq war. The Madrid Peace Talks in 1991 were initiated following the US-led war in Kuwait and Iraq, and was meant to balance out the extreme militancy that had gripped and destabilized the region.
George W. Bush’s Roadmap fell between the war on Afghanistan and months before the war on Iraq. Bush was heavily criticized for being a "war president" and for having no peace vision. The Roadmap, which was drafted with the help of pro-Israel neoconservative elements in his administration, in consultation with the lobby and heavy amendments by the Israeli government, was W Bush's "peace" overture.
Naturally, the Roadmap failed, but until this day, Bush’s insincere drive for peace had helped maintain the peace process charade for a few more years, until Bill Clinton arrived to the scene, and kick started the make-believe process once more.
In the last four decades, the "peace process" became an American diplomatic staple in the region. It is an investment that goes hand in hand with their support of Israel and interest in energy supplies. It is an end in itself, and is infused regularly for reasons other than genuine peace.
Now that Kerry's deadline of a "framework agreement" is quickly approaching, all parties must be preparing for all possibilities. Ultimately, the Americans are keen on maintaining the peace process charade; the Palestinian Authority is desperate to survive; and Israel needs to expand settlements unhindered by a Palestinian uprising or unnecessary international attention. But will they succeed?
Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails will commence protests beginning next week against Israel's failure to release a fourth group of veteran prisoners, a Palestinian Authority official said Friday.
Ziad Abu Ein, undersecretary to the minister of prisoners' affairs, said the coordinated protests would culminate in an open hunger strike if the prisoners' demands were not met, Abu Ein added.
"The Israeli government is sick and needs to be quarantined because it poses a threat to the peace process in the region," he added.
A source close to the ongoing peace negotiations said on Thursday that Israel had cancelled the release of the fourth group of veteran Palestinian prisoners in response to the recent decision by Palestinian officials to seek recognition at a number of major international multilateral treaties and conventions.
Palestinian officials said the bids for recognition were in response to Israel's failure to release the final group of prisoners on March 29 as scheduled.
Israel agreed to release 104 veteran Palestinian prisoners who have been in custody since before the 1993 Oslo Accords as part of a plan to resume peace negotiations after talks were halted for more than two years.
Direct negotiations began in July between Israel and the Palestinians in a US-led attempt to restart the deadlocked peace process. Israel has announced plans to build thousands of homes in illegal settlements across the West Bank over the course of the talks, inhibiting US efforts.
The internationally recognized Palestinian territories of which the West Bank and East Jerusalem form a part have been occupied by the Israeli military since 1967.
Ziad Abu Ein, undersecretary to the minister of prisoners' affairs, said the coordinated protests would culminate in an open hunger strike if the prisoners' demands were not met, Abu Ein added.
"The Israeli government is sick and needs to be quarantined because it poses a threat to the peace process in the region," he added.
A source close to the ongoing peace negotiations said on Thursday that Israel had cancelled the release of the fourth group of veteran Palestinian prisoners in response to the recent decision by Palestinian officials to seek recognition at a number of major international multilateral treaties and conventions.
Palestinian officials said the bids for recognition were in response to Israel's failure to release the final group of prisoners on March 29 as scheduled.
Israel agreed to release 104 veteran Palestinian prisoners who have been in custody since before the 1993 Oslo Accords as part of a plan to resume peace negotiations after talks were halted for more than two years.
Direct negotiations began in July between Israel and the Palestinians in a US-led attempt to restart the deadlocked peace process. Israel has announced plans to build thousands of homes in illegal settlements across the West Bank over the course of the talks, inhibiting US efforts.
The internationally recognized Palestinian territories of which the West Bank and East Jerusalem form a part have been occupied by the Israeli military since 1967.
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators will meet jointly Sunday with US envoy Martin Indyk, as attempts continue to prevent the collapse of peace negotiations, officials close to the talks said.
The first three-way meeting since Wednesday comes as Washington reviews its push for a peace deal after a spiral of tit-for-tat moves by Israel and the PLO took hard-won negotiations close to collapse.
US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday there were "limits" to the time and energy Washington could devote to the process, adding it was time for a "reality check."
The same day Indyk met separately with chief Israeli negotiator, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, and her Palestinian counterpart, Saeb Erakat.
Kerry, who has engaged in more than a year of intensive shuttle diplomacy, had spoken to both the Israeli and Palestinian leaders Thursday in a bid to bring the two sides back from the brink.
But President Mahmoud Abbas rejected his appeals to withdraw applications he signed on Tuesday to adhere to 15 international treaties, a Palestinian official said.
And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ignored appeals to refrain from "unhelpful" tit-for-tat moves, asking officials to draw up a range of tough reprisals, Israeli media reported.
Israel says Abbas' move is a clear breach of promises made by the PLO when peace talks were relaunched in July to pursue no other avenues for recognition of its promised state.
Palestinians say Israel had already reneged on its own commitments by failing to release a fourth and final batch of prisoners last weekend, and that the treaty move was their response.
The first three-way meeting since Wednesday comes as Washington reviews its push for a peace deal after a spiral of tit-for-tat moves by Israel and the PLO took hard-won negotiations close to collapse.
US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday there were "limits" to the time and energy Washington could devote to the process, adding it was time for a "reality check."
The same day Indyk met separately with chief Israeli negotiator, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, and her Palestinian counterpart, Saeb Erakat.
Kerry, who has engaged in more than a year of intensive shuttle diplomacy, had spoken to both the Israeli and Palestinian leaders Thursday in a bid to bring the two sides back from the brink.
But President Mahmoud Abbas rejected his appeals to withdraw applications he signed on Tuesday to adhere to 15 international treaties, a Palestinian official said.
And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ignored appeals to refrain from "unhelpful" tit-for-tat moves, asking officials to draw up a range of tough reprisals, Israeli media reported.
Israel says Abbas' move is a clear breach of promises made by the PLO when peace talks were relaunched in July to pursue no other avenues for recognition of its promised state.
Palestinians say Israel had already reneged on its own commitments by failing to release a fourth and final batch of prisoners last weekend, and that the treaty move was their response.
Washington said Friday it was reviewing its push for a Middle East peace agreement as a spiral of tit-for-tat moves by Israel and the Palestinians took hard-won talks close to collapse. US Secretary of State John Kerry, who has invested more than a year of intensive shuttle diplomacy, said there were "limits" to the time Washington could devote to the process.
"This is not open-ended," Kerry said in Morocco, adding that it was "reality check" time and he would evaluate with President Barack Obama Washington's next move.
"There are limits to the amount of time and effort that the United States can spend if the parties themselves are unwilling to take constructive steps."
Kerry spoke to both Israeli and Palestinian leaders on Thursday in a desperate bid to bring the two sides back from the brink.
But President Mahmoud Abbas rejected his appeals to withdraw the applications he signed on Tuesday to adhere to 15 international treaties, a Palestinian official told AFP.
And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ignored appeals to refrain from "unhelpful" tit-for-tat moves and asked officials to draw up a range of tough reprisals, Israeli media reported.
Israel says Tuesday's move by Abbas is a clear breach promises made by the Palestinians when peace talks were relaunched in July to pursue no other avenues for recognition of their promised state.
The Palestinians [Abbas camp] say Israel had already reneged on its own commitments by failing to release a fourth and final batch of Arab prisoners on the weekend, and that the treaty move was their response.
Some 1,500 Palestinians demonstrated Friday outside Ofer military prison near Ramallah, rallied by the families of those who were to have been freed on March 29.
Eight protesters were wounded by gunfire from Israeli troops, medics said, two in serious condition.
An army spokeswoman said "200 Palestinians" had "hurled rocks and burning tires at security forces" and soldiers responded with "riot dispersal methods and small caliber rounds."
Peace talks with Israel started with the signing of Oslo Accords in 1993. Palestinians have since hardly seen tangible results that could ensure their rights are maintained.
Negotiations over end of the Israeli occupation, return of the refugees, and freedom of prisoners and establishing a Palestinian state have faltered. Israel made peace harder with conditions like recognizing it as a Jewish state, keeping the Jordan Valley under Israeli control, rejecting the return of the Palestinian refugees, and going on with settlement.
"This is not open-ended," Kerry said in Morocco, adding that it was "reality check" time and he would evaluate with President Barack Obama Washington's next move.
"There are limits to the amount of time and effort that the United States can spend if the parties themselves are unwilling to take constructive steps."
Kerry spoke to both Israeli and Palestinian leaders on Thursday in a desperate bid to bring the two sides back from the brink.
But President Mahmoud Abbas rejected his appeals to withdraw the applications he signed on Tuesday to adhere to 15 international treaties, a Palestinian official told AFP.
And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ignored appeals to refrain from "unhelpful" tit-for-tat moves and asked officials to draw up a range of tough reprisals, Israeli media reported.
Israel says Tuesday's move by Abbas is a clear breach promises made by the Palestinians when peace talks were relaunched in July to pursue no other avenues for recognition of their promised state.
The Palestinians [Abbas camp] say Israel had already reneged on its own commitments by failing to release a fourth and final batch of Arab prisoners on the weekend, and that the treaty move was their response.
Some 1,500 Palestinians demonstrated Friday outside Ofer military prison near Ramallah, rallied by the families of those who were to have been freed on March 29.
Eight protesters were wounded by gunfire from Israeli troops, medics said, two in serious condition.
An army spokeswoman said "200 Palestinians" had "hurled rocks and burning tires at security forces" and soldiers responded with "riot dispersal methods and small caliber rounds."
Peace talks with Israel started with the signing of Oslo Accords in 1993. Palestinians have since hardly seen tangible results that could ensure their rights are maintained.
Negotiations over end of the Israeli occupation, return of the refugees, and freedom of prisoners and establishing a Palestinian state have faltered. Israel made peace harder with conditions like recognizing it as a Jewish state, keeping the Jordan Valley under Israeli control, rejecting the return of the Palestinian refugees, and going on with settlement.
