Madrid II: towards a civil peace in the Middle East
By Khaled Diab
Prompted
by the dire situation in Gaza, Spain, France and Italy have floated an
unexpected Middle East peace drive. This initiative will almost certainly join
other similar aborted road maps and peace plans slowly decaying in the
graveyard of international diplomacy. What the EU needs to do is to abandon the
deadlocked political level and organise a high-profile Madrid II conference
targeted at civil society to set in motion a ‘people’s peace process’.
November 2006
The Spanish-French-Italian plan – unveiled by
Spanish prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero on Thursday 16 November
2006 – calls for an immediate ceasefire, a Palestinian national unity
government, talks between Israeli Premier Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President
Mahmoud Abbas, plus an exchange of prisoners and an international mission in
Gaza to monitor a ceasefire.
“We cannot remain impassive in the face of the horror that continues to unfold before our eyes,” said Zapatero. “Violence has reached a level of deterioration that requires determined, urgent action by the international community. Somebody must take the first step.”
While the sentiments expressed by the Spanish
premier are welcome and the main elements of the trio’s plan are entirely
reasonable and necessary, the plan is unlikely to overcome the inertia with the
European Union, let alone Israeli intransigence and the hostility across the
Atlantic in Washington.
At best, the plan will be little more than the
expression of good wishes and solidarity with the long-suffering civilian
population in Palestine and, to a lesser extent, in Israel. In a similar vein,
the UN General Assembly’s overwhelming vote – including all 25 members of the
EU – the following day (Friday 17 November) in favour of an Arab-sponsored
resolution urging an “immediate” end to all acts of violence by Israelis and
Palestinians, including the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip and Palestinian
rocket firing into Israel.
The Palestinians – led by an extremist party, isolated internationally,
abandoned by the Arabs and besieged by the Israelis, Americans and Europeans –
welcomed the plan – albeit with reservations. Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad
Siniora applauded the initiative, saying “it asserts the Palestinian issue is
central to a just and comprehensive settlement in our region”.
Hamas, which is currently the largest party in
the Palestinian government, said the initiative contains “good points” which
should be studied further and criticised Israel’s immediate rejection of the
plan. “The Israelis, they never really have an intention to have a peaceful
settlement with the Palestinians,” the Islamic militant group’s spokesman Ahmed
Youssef was quoted as saying by Voice of America, placing responsibility
for failure with Israel.
Unsurprisingly, Israel rejected the presence of
international monitors and said that the three-country plan was very similar to
the defunct ‘road map’ which both parties had already accepted in principle.
“We expect the Palestinians to follow through on their commitment, and that is
to disarm the different terrorist organisations,” Israeli spokesman Mark Regev
said, trying to put the impetus on the Palestinians.
Turning antipathy into empathy
The latest peace initiative has barely been
noticed and all indications point to the fact that the writing is already on
the wall for this valiant, but severely inadequate, attempt. This is perhaps
partially a reflection the general level of international apathy, and Middle
Eastern antipathy, towards the deadlocked Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is
also partially an indication of the overwhelming expectation that the trio’s
call for a more robust European role in the Middle East is likely to fall on
deaf ears, given the palatable divisions within the EU.
London has already expressed ‘surprise’ that it
was not consulted before the plan was floated. Britain, embroiled as it is in
an ugly conflict in Iraq and unwilling to upset its openly pro-Israeli allies
in Washington, is unlikely to weigh in behind this plan. As during the crisis
in Lebanon, Berlin is unlikely to risk upsetting Israel nor its improving
relationship with America.
Instead of rehashing the same old noble words
and tired plans, the EU should attempt radically different approaches.
Internally, it should hammer out – away from the media spotlight – a common and
robust foreign
policy on the Middle East. Once agreed on between leaders, in order to
ensure that the majority of Europeans are behind this common approach, member
states should open the process up to public consultation.
The EU’s foreign policy chief Javier Solana
should then receive a mandate and the commensurate power to go out and work
towards this in order to overcome internal European inertia and save member
states individual difficulties.
But given the international and regional
political paralysis, the EU would do well to start from the bottom up. It
should organise a large, high-profile and prestigious Madrid II conference. But
instead of inviting Israeli, Palestinian and Arab political leaders, it should
reserve centre stage for representatives of Arab and Israeli civil society –
along with their European and American counterparts – to set in motion a
‘people’s comprehensive peace process’ to the Arab-Israeli conflict that would
help build trust and a groundswell for peace that is sorely missing now.
There is likely to be a lot of rhetorical fire
exchanged, but if a clear mandate and protocol for the forum is established,
this can be made more constructive and work towards building a common ground.
In addition, empowering the grassroots to talk directly could deliver a number
of important surprises. If opinion polls of Palestinians and Israelis in recent
years are to be trusted, there is a broad popular agreement among ordinary
people on what a final solution ought to look like – the trouble is that
neither side trusts the other enough to walk along that potentially hazardous
road together which makes efforts by extremists to ambush the process
relatively easy. A Madrid II could provide the necessary faith in the other
side’s good will to walk those difficult last miles to peace.
Like the first Madrid conference in 1991, Madrid
II could herald a new period of hope and set in motion a new peace process
built more firmly on the expression of popular will. The forum would hopefully
agree the outlines of a people’s peace accord which the participants can then
take back to their leaders and give the political classes the necessary mandate
– or push – to return to serious negotiations, each step of which would also
involve the people in direct consultation.
Related articles
Give ‘salom’ a chance
September 2006 – The
best lessons to draw from Lebanon and Gaza are that all sides lost the battle
and the only way for everyone to win the war is through peaceful means.
Politicians have shown a lack of imagination and willpower and so it is up to
ordinary Arabs and Israelis to lead them down the path to salam/shalom (peace).
It is high time to demand Salom Now! Read on
Using
a carrot and stick for peace
September 2006 – Given the fragile situation in
Lebanon, the pledge by EU member states to provide troops to police the
UN-backed ceasefire was well-timed. However, to avoid a fresh crisis from
erupting, Europe will have to aid efforts to forge lasting peace in the Middle
East. Read on
Salom
now!
Mobilising the untapped
power of Arab and Israeli peaceniks
Part I – Silent world
Part II – Peace begins at
home
Crisis
in
From
complete failure to comprehensive solutions
July
2006 – Israel ’s massive onslaught against Lebanon
– and before that Gaza
ã2006 K. Diab. Unless otherwise stated, all the content on this website
is the copyright of Khaled Diab.