LIFO 1.2.2020, interview with Thodoris Antonopoulos.
Victor Isaac Eliezer, journalist, Yedioth Achronoth newspaper correspondent and Middle East analyst, analyzes in LiFO why Trump's "peace proposal" for the Middle East is doomed to fail.
Victor Isaac Eliezer is a journalist, correspondent of the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Achronoth and analyst of Middle East issues. On the occasion of Trump's peace plan for the Middle East and the reactions it caused in Israel, the Palestinian territories and internationally, we also asked for his opinion on what is going on. Despite some of his positive points, such as the "return" to the two-state proposal, my interlocutor does not find the Trump plan fair and sustainable, an opinion shared not only by the Palestinians but also by many Israelis, since, among other things, it would favor the extremism and tensions in the region. He says that although the current state of affairs in the region has created conditions of rivalry and mutual suspicion between the two peoples, the majority of Israeli citizens, including himself, do not at all wish for the continued extension of the conflict and agree with the creation of a Palestinian state. , "under the condition that Israel's security would be absolutely guaranteed and the efforts of extreme Palestinian organizations to destroy the Jewish state would be put on hold."
Unfortunately this plan does not constitute a fair compromise between the desires of the two warring parties and therefore cannot be sustainable. He considers both the extremist activity of the latter and the Palestinian leaderships as the main responsible for the failure to find a solution until now, "a development that strengthens the extremist elements within Israel as well", and asserts that with regard to Gaza, Israel "does everything, what would any favored nation do to protect its citizens from fanatical violence." He insists that "Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel," even if the Palestinians declare some "own" part of the city as their capital. He also underlines that "today Jerusalem is open to believers of all religions, but only after '67 was it possible for Jews to visit their holiest place, the Wailing Wall" and that "it is impossible to return to the previous regime". He agrees that Trump's plan was more of a pre-election "firework" in view of the upcoming parliamentary elections in the US and Israel, he also believes that both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas "rhetorically seek peace, but in practice avoid for their political survival". The intransigence of the Palestinians and the escalation of violence by Hamas against Israeli citizens strengthened the extreme voices inside Israel as well, resulting in the ten-year rule of Netanyahu and the prolongation of the impasse.
— How do you generally judge the Trump peace plan? Palestinians seem to reject it outright in Gaza and the West Bank. How satisfied is the Israeli side?
Look, this is a plan enthusiastically touted by President Trump as the "deal of the century," which was supposed to end the years-long and bloody conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The Palestinians of course rejected the plan, and the Israelis accept it with too many reservations. Why; Because it does legitimize Israel to extend its sovereignty over a large part of the West Bank territories it conquered in 1967, and where 400.000 Israeli settlers live, but it cannot be sustainable under any circumstances, not only because the Palestinians reject it but and because it is not accepted by the Arab states, nor by the international community. In addition, military analysts in Israel report that, by redistributing the territories, Israel's security is not guaranteed. On the contrary, many young people, mainly Palestinians, will staff the extremist organizations with the risk of increasing terrorism against Israeli citizens. On the other hand, it must be emphasized that the Trump plan brings back to the table the proposal of two states for two peoples, a proposal that during the ten years of Netanyahu's rule had been abandoned by Israel precisely to have the support of right-wing and religious parties who reject the creation of an independent Palestinian state and the political survival of the Israeli prime minister himself. For the Palestinians, again, the Trump plan is far inferior to what they have received in the past. In essence, the state that reserves them is not exactly a state, and the territories where it will extend will be much less than what was foreseen in previous agreements, including the "road map" of the American President Bush. As for the reaction of Hamas and Jihad in the Gaza Strip, this is to be expected since any proposal that does not foresee the disappearance of Israel from the map will not be accepted. Unfortunately this plan does not constitute a fair compromise between the desires of the two warring parties and therefore cannot be sustainable. A fair compromise can be viable when both sides will have won something but not everything they claim. That is, when the advantages and benefits of a compromise solution will be more than the "no solution" situation.
— What reactions are there in the media, society, etc. and how has the attitude of the Israelis towards the Palestinian and the Palestinians been formed in general?
As I told you, with caution. No one in Israel is celebrating the Trump plan. The right rejects it because it does not foresee Israeli sovereignty over the entire West Bank, the left because it does not guarantee the conditions for peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. Only the center finds some positive points that could form a basis for resuming talks. The status quo in the region has created conditions of mutual suspicion. The fact is, however, that the vast majority of Israelis do not in any way wish for the continued extension of the conflict and agree with the creation of a Palestinian state, provided that Israel's security would be absolutely guaranteed and the aspirations of the extreme Palestinians would be curbed organizations for the destruction of the Jewish state.
— There is a feeling that the proposal for Jerusalem is not clear. Will it finally be the capital of Israel? Will the Palestinians be confined to some suburbs? Would a "special regime" be preferable after all?
I think the issue of Jerusalem is clear. Jerusalem is and will remain the single and undivided capital of Israel. All of Israel's political forces converge in this position, except of course the Arab parties. But as was agreed in Tampa and was later also foreseen in the "road map", parts of Jerusalem with Palestinian settlements will be included in the future Palestinian state. So if the Palestinians want to make this part of Jerusalem their capital, that is their right. I should point out, however, that today believers of all religions have free access to the holy places of Jerusalem, when until 1967 the Jews could not even approach the Wailing Wall, which is the holiest point for the Jews of the whole world. So we are not going to return to the regime before 1967.
— Some consider this development a pre-election "firework" by Trump and Netanyahu ahead of the upcoming elections in the US and Israel. Does this have any basis?
It is clear that the timing of the plan's release is not random and coincidental. While Trump is seeking the support of American Jews ahead of the upcoming presidential election, Netanyahu wants to show Israelis that he has the support of the American president. I doubt they will achieve their goals.
— Some believe that the last major chance for a peaceful and mutually acceptable solution to the issue of having two mutually recognized independent states was lost with the Rabin assassination and the non-implementation of the Camp David accords. Your opinion?
The history of the Arab-Israeli conflict is littered with missed opportunities. At Camp David, President Clinton managed to bridge all the differences and reach the point of finally signing a peace agreement. The one who regretted it at the last moment was Yasser Arafat. There the great opportunity for the Palestinians to obtain an independent state was lost. Later came Tampa, in the Sinai Peninsula, where even the issue of Jerusalem was agreed upon, with Ehud Barak as prime minister at the time. Yet again, Palestinian leaders preferred to follow the unyielding path of extremists, with suicide attacks hitting Israeli society and the peace movement in Israel. The intransigence of the Palestinians and the escalation of violence by Hamas against Israeli citizens strengthened the extreme voices inside Israel as well, resulting in the ten-year rule of Netanyahu and the prolongation of the impasse. It is nevertheless a fact that under Netanyahu there was economic growth and progress despite the conflict, despite the war.
— Still others blame the maintenance of tension in the region and the impossibility of any agreement on Hamas and the situation it has created in Gaza. How true is this? Is Tel Aviv to blame? Is Abbas a more reliable leader and negotiator for Israel?
Look, we can't hide from reality. In 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza and handed it over to the Palestinian Authority. A civil war broke out between the Palestinians, the forces of Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah were ousted, and Hamas seized power creating a separate entity. Instead of directing their efforts to the development and progress of the region, the Palestinians of Gaza preferred the unyielding armed struggle against the Israelis, shelling Southern Israel and causing dozens of casualties among Israeli citizens. Israel imposed a blockade to cut off supply to Hamas, which has not been achieved since every now and then Israel receives rockets that reach as far as Tel Aviv. There are unfortunately states like Iran and Turkey that support Hamas and encourage its leaders to continue terrorizing Israel. These are the facts, and on the Gaza front I am unequivocal: Israel is doing what any privileged state would do to protect its citizens from the fanatical violence of those who want to wipe it off the map. As for Mahmoud Abbas, he is unfortunately proving to be a worthy successor to Yasser Arafat as he deplores terrorism but approves of terrorists. In my view, this is a moderate leader who defends the interests of his people, but at the same time he is so contradictory that he becomes an unreliable negotiator. What he has in common with Netanyahu is that, while both rhetorically pursue peace, in practice they avoid it for their political survival.
Source: Www.lifo.gr