What’s Next After the “Palestine Papers”? Posted by Jacob Stokes

Last September when I read Charlie Kupchan’s op-ed in the International Herald Tribune telling the Palestinians that they should “just say yes” and make grand diplomatic concessions in the hopes of jumpstarting the peace process in the Middle East, I didn’t necessarily like the conclusion, but I agreed with it. Kupchan wrote:

The Palestinian Authority should make Israel an offer it can’t refuse by leapfrogging the logjam and declaring publicly that it is prepared to accept the outlines of the deal that successive Israeli governments have put on the table.

To the end of securing its main objective — statehood — the Palestinian Authority should acquiesce to major Jewish settlements in the West Bank in a swap for territory in Israel; it should give up the right of return for most Palestinian refugees and instead secure monetary compensation; it should accept effective demilitarization of a Palestinian state in order to meet Israel’s security needs; and the Palestinian Authority should aim to locate its capital in Arab East Jerusalem.

Now, if the “Palestine Papers” released today by al Jazeera aren’t debunked as a fraud – as Palestinian leaders are now claiming in a frantic effort to backpedal – it appears as though Palestinian leaders had come to much the same conclusion as Kupchan, and years before. And unfortunately, both they and Kupchan were wrong: They recognized their relatively weak bargaining position, made grand gestures and got nothing for it.

What will the release of these papers mean? Matt Duss has a good first take. He writes that the papers “seriously challenge the theory that unquestioning U.S. support for Israel is necessary to give Israel the confidence to make concessions for peace”; that the papers “reveal the massive disparity in power between the two sides” (again, Kupchan); and that they will only serve to weaken an already embattled Palestinian leadership.

When I first read Kupchan’s piece, I didn’t really like the conclusion because I thought unilateral concessions by the Palestinians might result in them giving up things they might not have otherwise had to give up. Boy was I wrong. In taking the brave step to unilaterally offer concessions, Palestinian negotiators showed just how little power they had and how little interest the Israelis had/have in playing ball. And now that the news that Palestinian leaders offered concessions has leaked, the chance for a forward-looking solution has been pulled farther out of reach.

So what’s the next step? Should it be supporting the UN resolution that demands an immediate halt to all Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, a move that reflects long-term U.S. policy and which Time called, “a vote of no-confidence in U.S. peacemaking efforts”? The bipartisan group of former officials, journalists and academics organized by the New America Foundation thinks so. I few see few, if any, other options for retaining even a shred of credibility for America as honest broker in the process. Then again, I guess there’s always Jennifer Rubin’s prescription, to acknowledge that “Israel has been generous in its offers of Palestinian statehood.” Going from experience, I'm sure that’ll go far.

Comments

[John Henninger]

The bigger worry for the United States is how the publication of these documents will affect the already volatile political situation in countries like Egypt and Jordan. These papers will only strengthen those in both of these countries who want to take a harder stand against Israel and the United States

[Taylor Wray]

Yes, the next step is to oppose Israeli settlement construction. Yes. Affirmative. No ambiguity or equivocation needed.

[noise cancelling headphones]

Excellently written article, if only all bloggers offered the same content as you, the internet would be a much better place. Please keep it up! Cheers.