The horrific Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, are being touted as Israel’s 9/11. Expectedly, Israel has been pounding Gaza ever since and getting ready for a full-on ground invasion. Nobody knows for sure how long the Israel-Hamas war will last and what the outcome will be, both in the short and long term.
It’s unclear why Hamas carried out the barbaric attack on Israel. Was the attack meant to kill the proposed Saudi Arabia-Israel deal that sought to normalize relations? Or was it because of growing frustration at Israel’s current rulers, that have zero interest in carving out a separate Palestine state? Did Hamas not consider the consequences of its actions and that there could be a hefty price to pay? But what is clear from various news reports is that Israel’s fabled intelligence agency failed to anticipate the magnitude of the Hamas attacks.
BIBI’S BUNGLE: HARDLINE STANCE, JUDICIAL OVERHAUL
There’s already a considerable clamour for Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu to resign for his government’s colossal failure to prevent the Hamas attack. Most leading foreign affairs experts have been extremely critical of Bibi’s far-right cabinet and divisive policies. His misadventure in overhauling the judiciary has come in for severe criticism. As per the plan, the reforms would strip the powers of Israel’s Supreme Court, which cannot revoke laws passed in Parliament. The government’s highly questionable plan has stirred the hornet’s nest and triggered nationwide protests. President Biden openly criticized Bibi’s judicial overhaul plans even though it was Israel’s internal matter.
This was a clear enough sign that the Netanyahu government doesn’t believe in rapprochement, and the fact that most members of Bibi’s cabinet do not even recognize the need for a Palestine state has dealt a big blow to the Palestinian cause. Now, critics of Netanyahu are asking if his arrogance and hardline stance made Hamas restive.
PALESTINE STATEHOOD: TWO MISSED OPPORTUNITIES
Post the 1993 Oslo Accords, no Israeli prime minister made any serious attempt towards creating a separate Palestine state. Peace talks were derailed after the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. However, two Israeli prime ministers came close to offering Palestinians a homeland where they could freely exercise their political rights. Both times, the Palestinian leaders rejected the offers. First, Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) chairman Yasser Arafat in 2000 and his successor Mahmoud Abbas in 2008.
BARAK’S “GENEROUS” OFFER, ARAFAT’S “NO”
In 1999, the Labor Party leader, Ehud Barak, defeated Benjamin Netanyahu in the race for prime minister. The left-wing PM was a risk-taker and willing to walk the extra mile, more than his predecessors had. President Bill Clinton sensed an opportunity to broker a peace deal. He invited Barak and Arafat to Camp David in July 2000. The summit lasted 13 days and broke down on July 25, 2000. There is no accurate account of why the talks failed.
The New York Times reported, the Camp David talks failed over the question of sovereignty over the holy sites in Jerusalem, home to major places of worship for Jews, Christians and Muslims. It was at the heart of the problem. Clinton failed to convince the Palestinians to agree to a deal on Jerusalem though Barak had made considerable concessions in relinquishing control to the Palestinians in the outer and inner suburbs of East Jerusalem. The report said “… according to Israeli reports, proposals were put forward by the Americans on concepts of shared sovereignty in East Jerusalem. Mr. Barak was considering these ideas, which represented a radical departure from established Israeli policy that Jerusalem was the united, undivided capital of Israel. … But when Mr. Clinton spoke with Mr. Arafat, the Palestinian leader was unwilling to budge from his position that East Jerusalem must be the capital of the new Palestinian state.”
According to newly declassified documents released in June 2023, Israel agreed in-principle to give up its sovereignty in parts of Jerusalem’s Old City, including part of the Temple Mount. As per a Times of Israel report, the documents showed that Barak demanded eight percent of the West Bank — home to 80% of Israeli settlers and some Palestinians — without any land swap in that territory, while a land swap in the Gaza Strip — which at that point included some 20 Israeli settlements, home to some 7,000 Israelis — would be no more than 2%.
Barak’s offer may not have been the best, but it was seen as a “generous” offer. However, Arafat could not rise to the occasion. A May 2002 Guardian report headline read, “Arafat didn’t negotiate – he just kept saying no.” It said, “Enraged, Clinton banged on the table and said: “You are leading your people and the region to a catastrophe.”
OLMERT’S “UNPRECEDENTED” OFFER, ABBAS’S MAP THEORY
If Yasser Arafat missed the opportunity in 2000, his successor, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, backed out from the second offer made to him by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008. Olmert was Israel’s prime minister from 2006 to 2009. From 2006 until the end of 2008, Olmert and Abbas held 36 rounds of talks and Olmert presented a comprehensive plan on September 16, 2008.
Olmert had offered a near-total withdrawal from the West Bank. He proposed Israel would give away almost the entire West Bank (94%) to create a Palestinian state and retain only 6.3% to keep control of Jewish settlements. He offered to compensate the Palestinians with Israeli land equivalent to 5.8% of the West Bank and a link to the Gaza Strip meant to be part of Palestine. Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem would be under Jewish sovereignty, and Arab neighborhoods would be under Palestinian sovereignty so that they could be the capital of a Palestinian state.
The AP reported, Olmert offered to withdraw from Arab neighborhoods of east Jerusalem and place the Old City, home to holy sites, under international control. Olmert described the offer to give up Israeli control of the Old City as the hardest day of his life.
But Abbas rejected the deal. In an interview with Israel’s Channel 10 TV in 2015, Abbas gave his reason. He said Olmert only showed him the proposed map and never gave him the map to study before signing. “He showed me a map. He didn’t give me a map,” Abbas said. “He told me, ‘This is the map,’ and took it away. I respected his point of view, but how can I sign on something I didn’t receive?”
In the Washington Post on July 17, 2009, Olmert wrote: “To this day, I cannot understand why the Palestinian leadership did not accept the far-reaching and unprecedented proposal I offered them. My proposal included solving all outstanding issues: territorial compromise, security arrangements, Jerusalem, and refugees. It would be worth exploring why the Palestinians rejected my offer and preferred to drag their feet, avoiding real decisions. My proposal would have helped realize the “two-state solution” under the principles of the U.S. administration, the Israeli government I led, and the criteria the Palestinian leadership has followed throughout the years.”
Later, in a separate interview with Channel 10 TV, Olmert said, “I told him (Mahmoud Abbas), ‘Remember my words, it will be 50 years before there will be another Israeli prime minister that will offer you what I am offering you now. Don’t miss this opportunity.’”
It’s another matter that by the time Abbas had moved away from the peace deal, Olmert got involved in a corruption scandal and had offered to resign.
Olmert believed Israel’s control of the Palestinians was a recipe for disaster.
The big question is, should Netanyahu have picked up the pieces and followed up on his predecessors Ehud Barak and Olmert’s peace plans? Yasser Arafat died in 2004 but Abbas continues to rule Ramallah without holding an election since he last won in 2005. Beyond the map theory, Abbas has yet to explain why he dragged his feet. Two missed opportunities on the part of the Palestine leadership cost Palestinians the homeland that they have long dreamed of.
Comments
0 comment