Pulling purse strings for peace

Without profound behavior modification by both sides, a peace agreement would be little more than a temporary armistice.

Palestinian incitement activity has continued unabated (photo credit: REUTERS/MOHAMAD TOROKMAN)
Palestinian incitement activity has continued unabated
(photo credit: REUTERS/MOHAMAD TOROKMAN)
The peace process launched by the Oslo Accords in 1993 has largely been an exercise in mutual bad faith. Israel has not stopped building settlements and the Palestinians have not given up their dream of liberating Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
The parties’ unwillingness to make sacrifices to end the conflict is evident in their recent actions and statements.
In retaliation for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s formation of a unity government with Hamas, Israel announced plans for the construction of a few thousand new housing units in East Jerusalem and the West Bank – despite the fact that American officials cited settlement building as a key factor in the failure of the recent peace talks.
On the Palestinian side, there is continued unwillingness to accept Jewish sovereignty over part of pre-1948 Palestine. In March 2014, the Fatah Revolutionary Council endorsed Abbas’s refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state on the grounds that it would compromise the Palestinian refugees’ right of return.
The Arab-Israeli conflict has never been about real estate alone.
It revolves around the Arabs’ unwillingness to accept the Jewish people’s right to live in pre-1948 Palestine as a majority and to govern most of its land. The so-called “right of return” is actually an expression of the Palestinians’ and the Arab World’s rejection of Israel’s right to exist.
Without profound behavior and attitude modifications by both sides, a peace agreement would be little more than a temporary armistice.
Fortunately, both sides depend on outside help in varying degrees.
This can be used as a lever to press for change. For example, as part of a long-standing dispute with the Finance Ministry, the IDF faces a budgetary shortfall, which has brought defense exercises and training to a halt. The Defense Ministry is hoping for a multi-year aid package from the US to make up the deficit and help it budget for 2018 and 2019.
In 2007, the US signed a 10-year agreement with Israel providing for $30 billion in military aid.
Israel is now hoping for a similar agreement for the 10-year period after 2017.
The US should agree to the Israeli request and even increase the allocation – in exchange for a full settlement freeze.
The US has provided tens of billions of dollars in defense aid to Israel despite the stated position of successive American administrations that settlement activity runs counter to the goals of US foreign policy. America is fully entitled to take this step to influence Israeli behavior.
On the other side, the Palestinian Authority’s continued dependence on foreign aid, much of it from the US and the European Union, creates an opportunity to force it to end its incitement against Israel. For now, the PA continues to promote strong anti-Israel agitation.
For example, on May 6 its daily TV program “Palestine This Morning” introduced a filler between sections of the show presenting Jerusalem, Haifa, Nazareth, Acre and the Negev Desert, Israeli cities and regions, along with West Bank cities as part of “Palestine.”
Like the settlements, the incitement activity has continued unabated.
The US and the EU should threaten to withdraw a sizeable portion of their aid to the PA unless the incitement stops. With Hamas now joining the PA in a unity government, the donor countries should also condition part of their aid on Hamas recognizing Israel.
The aim is not to cause the PA to collapse. Not even Israel’s rightwing government wants a return to a full occupation of the West Bank, where Israel would have to spend billions to pay civil servants’ salaries and provide essential services.
However, the US and the EU can and should use the power of the purse to influence changes in the behavior and attitudes of both parties. Without such changes, the two-state solution is a pipe dream.
Naim Peress is a lawyer and writer based in New York