HELD CAPTIVE BY CONTRADICTIONS

The release of the Israeli army corporal Gilad Shalit after five years of captivity in exchange for more than a thousand Palestinian militants could mark the beginning of a new phase in the Middle East settlement. Will it lead to long-awaited peace in the Holy Land? Contrary to the desire to give a positive answer to this question, it must be acknowledged that the conflicting parties are still so far from agreement that it is hard to believe in the success of any peace initiatives, at least in the near future. However, there is always hope for the best.

Exchange

Israel agreed to amnesty 1,027 prisoners, most of whom are members of the radical Palestinian movement Hamas, including "particularly dangerous individuals" who are serving time on charges of terrorism and murder. This was the price for the release of the Israeli corporal in Hamas captivity. Although, it was precisely in retaliation for the capture of Shalit that Israel began the military operation "Cast Lead" in late 2008, which led to numerous casualties among the civilian Palestinian population. Ultimately, Tel Aviv had to accept the demand of Hamas, despite the numerous opponents of this step within Israel itself, who believe that the release of terrorists, even in exchange for the life of one Israeli, is a deadly threat to all citizens of the Jewish state.

Meanwhile, the deal between Israel and Hamas slightly shook the position of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and its leader Mahmud Abbas. On the one hand, the release of the Palestinian activists boosted the popularity of Hamas, which, of course, is contrary to the interests of the Fatah movement headed by Abbas. On the other, the PNA is unhappy that in exchange for Shalit, Israel released mainly representatives of Hamas. Therefore, the Palestinian leadership demanded that Israel also release a large number of Palestinian prisoners - members of Fatah, including the leader of the armed wing of the movement, Marwan Barghouti, and Secretary General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine Ahmad Sa'adat. Moreover, according to the Israeli media, Abbas set this demand as a condition for resuming negotiations with the Israelis.

The PNA's demands, strange as it may seem, were backed by generals of the Israeli Defence Forces (Tzahal). In their view, the release of more Palestinians is necessary in order to support Mahmud Abbas in his standoff with Hamas. However, the proposal is opposed by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who believes that gestures of goodwill towards the PNA only whet the Palestinians' appetite. Moreover, he even called for the resignation of Abbas as head of the PNA, saying that the leader of Fatah is the main obstacle to successful negotiations. The Israeli foreign minister believes that if Abbas is replaced by a Western-educated pragmatic leader, peace will be achieved in the foreseeable future. However, he did not elaborate on what "pragmatic pro-Western politician" he was referring to in a situation where almost all the Palestinians are united by the idea of creating a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with its capital in East Jerusalem, an idea rejected by Israel. It is likely that Lieberman's statement was only aimed at annoying Abbas ahead of a very important visit by a delegation of international mediators.

Quartet reminds us of itself

The delegation of the International Quartet (UN, EU, US and Russia) on the Middle East, headed by its Special Envoy Tony Blair, held talks with representatives of Israel and Palestine to resume the dialogue between the conflicting parties. Ahead of the negotiations, the representative of the Palestinian Authority, Saeb Erekat, said that the mediators seek to organize a meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the PNA leader Mahmud Abbas. According to the Israeli newspaper Maariv, the US administration has proposed a compromise that could allow the parties to resume the dialogue. It implies Israel's tacit agreement to freeze the construction of Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem - to accept the Palestinians' primary demand.

Meanwhile, before coming to the region, Blair himself expressed dissatisfaction with the actions of the conflicting parties. He said that a month ago, the Quartet announced its intention to reach a final agreement between Israel and the PNA during the year. At the same time, a negotiating schedule was drawn up, which, however, is "deliberately sabotaged" by the parties. More than a month has passed since the announcement of the Quartet's new initiative to resume the political process, but the Israelis and the Palestinians have still not held a high-level meeting. According to Blair, "even an attempt was not made to resume the dialogue". According to the Quartet, the beginning of the high-level talks should be preceded by meetings of special groups, which are intended to define the boundaries within which Israel and Palestine will exist after the signing of a final settlement to the conflict. The international mediators believe that without addressing this issue, further negotiations are meaningless. However, the mediators themselves have no clear idea of where exactly these boundaries will be. If the UN, Russia and the EU believe that Israel must withdraw to the 1967 line of demarcation, the US has been taking a more pro-Israeli stance on this issue, highlighting the need to ensure the security of Israel as a priority.

After the talks in Ramallah and Jerusalem, the Quartet delegation said that the Israelis and Palestinians expressed their willingness to maintain contact with the international mediators to overcome obstacles and resume direct bilateral negotiations. "The parties agreed to put forward comprehensive proposals on territorial and security issues within three months in the context of our overall commitment to the goal - direct negotiations leading to an agreement before the end of 2012," the delegation headed by Blair said in a statement.

However, the key issue of the Middle East settlement remains the same. Will the conflicting parties agree to make concessions on borders and the status of Jerusalem, which Israel has unilaterally declared the capital of the Jewish state? The Palestinians, of course, will insist on their territorial rights enshrined in relevant UN resolutions. Israel is trying to essentially maintain the status quo in the Palestinian territories or to bring the opposite party to a decision that does not include the recognition of the borders that existed before the 1967 war. Thus, the "Quartet" will have to make truly Herculean efforts to achieve the goal - an agreement between Israel and Palestine by the end of the next year.

Palestinian proposals

In addition to the traditional rigidity of the Israelis in the negotiations (and beyond), the difficulty of this task is eloquently proved by differences in the positions of the intermediaries themselves and protests in the Palestinian camp. They do not rule out that the recent initiative of the Israeli government to freeze the construction of settlements (apparently, this pre-determined the emergence of the so-called American plan for the resumption of the dialogue between Tel Aviv and Ramallah) is only a "political manoeuvre aimed at misleading the international community". Based on its scepticism about the upcoming negotiations, the PNA and Abbas are increasingly focused on the question of securing the recognition of the independence of Palestine by the UN.

The Palestinian leadership has asked the UN Security Council to expedite the decision on its request to grant Palestine full membership of the world's leading organization. By the way, experts' report on the matter will be submitted to the United Nations Committee on Admission of New Members on 11 November. In the meantime, the experts are busy establishing the extent to which the letter from the PNA leader meets the requirements of the UN statute and procedures for membership.

Meanwhile, in the coming days Palestine may enter UNESCO, which has agreed to put the issue of granting full membership to Palestine to a vote by the 193 members of the organization. With a simple majority of votes, UNESCO's Executive Board approved the recommendation to accept Palestine into the organization. The new status will enable the Palestinians to apply for the inclusion of monuments disputed by Israel on the World Heritage list. Not surprisingly, Israel has repeatedly spoken out against Palestine's entry into UNESCO. "We are not going to just ignore such attacks. We will think what we can do in response to such a decision," Avigdor Lieberman warned.

Palestine's entry into UNESCO is also opposed by the US, which threatened to cut funding for the organization in the event of its support for Palestine's full membership. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the status of Palestine is the responsibility of the UN Security Council and urged the UNESCO Executive Board to "think better of it".

Still, it is expected that participants in the 36th session of the UNESCO General Conference in Paris, which will last until 10 November, will make a decision in favour of the Palestinian side. This will be another major step towards Palestine's full membership of the UN.