LONG-AWAITED SUCCESS OR A "NEW CAMP DAVID"?

It would seem why now when the situation in Egypt is shaky again, there is an unprecedented wave of violence in Iraq and the war in Syria claims more and more lives every day? There are voices that maybe now that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has ceased to be the hottest permanent spot in the Middle East it is time to resolve it.

The agreement to hold direct talks between the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Israel was reached in mid-July during the visit of US Secretary of State John Kerry to the Middle East. So the role of the "fiddle" is played by Washington, not by the "quartet" of mediators, which also includes the UN, the EU and Russia. In this connection, the question arises - is the US securing its rear in the event of the further worsening of the situation in the Middle East or in the event of active action against Iran or Syria?

Brussels, however, also played its part. First, the EU recently included the military units of the Lebanese Shiite organization Hezbollah on the list of terrorist organizations. Perhaps in this way the West is seeking to play on the contradictions between Hezbollah and Hamas, while striking Iran and supporters of Bashar Assad in Syria. It is also noteworthy that Hamas was favoured by former Egyptian President Morsi. So the timing of the negotiations does not look so unexpected.

Moreover, the EU suddenly quite categorically spoke out about Jewish settlers in the Palestinian territories, and just at the moment when the Americans were in the process of resuming the negotiations between Arabs and Israelis. In response, according to Reuters, citing a Western diplomat, Israel refused to give representatives of humanitarian organizations of the European Union passes to the Gaza Strip. And at some point, officials disavowed mutual resentment, blaming everything on the media. In an interview with the Lithuanian newspaper Lietuvosrytas, Israeli President Shimon Peres said that the EU made a mistake, because, perhaps, it thought that the peace talks would not resume.

However, they still resumed - on 29 July in Washington, DC, for the first time in three years, the Israeli and Palestinian authorities held a direct dialogue. The Israeli delegation was headed by Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and the delegation of the Palestinian Authority - by the experienced negotiator Saab Erekat, an aide to Mahmud Abbas. The former US ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, who is known for his specific proposals such as the closure of Jewish settlements, the withdrawal of troops from the PA and the dissolution of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, was appointed to head the negotiations.

US President Barack Obama, who calls the peace in the Middle East "possible and necessary", also met the Palestinian and Israeli representatives. EU foreign policy Catherine Ashton also urged the parties not to miss the opportunity to attain peace. "If we do not make any attempts, the consequences will be much worse," said Kerry. Tzipi Livni mentioned "peace for future generations". Saab Erekat reiterated that "it is time for the Palestinian people to get independence". According to Haaretz newspaper, "Palestinians today look different, and they already have a state structure that meets international obligations and requirements".

So, the negotiation process will last for at least another nine months. During this period, which is promising in every sense, the parties must reach the "final stage" of the agreement. In the meantime, work is under way on the programme of meetings.

It is noteworthy that in the run-up to the negotiations, the government of Israel under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu adopted a law under which any peace agreement with the Palestinians will be put to a national referendum after approval by the Israeli parliament. This is motivated by the importance of the fact that "when making historical decisions, every citizen should be able to directly influence the outcome with his own voice". It is an interesting move, because in this way the resolution process will be in some way immune to domestic political disagreements in Israel. Moreover, the negotiations will not be as strongly tied to one person as it was in the days of Yitzhak Rabin.

Netanyahu also managed to get the government to agree to release 104 Palestinian prisoners who will be freed in four stages. Arabs who have already served more than 20 years, mostly activists of the Fatah movement, will be released from jail. And this, again, is treated as a step towards the Palestinians. However, so far it is the only one.

Meanwhile, the main stumbling block continues to be the construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In 2010, the peace talks stopped because of this. And if you look back on the past, it was the emergence of the settler movement after the Six Day War of 1967 that is the cause of the current ongoing fight and terrorist attacks. The history of the search for a peaceful solution has also witnessed pressure on Israel from the United States to suspend the construction work, which led to the Madrid Conference in 1991 and the Oslo Accords. But as a result, the settlement did not move forward. Meanwhile, the fact remains that the area of land controlled by Israel has actually increased since 1967.

On the one hand, the Israelis want peace and apparently are not against the creation of an independent Palestinian state, but not at the expense of territorial concessions on their part. Israel also needs assurances that the territory of the Palestinian state will no longer serve as a springboard for terrorist attacks. The settlements expand in the name of security, but in fact they often only radicalize the Palestinians, which is really starting to pose a threat to Israel. It is a vicious circle.

The Palestinians, in turn, seek to establish their own state within the 1967 borders (with the capital in East Jerusalem) and secure the right of Palestinian refugees to return. According to Cursor, Tzipi Livni did not directly answer if Israel agreed to this. "We will discuss everything in the negotiations," she said. The Israeli media believe that the prime minister will have to confront the internal opposition within his own party Likud, which has zealously supported the construction of settlements since the late 1970s. The discussion on the release of Palestinian prisoners also led to a split. "There are times when one has to make tough decisions for the good of the nation, and this is one of those moments," says Netanyahu. The question is how convincing it is.

The second stumbling block is the question of the Palestinian refugees (and their descendants), who have been in this status since the time of the war for Israel's independence in 1948. Will they give refugees the right to return or will the issue be resolved by monetary compensation? Or maybe refugees will be allowed to choose their country of residence - Israel, Palestine or a third state? Here the demographic aspect comes to the fore. It's no secret that the Arab population is growing faster than the Israeli one, and the influx of immigrants to Israel from the former Soviet Union has almost dried up. Here it is worth recalling the long-standing concern of the Jews that the Arabs might abandon the idea of creating their own state and insist on Israeli citizenship.

Finally, the most sensitive issue is the status of Jerusalem, because here territorial claims overlap with religious feelings, as each side considers this holy city to be its own holy place.

"A viable solution based on two states is the only solution. We have not much time to implement it," Kerry said at a joint press conference with negotiators from Israel and the PA. "The goal of the direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority, which resumed in Washington, DC, is the peaceful coexistence of two states," US President Barack Obama said in turn.

One thing is clear - both sides must change. Israeli attacks on Palestinians are as bad as the Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israelis. The position of the two sides has always been that they are fighting a war for survival. The solution is to coexist without attempting to annihilate each other. The population of the PA should no longer live in a state of blockade, and Israel - in eternal defence.

Expectations from the negotiations are so far high. But it was also the case during the historic handshake of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in front of the White House in distant 1993. The botched summit in Camp David in 2000 between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat with the mediation of US President Bill Clinton was also filled with such hopes. Elliott Abrams, a former senior official in the National Security Council under Bush Jr., told The New York Times that "so far there is no real opportunity to come to a final agreement ... I hope that two teams are already working in the State Department: one on the negotiations and the other one on what to do if they fail."

If that happens, the future course of events will vary in a wide range - from legal action (the Palestinians may submit their demands to provide the Palestinian Authority with the status of a state to the International Criminal Court and the UN bodies, which, of course, will increase the degree of international tension) to a new outbreak of violence and new "Intifada" (which may eventually blow up the Middle East).