Earlier this month, senior officials from the Palestinian Authority (PA), Israel, the US, Jordan, and Egypt met in Aqaba to discuss solutions to the recent massive uptick in violence between Israel and Palestinians. The result? The Aqaba Joint Communiqué: a platitudinous commitment to “de-escalation on the ground and to prevent further violence” in the region, while also “upholding unchanged the historic status quo” at holy sites in Jerusalem. What neither Israel nor the PA, nor certainly the Hashemite Kingdom wants to admit is that these two goals are increasingly exclusive. The status quo is violence. Distrust between the parties is the existing mode of operation. If the communiqué is any indication, the future of Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy is unserious.
In fairness, the actual reason underlying the meeting was justified. Increasing threats to safety and a disconnect between leaders in the region warrants attention. One recent example: in January, the UN Security Council held a “Situation in the Middle East, Including the Palestinian Question” briefing. The purpose was to address “flames of tension,” symptomatic of the “inflammatory” visit of Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir to the Al-Haram Al-Sharif (Temple Mount) in Jerusalem. The Israelis framed the visit as a “non-event,” citing the current ‘status quo’ that permits non-Muslims to visit Temple Mount at select times. Not so, countered the Palestinians. For them, Minister Gvir—a long proponent of changing the status quo to allow Jewish prayer on the site—was deliberately provoking the tenuous political situation at their third holiest site. The disconnect here is obvious. The rift between the PA and Israel is not solely diplomatic; each party is operating under a completely different definition of normalcy. Which is why, when a vague communiqué of peace is hurriedly penned by the US and Jordanian mediatory powers-that-be, rather than solving the problem, it creates new space for contention.
Indeed, mere hours after the Aqaba statement was released, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu tweeted his open defiance. The most controversial clause of the communiqué had promised an end to Israel’s construction of settlements for four months, and a stop to authorization of any outposts for six months. Almost immediately, Bibi assured his constituents that, “The building and authorization in Judea and Samaria will continue according to the original planning and building schedule, with no change. There will not be any freeze,” and his National Security Adviser assured the public that “there is no change in Israeli policy.”
No real change, indeed. During the Sunday that the talks took place, two Israelis were killed in a shooting in the northern West Bank of Huwara; Israeli forces retaliated a week later and killed at least six Palestinians. The Wednesday following the talks, 11 Palestinians were killed and over 80 injured when Israelis raided the West Bank city of Nablus.
The memo was self-congratulatory in being “the first of its kind in years.” May it be the last. The talks are set to repeat this month in Egypt’s Sharm El-Sheikh, but this would be a massive waste of a diplomatic opportunity. Instead of “enhancing mutual trust,” a phantom concept for families on both sides who have watched with horror the ongoing brutal violence in their cities, there must be real talk about how to interpret the policy for visitations to the holy sites. Or clarity from Bibi on the policy surrounding settlement building in light of the joint statement. The Abraham Accords are serious, in part because they included real policy that addressed real problems: free trade deals for the economy, formal defense ties for national security. Could talks between Israel and Palestine ever be that productive? Perhaps, actually—but only if upcoming meetings are treated not as public exercises of “good faith,” but as real policy workshops.
The post The Status Quo That Wasn’t appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.