Peace talks by proximity?

By Sherine Tadros, Al Jazeera

On, off and now on again… well almost.

The so-called “proximity talks” between Israel and the Palestinians have already experienced more ups and downs than the new Rock ‘n’ Rollercoaster ride at Disney World.

They’ve also received a lot of criticism from politicians, analysts and almost everyone else who cares enough to still be following this story.

Why? A simple dictionary definition shows how farcical these talks are.

Proximity means “close, near, adjacent, and next to”. These talks, if and when they happen, won’t even see the two sides in the same building, let alone in the same room, or around the same table.

So what is so proximal about them? It’s certainly not their stances.

The term was invented by the Obama administration to describe what they were already doing. Although the actual mechanism for these talks hasn’t been revealed, what we know about them is, to say the least, uninspirational.

George Mitchell, the US envoy, will shuttle between Ramallah and West Jerusalem (and back again), talking to the two sides separately for one week every month. The Palestinians and Israelis will be invited to the US for talks and be in constant contact (not with each other of course, but with the Americans).

The problem is, that’s exactly what Mitchell has been doing for over a year.

US-style re-branding

But the point of these talks may be less grandiose than achieving Middle East peace – the US administration’s aim may be simply to add some momentum to a process currently in regression.

It’s classic American re-branding. If people stop buying the McChicken Burger because it’s become stale and boring, you call it a Chicken Surprise, market it and it will start selling again. It’s still two buns, chicken breast and lettuce in the middle, but it has a different wrapper - and that’s what counts.

So it’s no wonder expectations have been lowered by all parties. The Palestinians keep telling us the conditions under which they’ll pull out of the talks, even before they’ve started. The Arab League said they’ll give their support to the talks but aren’t expecting any breakthroughs. And the Israelis have given their usual line about giving peace a chance while sources close to the PM’s office say Netanyahu is hoping the talks come to nothing.

But this charade is more dangerous than it looks. Although everyone has poured enough cold water over the talks so as to make sure expectations aren’t dashed (can’t lower them if you never had any, so the logic goes), the illusion of progress takes the focus off events on the ground.

Gaza is still under siege, Palestinians there are living like caged animals in a 40km long ghetto. And Jewish settlements are growing, spreading throughout the West Bank, including Jerusalem.

The façade created by a “process” suggests things are getting better for the Palestinians, while in fact, they are getting much, much worse. More settlements have been built since the 1990s, while a “peace process” has been on the table, than between 1967 and 1990.

No choice

Given all this, why do the Palestinians (and Israel) take part in this charade of a process?

Because there’s no other option. Neither side wants to be the ones who look like they’re not interested in peace.

For Netanyahu, its about buying time and saying one thing to the Americans and another to his coalition partners (which works because he tells both sides he’s just playing the other).

For the Palestinians, this process is about two things: testing American will to find a just solution and making sure when it all falls apart, as talks have done every other time, nobody is left under any doubt that it is Israel’s intransigence that led to their failure.

Everyone knows it’s the same chicken burger inside the wrapper, but they’re compelled to buy it anyway, expecting to be disappointed.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian