Egypt had been struggling for months to mediate a settlement between the two factions. And now, escalating tensions over the Goldstone report have been cited as reasons for the non-signing of the unity deal. No conflict has been as protracted as the Palestinian Israeli conflict. And, no solution will materialise unless major shifts occur in the policies of states; unless a concerted effort — without alignments and realignments — is made by the affected people rather than by interested parties.

The focus should be on the crux of the problem, the formation of a separate state of Palestine. Going around it only prolongs the stalemate. It is time the Palestinians stood their ground, collectively, to achieve that goal.

Finding one particular cause for the Palestinian dilemma or saying that it all started in 1948 would be erroneous. It has been a cumulative process leading to the sticky quagmire that it is now. The year 1967 redefined the Arab-Israeli conflict in that policy makers started looking at how to resolve the territorial issues instead of addressing the real problem of homelessness, further obscuring the Palestinians’ real grievances.

Even though Palestinians are now recognised as participants in the peace process, it has become their second nature to follow Israel, allowing it to set the pace and agenda. Which is unfortunate considering that it is not the mindless hatred of Jews that lies at the heart of the conflict but the continuing dispossession and persecution of the Palestinians since 1948. Not only is this fact forgotten, but legitimacy has been attributed to Israel instead of to the Palestinians. Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza are rarely mentioned and Israel still enjoys an overwhelming importance in policy considerations, especially in the 
United States.

There has been no dearth of peace initiatives from the Arab world and the world players at large to end the stalemate. Pronouncements on the urgency of resolving the crisis have been made over and over again. Calls for ‘confidence-building measures’ and final status agreements have often been heard. Slogans such as ‘end terrorism’, ‘stop occupation’, ‘halt settlements’, and ‘two state solution’ are galore. But no end has been in sight, with each player protecting its vested interests, and each accord undermined by its inherent problems. The Arab Peace plan floated by the Saudi King Abdullah (then Crown Prince) in 2002 called for peace with Israel in return for Israeli withdrawal from all territories occupied since 1967 and return of the Palestinian refugees to Israel.

But that would have required Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights and its return to Syria. But, the US would not support, and also discouraged any peace process with Syria.

On similar lines, the roadmap put forth by the so-called Middle East Peace Quartet — US, Europe, United Nations and Russia — has undergone several revisions and has yet failed to yield results. Several peace plans, accords and conferences later, settlements continue, terror attacks are frequent and a large group of people are still homeless. But, if the conflict was once between Israel and Palestine, it now involves the Hamas, Fatah and Israel.

Arab peace initiatives have therefore assumed a new direction, of bringing the Hamas and the Fatah to the table. The rift between the rival factions can prove disastrous for the Palestinians as it can challenge the legitimacy and rationality of claims for an independent state comprising West Bank ruled by Fatah and the Gaza Strip dominated by the Hamas.

It may be hypothetical to think of a situation where the issue has been resolved, where Benjamin Netanyahu gave in to demands and froze all settlements and Mahmoud Abbas in return gave up the call for ‘right of return’ for Palestinian refugees. But, let us do so for a moment. Would the signing of a peace agreement prevent the Hamas from raining rockets on Israel? Would Abbas be able to remain in office for long after that? Would the Palestinian Authority be safe in West Bank? The Hamas is strongly embedded in Gaza. So, how can Abbas represent Palestinians and demand a state when he cannot set foot in Gaza?

The need of the hour is for the Palestinians to settle their internal differences. The Palestinian parties have to ensure their house is in order. Egypt’s compromise document calling for new legislative, presidential and Palestine Liberation Organisation elections needs to be endorsed by both parties.

Of course, no solution to such a long drawn out conflict that has captured so much of world attention can materialise without the US blessings. And any settlement plan should cover all parameters, especially East Jerusalem, the border and settlements. President Barack Obama’s success would lie in facilitating a dialogue and delivering an Israel that will talk peace and mean it, in return for a Gaza without Hamas. Peace in the region does not require more maps, accords, or peace plans. Both Israel and Palestine have to resolve to make peace, resolve to respect the rights of the other.

But before that, there should be a unity of cause so that their ultimate goal does not get diluted—the goal of getting a homeland for the displaced Palestinians.

Roopa Kurian is Editor Special Pages 
at Khaleej Times. She can be reached at roopa@khaleejtimes.com