There are those who believe wholeheartedly that Israel simply wants to live in peaceful coexistence with its Arab neighbours. Others think that Israel is completely driven by Zionism and its overtures for finding a peaceful solution amount to nothing more than empty rhetoric. What’s the truth here? Few can deny that Palestinians have suffered from the Israeli occupation - from the thousands of Palestinians killed during occupations, incursions, air strikes, and operations in unoccupied or previously disengaged areas, to the thousands of Palestinians forced to live in abject poverty because of the Israeli enforced financial blockade since 2006. Nor can anyone deny that the neighbouring Arab states are perhaps as much to blame for the Palestinian suffering. If, instead of going to war with Israel, they had accepted the U.N. General Assembly partition plan in 1947, the Arabs of Palestine would have had far more land than they would happily settle for now, and there would scarcely be any Palestinian refugees at all. Of course, Israel may have attempted to gain land by going on the offensive, but would have surely received no support for an offensive war, without which they would almost certainly have failed miserably. Either way, things would probably have been far better for present day Palestinians. But what's done is done, and what is needed is a solution. The latest hope for peace is the revitalization of the 2002 Saudi initiative. The Arab League rarely speaks with one voice, but it is now resubmitting the most comprehensive peace package ever to Israel - and the best chances of future security. Since it’s now being offered as a platform for negotiation rather than an easily rejected ultimatum, and given the current growth of Shiite Iranian influence in the region, as well as the world's focused attention on ending one of its longest running and most brutal occupations, if the Saudi initiative doesn't bring peace I find it hard to see what will. For starters, the rare Arab unity presents the opportunity to offer Israel normalized relations with all Arab (League) states, which was never considered possible before 2002, and has been called a "political revolution". The initiative also offers a possible compromise on the refugee issue. Israel cannot grant full rights of return because that would drastically change Israel's demography, and it would no longer be a safe-haven for the world's Jews. Although the initiative mentions the implementation of U.N.G.A. Resolution 194, demanding all Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to their homes in what is now Israel, and those not wanting to return be given suitable compensation, it also suggests finding "a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem." As the initiative was originally offered as an ultimatum, Israel, with no room for negotiations on a just solution, was scared off by the mention of Resolution 194. Now that the initiative is being offered as a basis for negotiations, hopefully a "just solution" can be found quickly. If Israel craves normalized relations with all surrounding Arab states and the Palestinians within, this is the ideal offer for them. And it couldn't have come at a better time, when Israel needs friends like it never has before, to stand against Iran. The Arabs too, being of Sunni faith, are seeking to unite against the possible domination of the region by Shiite Iran, and my enemy's enemy being my friend, a peaceful alliance with Israel suddenly may not seem too distasteful. Therefore negotiations, for perhaps the first time, should stand on firm ground, with all parties wanting the talks to find a resolution to the conflict. Nonetheless, negotiations will be difficult. The Arab initiative demands a Palestinian state on the land taken by Israel in the 1967 war, another demand to which Israel cannot capitulate. Israel has built settlements on the land and other fixtures near its borders. To ensure future security for all Israelis, it is widely agreed that a land swap will be necessary, giving back land equivalent to that taken in 1967. The Arabs also demand that the new Palestinian capital be east Jerusalem, which has previously stuck in Israel's throat, but hopefully, in the new light of mutual determination to find an agreement, these previous obstacles to peace can be ironed out through negotiations. A new issue for negotiations to deal with will be the security wall Israel has been building since 2002. That said, if an agreement were to be reached on the Saudi initiative, Israel and the surrounding Arab states should enjoy a future of security and peaceful coexistence. Negotiations could secure an agreement on the wall being torn down after an agreed period of Israeli security. With circumstances bringing all Arab states together in seeking an agreement with Israel, and Israel now eagerly seeking unity with the Arabs, it's now or probably never. Liam Bailey writes regularly for the Arabic Media Internet Network and is an advanced blogger on the Washington Post's Postglobal. He runs the War Pages blog and can be contacted by E-mail.
Read More...
By: Amira Hass
Date: 27/05/2013
×
Slain Bedouin girls' mother, a victim of Israeli-Palestinian bureaucracy
Abir Dandis, the mother of the two girls who were murdered in the Negev town of Al-Fura’a last week, couldn't find a police officer to listen to her warnings, neither in Arad nor in Ma’ale Adumim. Both police stations operate in areas where Israel wants to gather the Bedouin into permanent communities, against their will, in order to clear more land for Jewish communities. The dismissive treatment Dandis received shows how the Bedouin are considered simply to be lawbreakers by their very nature. But as a resident of the West Bank asking for help for her daughters, whose father was Israeli, Dandis faced the legal-bureaucratic maze created by the Oslo Accords. The Palestinian police is not allowed to arrest Israeli civilians. It must hand suspects over to the Israel Police. The Palestinian police complain that in cases of Israelis suspected of committing crimes against Palestinian residents, the Israel Police tend not to investigate or prosecute them. In addition, the town of Al-Azaria, where Dandis lives, is in Area B, under Palestinian civilian authority and Israeli security authority. According to the testimony of Palestinian residents, neither the IDF nor the Israel Police has any interest in internal Palestinian crime even though they have both the authority and the obligation to act in Area B. The Palestinian police are limited in what it can do in Area B. Bringing in reinforcements or carrying weapons in emergency situations requires coordination with, and obtaining permission from, the IDF. If Dandis fears that the man who murdered her daughters is going to attack her as well, she has plenty of reason to fear that she will not receive appropriate, immediate police protection from either the Israelis or the Palestinians. Dandis told Jack Khoury of Haaretz that the Ma’ale Adumim police referred her to the Palestinian Civil Affairs Coordination and Liaison Committee. Theoretically, this committee (which is subordinate to the Civil Affairs Ministry) is the logical place to go for such matters. Its parallel agency in Israel is the Civilian Liaison Committee (which is part of the Coordination and Liaison Administration - a part of the Civil Administration under the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories). In their meetings, they are supposed to discuss matters such as settlers’ complaints about the high volume of the loudspeakers at mosques or Palestinians’ complaints about attacks by settlers. But the Palestinians see the Liaison Committee as a place to submit requests for permission to travel to Israel, and get the impression that its clerks do not have much power when faced with their Israeli counterparts. In any case, the coordination process is cumbersome and long. The Palestinian police has a family welfare unit, and activists in Palestinian women’s organizations say that in recent years, its performance has improved. But, as stated, it has no authority over Israeli civilians and residents. Several non-governmental women’s groups also operate in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, and women in similar situations approach them for help. The manager of one such organization told Haaretz that Dandis also fell victim to this confusing duplication of procedures and laws. Had Dandis approached her, she said, she would have referred her to Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, which has expertise in navigating Israel’s laws and authorities.
By: Phoebe Greenwood
Date: 27/05/2013
×
John Kerry unveils plan to boost Palestinian economy
John Kerry revealed his long-awaited plan for peace in the Middle East on Sunday, hinging on a $4bn (£2.6bn) investment in the Palestinian private sector. The US secretary of state, speaking at the World Economic Forum on the Jordanian shores of the Dead Sea, told an audience including Israeli president Shimon Peres and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas that an independent Palestinian economy is essential to achieving a sustainable peace. Speaking under the conference banner "Breaking the Impasse", Kerry announced a plan that he promised would be "bigger, bolder and more ambitious" than anything since the Oslo accords, more than 20 years ago. Tony Blair is to lead a group of private sector leaders in devising a plan to release the Palestinian economy from its dependence on international donors. The initial findings of Blair's taskforce, Kerry boasted, were "stunning", predicting a 50% increase in Palestinian GDP over three years, a cut of two-thirds in unemployment rates and almost double the Palestinian median wage. Currently, 40% of the Palestinian economy is supplied by donor aid. Kerry assured Abbas that the economic plan was not a substitute for a political solution, which remains the US's "top priority". Peres, who had taken the stage just minutes before, also issued a personal plea to his Palestinian counterpart to return to the negotiations. "Let me say to my dear friend President Abbas," Peres said, "Should we really dance around the table? Lets sit together. You'll be surprised how much can be achieved in open, direct and organised meetings."
By: Jillian Kestler-D'Amours
Date: 27/05/2013
×
Isolation Devastates East Jerusalem Economy
Thick locks hug the front gates of shuttered shops, now covered in graffiti and dust from lack of use. Only a handful of customers pass along the dimly lit road, sometimes stopping to check the ripeness of fruits and vegetables, or ordering meat in near-empty butcher shops. “All the shops are closed. I’m the only one open. This used to be the best place,” said 64-year-old Mustafa Sunocret, selling vegetables out of a small storefront in the marketplace near his family’s home in the Muslim quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City. Amidst the brightly coloured scarves, clothes and carpets, ceramic pottery and religious souvenirs filling the shops of Jerusalem’s historic Old City, Palestinian merchants are struggling to keep their businesses alive. Faced with worsening health problems, Sunocret told IPS that he cannot work outside of the Old City, even as the cost of maintaining his shop, with high electricity, water and municipal tax bills to pay, weighs on him. “I only have this shop,” he said. “There is no other work. I’m tired.” Abed Ajloni, the owner of an antiques shop in the Old City, owes the Jerusalem municipality 250,000 Israeli shekels (68,300 U.S. dollars) in taxes. He told IPS that almost every day, the city’s tax collectors come into the Old City, accompanied by Israeli police and soldiers, to pressure people there to pay. “It feels like they’re coming again to occupy the city, with the soldiers and police,” Ajloni, who has owned the same shop for 35 years, told IPS. “But where can I go? What can I do? All my life I was in this place.” He added, “Does Jerusalem belong to us, or to someone else? Who’s responsible for Jerusalem? Who?” Illegal annexation Israel occupied East Jerusalem, including the Old City, in 1967. In July 1980, it passed a law stating that “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel”. But Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and subsequent application of Israeli laws over the entire city remain unrecognised by the international community. Under international law, East Jerusalem is considered occupied territory – along with the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syrian Golan Heights – and Palestinian residents of the city are protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Jerusalem has historically been the economic, political and cultural centre of life for the entire Palestinian population. But after decades languishing under destructive Israeli policies meant to isolate the city from the rest of the Occupied Territories and a lack of municipal services and investment, East Jerusalem has slipped into a state of poverty and neglect. “After some 45 years of occupation, Arab Jerusalemites suffer from political and cultural schizophrenia, simultaneously connected with and isolated from their two hinterlands: Ramallah and the West Bank to their east, West Jerusalem and Israel to the west,” the International Crisis Group recently wrote. Israeli restrictions on planning and building, home demolitions, lack of investment in education and jobs, construction of an eight-foot-high separation barrier between and around Palestinian neighbourhoods and the creation of a permit system to enter Jerusalem have all contributed to the city’s isolation. Formal Palestinian political groups have also been banned from the city, and between 2001-2009, Israel closed an estimated 26 organisations, including the former Palestinian Liberation Organisation headquarters in Jerusalem, the Orient House and the Jerusalem Chamber of Commerce. Extreme poverty Israel’s policies have also led to higher prices for basic goods and services and forced many Palestinian business owners to close shop and move to Ramallah or other Palestinian neighbourhoods on the other side of the wall. Many Palestinian Jerusalemites also prefer to do their shopping in the West Bank, or in West Jerusalem, where prices are lower. While Palestinians constitute 39 percent of the city’s population today, almost 80 percent of East Jerusalem residents, including 85 percent of children, live below the poverty line. “How could you develop [an] economy if you don’t control your resources? How could you develop [an] economy if you don’t have any control of your borders?” said Zakaria Odeh, director of the Civic Coalition for Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem, of “this kind of fragmentation, checkpoints, closure”. “Without freedom of movement of goods and human beings, how could you develop an economy?” he asked. “You can’t talk about independent economy in Jerusalem or the West Bank or in all of Palestine without a political solution. We don’t have a Palestinian economy; we have economic activities. That’s all we have,” Odeh told IPS. Israel’s separation barrier alone, according to a new report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD), has caused a direct loss of over one billion dollars to Palestinians in Jerusalem, and continues to incur 200 million dollars per year in lost opportunities. Israel’s severing and control over the Jerusalem-Jericho road – the historical trade route that connected Jerusalem to the rest of the West Bank and Middle East – has also contributed to the city’s economic downturn. Separation of Jerusalem from West Bank Before the First Intifada (Arabic for “uprising”) began in the late 1980s, East Jerusalem contributed approximately 14 to 15 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) in the Occupied Palestinian territories (OPT). By 2000, that number had dropped to less than eight percent; in 2010, the East Jerusalem economy, compared to the rest of the OPT, was estimated at only seven percent. “Economic separation resulted in the contraction in the relative size of the East Jerusalem economy, its detachment from the remaining OPT and the gradual redirection of East Jerusalem employment towards the Israeli labour market,” the U.N. report found. Decades ago, Israel adopted a policy to maintain a so-called “demographic balance” in Jerusalem and attempt to limit Palestinian residents of the city to 26.5 percent or less of the total population. To maintain this composition, Israel built numerous Jewish-Israeli settlements inside and in a ring around Jerusalem and changed the municipal boundaries to encompass Jewish neighbourhoods while excluding Palestinian ones. It is now estimated that 90,000 Palestinians holding Jerusalem residency rights live on the other side of the separation barrier and must cross through Israeli checkpoints in order to reach Jerusalem for school, medical treatment, work, and other services. “Israel is using all kinds of tools to push the Palestinians to leave; sometimes they are visible, and sometimes invisible tools,” explained Ziad al-Hammouri, director of the Jerusalem Centre for Social and Economic Rights (JCSER). Al-Hammouri told IPS that at least 25 percent of the 1,000 Palestinian shops in the Old City were closed in recent years as a result of high municipal taxes and a lack of customers. “Taxation is an invisible tool…as dangerous as revoking ID cards and demolishing houses,” he said. “Israel will use this as pressure and as a tool in the future to confiscate these shops and properties.”
By the Same Author
Date: 09/04/2007
×
Mideast Peace – Now or Maybe Never
There are those who believe wholeheartedly that Israel simply wants to live in peaceful coexistence with its Arab neighbours. Others think that Israel is completely driven by Zionism and its overtures for finding a peaceful solution amount to nothing more than empty rhetoric. What’s the truth here? Few can deny that Palestinians have suffered from the Israeli occupation - from the thousands of Palestinians killed during occupations, incursions, air strikes, and operations in unoccupied or previously disengaged areas, to the thousands of Palestinians forced to live in abject poverty because of the Israeli enforced financial blockade since 2006. Nor can anyone deny that the neighbouring Arab states are perhaps as much to blame for the Palestinian suffering. If, instead of going to war with Israel, they had accepted the U.N. General Assembly partition plan in 1947, the Arabs of Palestine would have had far more land than they would happily settle for now, and there would scarcely be any Palestinian refugees at all. Of course, Israel may have attempted to gain land by going on the offensive, but would have surely received no support for an offensive war, without which they would almost certainly have failed miserably. Either way, things would probably have been far better for present day Palestinians. But what's done is done, and what is needed is a solution. The latest hope for peace is the revitalization of the 2002 Saudi initiative. The Arab League rarely speaks with one voice, but it is now resubmitting the most comprehensive peace package ever to Israel - and the best chances of future security. Since it’s now being offered as a platform for negotiation rather than an easily rejected ultimatum, and given the current growth of Shiite Iranian influence in the region, as well as the world's focused attention on ending one of its longest running and most brutal occupations, if the Saudi initiative doesn't bring peace I find it hard to see what will. For starters, the rare Arab unity presents the opportunity to offer Israel normalized relations with all Arab (League) states, which was never considered possible before 2002, and has been called a "political revolution". The initiative also offers a possible compromise on the refugee issue. Israel cannot grant full rights of return because that would drastically change Israel's demography, and it would no longer be a safe-haven for the world's Jews. Although the initiative mentions the implementation of U.N.G.A. Resolution 194, demanding all Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to their homes in what is now Israel, and those not wanting to return be given suitable compensation, it also suggests finding "a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem." As the initiative was originally offered as an ultimatum, Israel, with no room for negotiations on a just solution, was scared off by the mention of Resolution 194. Now that the initiative is being offered as a basis for negotiations, hopefully a "just solution" can be found quickly. If Israel craves normalized relations with all surrounding Arab states and the Palestinians within, this is the ideal offer for them. And it couldn't have come at a better time, when Israel needs friends like it never has before, to stand against Iran. The Arabs too, being of Sunni faith, are seeking to unite against the possible domination of the region by Shiite Iran, and my enemy's enemy being my friend, a peaceful alliance with Israel suddenly may not seem too distasteful. Therefore negotiations, for perhaps the first time, should stand on firm ground, with all parties wanting the talks to find a resolution to the conflict. Nonetheless, negotiations will be difficult. The Arab initiative demands a Palestinian state on the land taken by Israel in the 1967 war, another demand to which Israel cannot capitulate. Israel has built settlements on the land and other fixtures near its borders. To ensure future security for all Israelis, it is widely agreed that a land swap will be necessary, giving back land equivalent to that taken in 1967. The Arabs also demand that the new Palestinian capital be east Jerusalem, which has previously stuck in Israel's throat, but hopefully, in the new light of mutual determination to find an agreement, these previous obstacles to peace can be ironed out through negotiations. A new issue for negotiations to deal with will be the security wall Israel has been building since 2002. That said, if an agreement were to be reached on the Saudi initiative, Israel and the surrounding Arab states should enjoy a future of security and peaceful coexistence. Negotiations could secure an agreement on the wall being torn down after an agreed period of Israeli security. With circumstances bringing all Arab states together in seeking an agreement with Israel, and Israel now eagerly seeking unity with the Arabs, it's now or probably never. Liam Bailey writes regularly for the Arabic Media Internet Network and is an advanced blogger on the Washington Post's Postglobal. He runs the War Pages blog and can be contacted by E-mail.
Date: 02/04/2007
×
Saudi Initiative: Turning Suggestions into Reality
CNN has recently shown footage from inside a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon - which makes for grim viewing. The interviewer said the people were living in sub-human conditions within the camps, and it was clear that if anything, that is an understatement. The Arab League has taken the refugee disaster into account when it unanimously endorsed the revival of Saudi King Abdullah's 2002 Arab peace initiative. The League, at its summit meeting on March 28-29, also issued a joint statement calling on Israel to accept the terms of the initiative, which contains a reference to U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 stipulating all Palestinian refugees be granted a return to their homes. Those not wanting to return should be given suitable compensation. Israel will not accept this. Therefore, in its original form the initiative will always present an impasse. The initiative also talks of finding a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem. Among the solutions fielded is allowing the refugees to return to the territories which would become a Palestinian state if the initiative were agreed upon - and again, giving compensation for the lives they were not allowed to live. This seems to present a solution but it is never elaborated: no figures are mentioned and no guarantees are given. This needs to be done if Palestinian negotiators are to take the initiative’s chances of achieving an agreement seriously, and not only on the refugee issue, but every issue covered by the initiative The initiative offers Israel a sweet deal, in return for a full withdrawal from territories occupied after the 1967 war, the creation of an independent Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital, and full right of return or suitable compensation for all refugees. The normalization of relations would be a fundamental benefit that Israel would get - which means full recognition of the Jewish state by all states in the Arab League, i.e., practically all Arab states. This is something which hadn't been on the table before it was offered at the Beirut Arab League summit in 2002. For states which have never had anywhere close to normalized relations with Israel - most notably Syria and Lebanon - this is understandably a hard pill to swallow and something they will not do easily. The refugee issue is a sore point for both sides. Palestinians, even in the current generation, are understandably angry at Israel forcing their brethren off family or ancestral land and into squalor. No Palestinian negotiator will accept any agreement that does not make up for the denial of a potentially good life and years of sub-human conditions that Palestinian refugees have been forced to endure. This issue has the potential to destroy the chances of the Saudi initiative to bring peace and every future negotiation. That is why the compromises and solutions being offered need to be brought to the forefront, replacing the long-running cycle of gesture and counter-gesture, never anything more than empty words. For instance, when the initiative advocates an Israeli pullout from the territories occupied after 1967, some would argue that this is now impractical because of Israel's settlement building and the necessity to ensure future security for their population. They suggest that a land swap will be necessary, giving land back to the Palestinians equivalent to what was taken in 1967. Nice in theory, but if the initiative is to be presented as a serious option for peace, it is time to take the suggestions to the next stage. Those who need to know such a swap will be necessary - the Israeli Government - already do know and have known for a long time. It is not necessary to reiterate it; instead, suggestions should be made by both sides about which land could be swapped. The same goes for the refugee issue. It is no use regurgitating the possibility of open-ended compensation, which in reality could and should have been given as soon as it was clear that Israel could never allow the refugees to return home, soon after the Arabs were expelled in the 1948 war for Israel's independence, or any time from any of the governments thereafter. If Israel is serious when it claims its only desire is to live in peace beside the Palestinians, then, to allay some of the anger Palestinians feel and go towards making up for the refugees loss, what better gesture than to promise them the very least of what they deserve, and state a clear figure to compensate all refugees as a precursor to negotiations on the new initiative? If compensation was promised, then negotiations could perhaps proceed in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust, as opposed to resentment and doubt. Negotiations should concentrate on hammering out the final borders for a Palestinian state, and with normalized relations all round. By necessity, this would also mean a promise by Israel to knock down the security wall where it impedes on the Palestinian state. The two state solution is the only viable suggestion. It's time to make it a reality. Liam Bailey writes regularly for the Palestine Chronicle, Arabic Media Internet Network and is an advanced blogger on the Washington Post's Postglobal. He runs the War Pages blog and can be contacted by E-mail.
Date: 07/03/2007
×
Attitudes Stop Israeli-Palestinian Peace
To achieve a lasting peace in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict some major compromises are needed from all parties. Unfortunately, because of the duration of the conflict, attitudes, policies, strategies and aims have become so engrained that such compromises have become extremely difficult. The number of people killed in the conflict has also become a factor in each side's reluctance to compromise. The additional cause now and for many years has been to ensure that those killed did not die in vain. The Palestinian Perspective: More Palestinians have been killed in the struggle than Israelis. Therefore the Palestinians have a greater weight on their shoulders to avenge their deaths by gaining the state and conditions they died in the fight for. However this also gives the Palestinians the greater desire for peace because as the conflict goes on they will continue to be the biggest losers in terms of civilian casualties. The Palestinians have also come to believe that Israel does not want peace, because of the provocative tactics employed by the IDF during ceasefires and negotiations. Like the West Bank arrest raids during the recent ceasefire, and the current operation in Nablus, which has dampened hopes of restarting the stalled peace process. Israel's failure to adhere to previous peace deals, like the settlement expansions contrary to the U.S. brokered roadmap agreement, reinforces the Palestinian view. As does the West Bank "security" wall Israel's government is building. Mainly because the Palestinians negotiations rely on the formation of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, in places the wall is well inside these borders. Palestinian Negotiations Minister Saib Uraiqat told Al Jazeera Mar. 2005: "This is a policy of dictation and not negotiation, this prejudges and prejudices the outcome of permanent status negotiations." This prevents the Palestinians from making any further concessions or compromise, because the concessions they have made in the past, --like the Palestine Liberation Organization's recognition of Israel-- have brought nothing in return. In their resistance lies their dignity, and their dignity is almost all they have left. The Israeli Perspective: The Israeli government has received heavy financial and military support from the U.S. throughout decades of conflict, they may well doubt whether this would continue if they were no longer under threat from Palestinian terror. Although the U.S. supports Israel because it is keen to keep an ally in a position of supremacy in the vital Middle East region, Israel being under threat certainly makes it easier to justify such heavy support to the U.S. public. The Israeli government also has strong remnants of the Zionist movement that was the driving force behind the creation of the Jewish state on the very land so symbolically important to the Jewish faith. As Israeli academic and author, Ilan Pape told me in a recent interview, "Israel is an unfinished project of statehood." The Zionists crave certain lands that they believe religious heritage has dictated for the final Jewish state, hence Israel's reluctance to define borders. To this end the conflict is necessary because it diverts attention from Zionist transgressions and because the Palestinian threat begets strong security measures, like occupying Palestinian land whenever necessary and the --desired land annexing-- security wall. These measures are also extremely provocative and fuel the vicious cycle of --necessary-- violence. The wall has been deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice. And the United Nations Security Council has tried many times to issue resolutions against the high civilian death toll of IDF operations, occupations and Israel's transgression of human rights laws, as well as taking measures to bring about Israel's adherence with past resolutions. The U.S. has used its veto almost every time to prevent the UNSC from condemning Israel's activities. Over the years the U.S.' unquestioning support for Israel has become engrained in the Washington psyche. The duration of the conflict has also allowed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to become one of the strongest lobbying groups in the U.S., its primary objective is ensuring continued U.S. support for Israel. Until Israel is held accountable for its actions, the Zionist element will remain strong and will continue to strive for its dream at the expense of peace and the Palestinian population. The threat that makes this possible is constantly manipulated to present fear for Israel's existence and to allow constant reminders of the holocaust and the guilt we should all feel, --especially the U.S.-- for failing to stop it. This aim was helped by the Hamas charter calling for the destruction of Israel, despite the fact that Hamas has never been close to having the means to achieve this aim. It is this manipulation that makes the Israeli population support its government's reluctance to compromise for peace. Because the fear of Palestinian terrorism is amplified so the Israeli population believes that giving them their own state would not stop the terror, and in fact the terror groups would continue to force the Israeli government to concede more and more land. This view was strengthened after the Gaza disengagement. Because the Israeli government evicted Jewish residents to allow for the withdrawal, in Israel it was seen as a significant concession by the government, but the terror continued. The terror continued because the Palestinians were still under the Israeli microscope, still had no control of their border and were still enduring flyovers and high decibel sonic booms from Israeli fighter jets, thought to cause pregnant women to miscarry. Thus Palestinians saw the disengagement as creating an open air prison and a propaganda tactic to strengthen support for Israel's government at their expense. It worked, like all similar tactics in the past; the disengagement strengthened the Israeli view, that their government wants only peace. The provocative actions over the years suggest the opposite. Needed for Peace: The Palestinians are equally guilty of allowing other issues to cloud their judgment and supersede their desire for peace. It is the Israeli government though that needs to take the first step. Until Israel puts Zionism back in its box --having served its purpose--, and makes some sort of compromise to counter the Palestinian views caused by the years of the cruel occupation and Zionist land grabs, there will be no compromise from the Palestinians. Until there is compromise from the Palestinians, especially over the right of return, which Israel cannot grant because it would end their Jewish status, there will be no final status agreements and no lasting peace. Israel won't take the first step until the international community starts holding it accountable for its actions, and this won't happen until the U.S. stops shielding it from the UNSC. This, if it ever happens will likely come in line with U.S. pressure on Israel to commit to achieving a lasting peace with the Palestinians, and perhaps a threat to withdraw support if they don't. This would put significant pressure on the Israeli government to commit to peace, but will only happen if U.S. interests in the region change drastically. If Israel committed unquestioningly to peace, after the initial doubts, it would undoubtedly trigger a similar commitment from the Palestinian population and government. Such a commitment from both sides is what is really needed to end this conflict.
Date: 21/02/2007
×
'A Brighter Palestinian Future'
The new Palestinian Authority (PA) unity government is being hailed as a great thing for Palestinians. I don't deny it is a step in the right direction but tough decisions, and hopefully negotiations lie ahead. If the right decisions aren't made by all parties involved it will not improve one thing in the occupied territories. Speaking to Israel's Haaretz daily, on condition of anonymity one Israeli official said: "The conditions have not been met. This is not something we can live with." The U.S. State Department reiterated its call that the new government must meet international demands. It is clear from recent U.S. and Israeli policies and their reactions to the new accord, that a serious change in Hamas' overtures will be needed if the unity government is to be treated differently than its predecessor. The reason for the hostility towards Hamas is their charter, calling among other things for the destruction of Israel. Despite the international siege since early last year they have continually refused to comply with the international community's demands to recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce violence and adhere to previous agreements made between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel. The unity accord makes no mention of recognizing Israel or renouncing violence. It only stipulates that Hamas will "respect" previous agreements made between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel. Abbas had held out for a commitment to adhere to previous agreements, but Hamas held firm and the wording was watered down. The watered down wording gave weight to the reactions from the U.S and Israel. The European Union said it would study the new administration “in a positive but cautious manner.” The Quartet, (the EU, Russia and the UN) has been pressuring the U.S for an end to the PA blockade for months. It remains to be seen whether the slight concession from Hamas, the first from them since they took power will allow the other Quartet members to sufficiently tighten the thumbscrews on the U.S. to end the blockade. It is almost certain the Arab states friendly to the Palestinians will make the most of the PA's achievement and use their leverage as a much needed Middle East ally for the U.S in stabilizing Iraq and ratcheting up the pressure on Iran's nuclear regime, to secure they can get some badly needed aid back into to PA. However, while an injection of aid from friendly Arab states will alleviate the Palestinian's plight, not least in allowing them to pay their employees a full salary for the first time since Hamas were elected. This will make things exponentially better for the workforce and the third of Palestinian families they take home the bacon to. The normalization of relations with Israel and the U.S. is what's really needed to bring PA life back to the Palestinian reality before Hamas were elected, which still isn't western life but it is a good jumping off point for a new push for a new peace process. This would include unfreezing bank's and accounts and releasing the $800 million dollars of withheld Palestinian tax revenues and an end to the measure. The new unity in the PA gives its parties the chance to attempt normalizing their relationships with each other and the international community. They badly need the international community on their side, or at least not against them if they expect Israel to come to the table with a serious offer for peace. What is also needed is the serious change in Hamas rhetoric towards Israel I mentioned, preferably in them accepting the three demands of the Quartet. I suspect that their "respecting" past agreements will be enough to satisfy the Quartet on that demand, at least until the negotiation stage. The other demands are the hardest for Hamas to accept, and in fact, what the U.S. fails to realize, or, like Israel, doesn't care about is that Hamas accepting the most crucial demand --Israel's right to exist-- will take away the unity government's credibility in the eyes of its members, and the population at large. Such an acceptance, to Palestinians would mean accepting that Israel had the right to expel Arabs in the 1948 war. Any negotiations would then risk being interrupted or at worst derailed by gunmen and/or armed wing members attacking each other or Israel. I have a solution. The new unity government accepts the demands and maintains credibility by watering down the wording and expanding on the stipulation. For instance: We, the PA unity government unconditionally recognize Israel's existence within the 67 borders, as stipulated by UN Security Council Resolution 242. The same can be done with the renounce violence demand: We the PA unity government make a declaration to completely renounce all forms of violence for a period of 6 months to allow preparations to be made for the full reinstatement of aid, unfreezing of accounts and return of withheld revenues in Israel and elsewhere it applies, and fresh negotiations with the starting point that adherence to Security Council Resolution 242 and the formation of a completely independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem according to the borders before the 1967 war, are a guarantee, regardless of the talks outcome. The ball is then well and truly shifted into Israel and the U.S' courts. UNSC Resolution 242 calls for the return of the above stated land, which was occupied by Israel after the 1967 war. There are arguments that Resolution 242 could be backed up with force as it is legally binding under article 25 of the UN charter on the grounds of its incorporation in UN Resolution 338, presented to the UNSC by the U.S and Russia to end the Yom Kippur war. The PA government could approach the UN about a reaffirmation of the resolution's demands for the Israeli/Palestine conflict. There has never been a better time for Palestinians to maintain a peace, because the U.S needs friends like it never did before. The friendly Arab states, the EU, Russia, and the UN Security Council are all necessary allies for cranking up diplomatic pressure on Iran. The U.S also needs its Arab allies in stabilizing Iraq and possibly for airspace and bases in the event of war with Iran. Israel has always said that its main objective is peace and it is willing to give land to achieve it, whereas the Arabs objective is land, Israel expects them to give peace to achieve it. With the Palestinians doing everything that was expected of them, the U.S and Israel's rhetoric and incessant peace overtures would back-fire on them. There would be no excuses left. The Palestinians would need to ensure that they resist the Israeli tactics that would undoubtedly ensue, like the West Bank arrest Raids and new settlement in the recent ceasefire. And the most recent "renovations" at Al Aqsa mosque, which led to violence after the unity government deal was reached. The clashes add further difficulty for a new government that will undoubtedly struggle to regain control after the fierce factional fighting of the last few months. These tactics are aimed at drawing the Palestinians into actions that would end Israel's uncomfortable predicament. If the PA could keep to its side of the bargain any reluctance by Israel --which there would undoubtedly be--, would be overruled by Iran's nuclear program being firmly number one on the U.S' agenda. Iran being such a U.S. priority is almost as much Israel's fault as anyone else's, vis-a-vis the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's influence in the current U.S administration. This would make it a double backfire when the U.S. applied pressure on Israel to give the Palestinians the talks they and the world community --badly needed allies-- would be shouting for. When talks commence the ball comes back into the Palestinians court on the basis of needing to compromise on other final status issues, such as the right of return. The Palestinians want refugees to return to the very land they were expelled from, after nearly 60 years this is impractical if not impossible for Israel to grant. I read about one Palestinian refugee who, if granted the right of return, would be building his house in the grounds of Jerusalem airport. Not to mention it would risk Israel becoming predominantly Arab, which would in turn further reduce the number of Jews immigrating to Israel under their Law of Return. Two things Israel will never risk. A suitable compromise may be accepting a limited right of return, whereby refugees could only return on the grounds that they take up land in the now formally and completely independent Palestinian state. Three generations after the "Nakba", many of the people expelled in the 1948 war of [Israeli] independence are no longer refugees. They or their descendants have made lives for themselves and their families elsewhere in the world and wouldn't want to return. The Palestinians clinging uncompromisingly to achieving this right in full is an unnecessary obstacle to peace. The other thing that would undoubtedly be a new sticking point in any such negotiations would be the separation wall Israel has almost completed. When complete it originally would have enclosed the West Bank, Palestinians complained because it is built inside the land that should become the independent Palestinian state. Since it started there have been extensions to the planned route taking even more land the Palestinians feel is rightly theirs. The wall has been ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice. The new pressure on Israel should also be taken advantage of by the Palestinians to achieve the tearing down of the wall, again, simply by maintaining the peace from their side. If they did this, despite Israel's delaying and provocative tactics, Israel would eventually have to face the inevitable: No security wall is needed with the PA adhering to its commitments and peacefully waiting for Israel to meet theirs. However reluctantly the U.S supported the PA, with theirs and the rest of the international community's support for the new, moderate and peaceful unity government, Israel would be left with nowhere to go. This might prove difficult, the longer Israel delayed meeting its commitments, and, based on previous initiatives that could be years of provocative actions, the more time the Palestinians would have, for one person or small group to revert to the habits of a lifetime. I'd like to hope the Palestinians would give the new unity government the respect they expect from the international community and that it would well and truly deserve for having the courage to compromise for a brighter Palestinian future.
Contact us
Rimawi Bldg, 3rd floor
14 Emil Touma Street, Al Massayef, Ramallah Postalcode P6058131
Mailing address:
P.O.Box 69647 Jerusalem
Palestine
972-2-298 9490/1 972-2-298 9492 info@miftah.org
All Rights Reserved © Copyright,MIFTAH 2023
Subscribe to MIFTAH's mailing list
|