The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is one in which the international
community has played, plays and will continue to play a determining
role. It is a conflict where the conventional wisdom - perhaps more
than experience shows - is that the parties left on their own to
negotiate will not bring about an end to conflict. The main reason
for this is the lopsided balance of power between the two parties.
For as long as the stronger party, Israel, is not willing to
compromise on its own accord, third parties are needed to even out
the negotiations.
This article seeks to provide an overview of the status of
international involvement as it stands today and as it should
develop in the future to help bring about peace. But if one
presumes international involvement is essential to bringing about
an end to conflict, one must take into account the level of
international involvement there has been in the past and understand
what role it has played in bringing about the catastrophic
situation that Palestinians live in today.
The question then becomes, what went wrong? What did the
international community do, or not do, that saw this situation
arise? How can it be remedied? Will it be remedied?
International Impotence
The clearest signal that we are moving away from, rather than
toward, a solution is Israel's continued settlement activity and
its recent variant, the separation wall. That activity represents
one of the international community's biggest failures and is almost
a case study in international impotence.
Israel's settlement policy dates back to immediately after the
occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967. It was the
single most obvious signal of intent as to Israeli plans for the
future of the Occupied Territories. It is also one of the most
blatantly illegal acts according to international law. The policy,
it is worth bearing in mind, has been pursued by all Israeli
governments since the occupation without fail, including the 1992
government of Yitzhak Rabin. Indeed, the greatest portent of Oslo's
failure was the doubling in the number of settlements that took
place in the immediate aftermath of the signing of the Declaration
of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993.
All signatories to the Geneva Conventions, including Israel, are
bound by these strictures in their conduct as nation-states, and
the Geneva Conventions are as unequivocal about the illegality of
the acquisition of territory in war as they are about the
illegality of an occupying power acting to "deport or transfer
parts of its own civilian population into the territory it
occupies."
Despite this, and despite the consistent condemnation by the
international community of the settlement policy, settlement
building has only accelerated over the years and now finds a new
form in the separation wall. Beyond the impact the wall has on
local populations, it is routed in such away that can only mean a
land grab.
Attrition and Ineffectiveness
What, then, is one to make of the international community's efforts
in the regard?
That the settlement issue is recognized as crucial by the
international community is evident from the fact that in all
formulas for ending the conflict - from UN resolutions to the Oslo
Accords, from the Mitchell Report to the Quartet's Road Map - there
has been a call, in one way or another, for a halt or freeze to all
settlement activities. Yet, Israel has continued apace and the
international community has not been successful in applying
pressure on the Israeli government to stop. In fact, over time, the
international community's position on settlements has even suffered
from attrition, something especially true in the case of the United
States, the most important international player.
The initial position of the U.S. was that settlements are illegal,
in line with international law, and an obstacle to peace. But
during the Madrid negotiations and later evident in the Oslo
Accords, that position changed somewhat to one of settlements being
an issue for final status negotiations and thus something to be
bargained over. Finally, and recently, during Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon's fateful visit to Washington in April, 2004, the settlement
issue was once again reassessed as part of the "reality" that must
be taken into account during final status negotiations, and U.S.
President George Bush even took to describing them as "population
centers."
While the European position has been more consistent, one must
measure things by their outcome. The EU is Israel's biggest trading
partner. If the EU was serious in its position on illegal Israeli
settlements in occupied territory, one would have thought that it
would have used this most potent weapon to apply pressure on
Israel, much as pressure was applied on the South African regime
during the Apartheid era. But nothing has happened. Even a
relatively simple issue, such as an academic boycott on Israeli
universities, after the Israeli government started closing down
Palestinian universities, never transpired, beyond a few
universities here and there.
Unacceptable Unilateralism
Such international reluctance to enforce its own principled stance
regarding settlements and to apply real pressure on Israel has led
directly to where we are today. The only thing on the table, in
terms of negotiations, is the Quartet-sponsored Road Map of April
2003 and its accompanying UN Security Council Resolution 1397. The
Road Map, Israel's 14 reservations notwithstanding, was accepted by
all, but enforced by none. As a result, we are now left with
Sharon's unilateral plan for Gaza.
Whatever the details of Sharon's plan, unilateralism is simply not
an answer, unless it involves the reversal, fully and finally, of
the occupation of Palestinian territory. Any attempt by one party
to impose a solution contrary to UN resolutions or to preempt the
implementation of these resolutions can only backfire.
As it stands, the plan's contours will not amount to a real
withdrawal. While Gaza settlements, allegedly, are slated for
evacuation, nothing real can come of it if the Gaza Strip remains a
large prison, i.e., if Israel maintains control over its air and
water space, as well as the border with Egypt, and reserves for
itself the right to enter the Strip militarily, at will.
In addition, it has long been recognized by various international
bodies, including the EU, the UN and the World Bank, that no end to
conflict can be achieved with the economic pressure that
Palestinians live under in the current situation. It is also
recognized that donations and handouts alone simply will not
correct such a situation, that for a Palestinian economy to
establish itself and grow, simple things are a prerequisite,
including the free flow of goods and people within the Palestinian
territory and over its borders, as well as freedom from incursions
and bombardments. As long as the Israeli occupation continues, no
Palestinian economy can grow, no infrastructure can develop, and no
horizon can be created for building peaceful relations between the
two peoples. This applies to the Gaza Strip right now in the
context of Sharon's plan, and the West Bank and any future
Palestinian state equally.
Furthermore, while talk has been focused on what may or may not
happen in the Gaza Strip, the construction of the separation wall
continues apace in the West Bank - the most recent Israeli effort
to preclude any settlement based on 1967 borders. And it was in
this context that Sharon's April meeting with Bush was so fateful.
With his Gaza withdrawal plan warmly received by the U.S.
administration, Sharon at the same time garnered the necessary
guarantees to shore up the illegal settlements in the West Bank,
and preclude a right of return of Palestinian refugees, the two
most important issues for an end to conflict. All of this was done
without any consultation with the Palestinian side, and constitutes
the most blatant attempt by Israel to impose a solution in overt
collusion with the U.S. administration.
Again, one must chance every opportunity. As long as the
international community is unwilling to enforce the Road Map, the
Gaza withdrawal plan offers the only prospect of change on the
table. It is in this context, I believe, that we should see the
current Egyptian involvement, an involvement I can only assume is
aimed at placing Sharon's plan in the context of the Road Map and
ensuring that any withdrawal from Gaza is a real withdrawal.
If the Gaza withdrawal plan can be placed within the context of the
Road Map - and this can only be done if at the same time the
construction of the separation wall is stopped; there is a
withdrawal of Israeli forces to pre-September 2000 position; a
meaningful withdrawal from Area C; and a real end to the occupation
of the Gaza Strip - then a horizon may be provided to people that
real progress is in the cards.
Prospect for Meaningful Engagement
The Road Map does represent progress of sorts. While in the past,
we were pressed to go into negotiations without any clear outline
of an outcome, the Road Map recognizes certain parameters for a
solution; that is, a Palestinian state along the1967 borders.
Having defined an outcome, the question of negotiations becomes how
to get there. But the lack of enforcement of the Road Map has
unfortunately not allowed any such negotiations to take
place.
Whereas UN General Assembly Resolution 181 provides the only
legally defined borders of Israel, UN Security Council Resolution
242, stressing the principle of the inadmissibility of the
acquisition of territory in war and implying a Palestinian state
along the 1949 armistice lines, has been accepted by the
Palestinian side as a meaningful framework for a solution. Under no
circumstances can, or will any elected Palestinian leadership
accept changes to these lines that are not mutually agreed upon and
without a land swap on a one-to-one basis, meaning as much, and as
good quality, land if any deviation is to be accepted. The fact
that the Palestinian leadership is willing to negotiate minor
changes to the 1967 armistice lines, however, should in no way be
construed as an acceptance, implicit or otherwise, of the illegal
settlements. Any such land swap can only be done in the context of
two sovereign entities trying to work out border issues to the
benefit and in the interests of both parties.
Indeed, the Palestinian stance on all major issues, from refugees
to settlements to borders, has been consistent ever since the PLO
adopted the two-state solution. That position lies squarely within
the parameters of international law and is neither particularly
controversial nor particularly impractical. Yet this very pragmatic
stance has time and again been ignored by the Israeli side,
unfettered by the international community, and unshackled by any
balance of power vis-à-vis the Palestinian side. Thus, a
debilitating status quo has been created, whereby the powerful is
unwilling to negotiate on any reasonable premises, and the weak is
steadfast in standing for its inalienable rights.
It is, therefore, the international community's responsibility to
live up to its obligations and enforce international law. The high
contracting parties, signatories of the Fourth Geneva Convention,
must not only respect the articles of the convention, but must also
ensure respect thereof. What does not seem to be well understood by
the international community is that, on the Palestinian side, the
peace camp is the PLO/PNA. It is in Israel that the peace camp is
marginalized. This is disastrous for both peoples. As long as only
Palestinians are asked to make compromises, no solution will be
reached. Considering the compromises already made on the
Palestinian side, it is Israel that needs to make "compromises,"
i.e., live up to its obligations under international law. If, as is
the present case, with the Israeli peace camp marginalized, Israel
is not willing to do so on its own accord, it is up to the
international community to compel Israel to do so.
It is unfortunate in this context, therefore, that the U.S. appears
to be moving in exactly the opposite direction. It is equally
unfortunate that the EU appears unwilling to stand up to the U.S.
It is inarguable that this willful international torpor will serve
only to prolong the conflict. It would be foolishly optimistic for
any Palestinian to believe that, given all that has taken place in
the past, with the same international reluctance to confront
Israel, this should change any time soon.
Times do change, however. The world is rapidly becoming an unsafe
place. There is terrorism from Bali to Spain. Those who wish to
bury their heads in the sand, to not see a connection between the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict and that violence, are welcome to seek
explanations from biology and wheel out 19th century European
racist ideas in defense of their ignorance. For others not so
willfully blind, the time has come to ask the question: How long
will the international community allow its own laws and strictures
to be flouted blatantly and in abandon by Israel, creating the lack
of confidence in the international order that we see today? It is
exactly that lack of confidence that enables those who wish to take
advantage of the disempowered to do so in the most extreme of
manners.
<