In spite of statements made by the Israeli government that it is
ready to return to the political track and resume efforts to
achieve a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
Israel's ongoing military operations in the Palestinian Occupied
Territories undermine the possibility of any such return to talks.
The situation has deteriorated significantly since the beginning of
the Al-Aqsa Intifada on September 28, 2000, with both sides blaming
each other for the failure to end the bloodshed and return to
peaceful negotiations. Both sides are hostage to a vicious circle
of violence and counter violence, and as a result, some argue that
it is no longer possible to revive the peace process.
Following the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, Israel adopted a
policy of targeted assassinations against Palestinian activists,
using F-16 fighter planes, Cobra and Apache helicopters, tanks,
armored personnel carriers and the full weight of its military
might. Almost every time a Palestinian activist was killed, his
comrades vowed revenge and so the violence spiraled. At the same
time, Israel escalated its repressive measures against the
Palestinians by imposing closures, curfews and checkpoints,
gradually isolating Palestinian residential areas from one another,
and finally, invading and reoccupying parts of Area A, which had
previously been under full Palestinian control. Today, the entire
West Bank is under full occupation, along with parts of the Gaza
Strip.
Now, after more than two years of violence, the situation seems
more complicated than ever before. The mutual hatred and suspicion
on both sides have grown out of all proportion, and the task of
rebuilding confidence seems much more difficult than that of
building confidence.
Can violence, terror, military attacks, collective punishment and
targeted assassinations resolve this conflict? The answer must be
no. Israel is keeping more than three and a half million
Palestinians under tremendous pressure, aiming to break their will
and force them to surrender to the law of occupation and military
defeat. Each village, refugee camp, town and city has become a
closed jail for its inhabitants, the largest prisons and detention
camps in the world.
The economy is on its knees. Unemployment is running at over 40
percent in the West Bank, and is as high as 60 percent in the Gaza
Strip. The mood on the street is one of frustration, depression and
despair, creating the perfect breeding ground for radicalism,
extremism and further violence. And instead of releasing the
pressure from the cooker, Israel is increasing it.
Israeli leaders accuse the Palestinian Authority of being
responsible for the outbreak of violence, and are determined to
punish the PA until the terror attacks stop. This approach has
achieved the opposite result. Israel is progressively weakening its
partner while insisting that it carry out its job. The war against
the PA has seen Israel destroy all aspects of Palestinian life and
infrastructure including roads, administrative offices, the
security forces, information and statistics. It has totally
devastated the economy. Even the credibility of national
institutions such as the Palestinian Legislative Council, the
President and the security forces has been severely damaged.
This doesn't mean that the Israelis are not suffering. The suicide
attacks inside Israel have caused the loss of many lives, led to a
feeling of domestic insecurity and damaged the Israeli economy,
especially tourism. These attacks, and all others on innocent
civilians, are, of course, condemned by the PA.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government is not offering any
political option to the Palestinian people, who are left with the
feeling that they are being pushed into a corner, and the only
remaining option for them is to fight back desperately and by any
means possible. The assassinations carried out by Israel against
Palestinian activists, described as "targeted killings", have also
claimed many innocent victims, a fact seen by many Palestinians as
a justification for more attacks on Israeli civilians.
Reforming the PA
There is increasing debate on both sides about where to go from
here. Serious discussions inside the PA began immediately after
Israel lifted the siege on President Yasser Arafat's Ramallah
compound in April 2002. The Cabinet asked President Arafat to
accept its resignation and although initially he refused, he
eventually agreed and formed a new government - which was later
forced to resign to avoid a vote of no confidence by the
Legislative Council.
This is the first time that the Palestinian Parliament has forced a
government to resign. The message was clear - we want real change
and reform. President Arafat was given two weeks to form a new
government - but a few days later Prime Minister Sharon renewed the
siege on his Al-Moqata'a compound in Ramallah, reducing most of it
to rubble.
Many observers believe that Sharon is not interested in seeing any
reform in the Palestinian Authority. He has carried out a
well-organized campaign to discredit Arafat and the PA,
de-legitimizing them on his way to 'liquidate' them. Any real
reform in the PA will help Arafat restore his legitimacy and
credibility and Sharon has no interest in that; on the contrary, it
would undermine his plans to get rid of his old enemy Yasser
Arafat, as well as the PA, and everything else resulting from the
Oslo process which he opposed from the beginning. There is a real
fear that Sharon will try to exploit the opportunity provided by US
President George W Bush's preparations for a war against Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein, to rid himself of Yasser Arafat and the
legacy of Oslo.
The demand for reform within the PA came from the Palestinians
themselves, in a bid to bring an end to the present state of crisis
and improve living conditions for the Palestinian people. Calls for
reform began as early as 1997, following the publication of the PA
comptroller's report which revealed corruption and mismanagement in
several PA offices. Re-establishing order within the Palestinian
territories, by reorganizing the security forces and reforming the
judicial system, became a top priority. Lack of adequate job
descriptions in the security forces had led to duplication of work,
internal rivalries, and unnecessary intervention in people's daily
lives. Corruption was an inevitable result and provoked a number of
complaints. Some members of these forces also found it difficult to
make the mental transfer from being members of the resistance to
being security officers fighting violence to protect the peace
process and cooperating with the Israeli security forces, not as
"collaborators", but as partners.
Rebuilding the destroyed judicial system, enforcing the rule of law
and building a civil society are top Palestinian national
priorities. Elections for the Legislative Council are vital to
monitor and follow up implementation of the reform plan.
A far-reaching debate is also taking place within Palestinian
political and intellectual circles about the damage caused to
Palestinian national interests by suicide attacks against Israeli
civilians. Who is responsible for turning the peaceful, non-violent
Intifada into an armed one? What should be done to restore the
human image of the Intifada and stop the violence? What could be
done to revive cooperation with the Israeli peace camp?
Unilateral Separation
On the Israeli side, a different debate appears to be taking place.
The main issues now are security, and whether or not the
Palestinians are a peace partner. The right wing argues that there
is no Palestinian partner for peace negotiations to justify
continuing military activities against them. This argument has
generated different beliefs within Israeli society over which
direction to take now. Some believe this conflict has no solution
and will continue forever. They claim that there is only room for
one people on the west bank of the River Jordan - the Jewish people
- while the Palestinians should be transferred to Jordan. Others
believe that the peace process could be revived, if not now, then
maybe sometime in the future. Both support the idea of
disengagement from the Palestinians, although the method may
differ. The slogan has become, "We are here and they are there"
with where exactly 'there' might be open to various
interpretations.
When the idea of transferring the Palestinians across the river to
Jordan was raised 20 years ago, it was rejected by the Israeli
public as a racist ideology to be condemned out of hand. Even
Rehavam Ze'evi, who advocated this ideology, claimed that he didn't
mean transfer by force. He argued that Israel should encourage the
Palestinians to leave of their own volition, or create conditions
that might encourage them to leave. Are the conditions created by
Israel these days in the Palestinian territories, those required to
"encourage" the Palestinians to willingly transfer themselves? And
if they will not do that, how far is Israel willing to go? The word
"transfer" is becoming legitimate in Israeli discussions these
days, as is the ideology itself. It is no longer taboo and is now
being discussed publicly, without any of the embarrassment
previously felt.
"We are here and they are there" has inspired another politically
dangerous idea in Israeli society: unilateral separation. Those who
support this option argue that the Intifada and its vicious circle
of violence, coupled with the lack of courageous leadership on
either side, has destroyed any chance of resuming peace talks. The
only way forward is an Israeli-imposed unilateral separation.
Israel will keep its forces and settlements in the Jordan Valley,
dismantle the tiny isolated settlements in the West Bank,
concentrating Jewish settlement in blocks east of the Green Line,
and draw a 'temporary' security border until the time comes when
Israel can find a partner with whom it can negotiate a peace
settlement. The Israeli Council for Peace and Security (ICPS),
which consists largely of high-ranking former military officers,
has been a prominent proponent of this idea. It was also raised by
MK Haim Ramon, a leader of the Labor Party, independently of the
ICPS.
From a Palestinian perspective this approach is totally abhorrent,
given that it creates a de facto annexation of wide areas of the
West Bank, unilaterally and without negotiation. Dismantling tiny
isolated Jewish settlements from the West Bank could be interpreted
by the international community as Israel withdrawing totally and
dismantling all settlements. At the same time, Israel is giving the
impression to its own people that settling in the area between the
Green Line and the new so-called security borders on the east side
of the Green Line is safe, secure and legitimate. New facts will be
created there, which will be a real obstacle to any future
withdrawal.
Furthermore, the Palestinian community will interpret this
unilateral separation, combined with Israel's continued control of
the Jordan Valley, as a final settlement imposed by Israel. As
such, these annexed areas will become a "legitimate" target for
Palestinian attacks, further complicating the situation and
destroying any chance for peace negotiations and compromise. It
will be seen as surrendering in despair rather than struggling for
peace.
A Possible Peace
I believe that peace is not a lost cause. The Palestinians would be
willing to return to peaceful negotiations if a real and sincere
attempt were made to calm the current situation and map out a clear
vision of future relations between the two peoples. The vision is
that which President Bush presented in his June 2002 speech: two
states for two peoples, living side by side in peace and harmony,
Israel and Palestine.
It is unfair to claim that the PA has not done its share to make
peace possible. Throughout 1995 and the first half of 1996, Israel
was hit by a wave of suicide attacks. The PA made a tremendous
effort to halt them, and the result was clear; between June 1996
and the end of 2000 there were almost no terror attacks in Israel.
The PA succeeded in marginalizing all radical and fundamental
elements. There were confrontations, arrests and dialogue, but in
the end there was calm.
What did Israel offer the Palestinians in return? An intensive
campaign of building and expanding Jewish settlements in the
Palestinian Territories and constructing by-pass roads to integrate
the Jewish settlements with Israel. The number of settlements
doubled. The process of transferring land and authorities to the PA
under the terms of the Oslo agreement was interrupted, then
partially implemented by Benjamin Netanyahu's government, before
being totally frozen by Ehud Barak's. But over this five-year
period, the PA respected its obligations and prevented any attacks
on Israel, waiting for a solution to be achieved through the
mediation of the US administration.
Looking back at that period, we find that the US was deeply
involved in efforts to find a political solution to the conflict.
This gave the Palestinians hope that Israeli settlement building
was temporary and that a solution was close at hand. Active
American involvement helped contain the situation, enabling both
sides to focus concurrently on security and political
negotiations.
Re-establishing Normal Life
Life for the Palestinians is now nothing short of hell. An entire
population is being humiliated, imprisoned and collectively
punished, living in a climate conducive only to desperate acts of
retaliation. Altering this climate will help to isolate extremists,
allowing people to return to work and rebuild their lives.
Relieving the pressure on these people will enable the reform
process to continue at all levels. Three factors - joint peace
making efforts, a return to normal life and a reformed PA - will
not just improve life for the Palestinian people, but will bring
security to the Israelis too.
Israel has reoccupied all areas which had been under full
Palestinian control prior to September 2000. Without a full
withdrawal from there, there will be no chance to progress with
reforms in the PA or to restart peace-making efforts. Israel claims
that keeping its forces in these areas prevents suicide attacks.
This is simply not true - on the contrary, it is precisely the
present desperate situation in the Palestinian territories and the
lack of a political option that provokes such attacks. It has been
proven that the Israeli pre-condition of stopping violence in order
to go back to the peace process is not only unrealistic, but is in
fact a recipe for continuing violence. The last few weeks have
shown that suicide attackers are still able to get to major cities
inside Israel even with Israeli forces occupying the Palestinian
areas.
Withdrawal to pre-28 September, 2000 lines will help alleviate the
climate of frustration and anger in the Palestinian territories and
facilitate a return to normal life. Rebuilding the destroyed
Palestinian economy, reforming institutions and improving the
situation on the ground must be done at the same time that serious
attempts are made to achieve and maintain a ceasefire. The aim now
should be an Israeli withdrawal to these lines, accompanied by
measures to rebuild the Palestinian Security Forces, reviving
cooperation between them and their Israeli counterparts to maintain
security and halt the violence.
Steps to achieve this should be taken mutually, concurrently and
within a limited timeframe outlined in an action plan. All this
should be linked to similar political steps to revive the momentum
of the peace process. If these steps are successful, they must be
followed by a determined effort to conclude a peace agreement
between the parties, sponsored by the Quartet, (the US, Russia, the
EU and the UN) and the international community, with a clear
commitment and guarantee that it be implemented within a specific
timetable and following pre-defined guidelines. Such an agreement
should be the outcome of an international peace conference, a
substantial, not ceremonial, one with working parties and
quantifiable results. I am quite sure that thorny issues such as
Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees could be solved within the
framework of a comprehensive package deal.
The US had committed itself to the creation of a Palestinian State,
through its support for UN Security Council Resolution 1397 and
President Bush's June 2002 speech. The provisional state proposed
recently by the Quartet may return us to an open ended interim
period, which could lead to further violence and a deepening lack
of stability within the region. Any country without clearly defined
borders is not a proper nation. And any peace plan without a road
map and an international commitment to implement it, will lead
nowhere. A Palestinian-Israeli peace would not be the end of the
road. A comprehensive settlement with Syria and Lebanon would
reinforce that peace and finally achieve stability in the
region.
Israel has tried using its huge military machine to apply the worst
kinds of state terror and suppression against the Palestinian
people, but still it could not achieve peace or security for its
people. Both sides have paid a very painful price in this conflict.
It's time to say enough is enough and switch to the track of
political negotiations, moving to resolve the conflict peacefully.
The US carries a large responsibility to bring the two parties back
to the process of making peace rather than making war.