|
||||
About the present difficulties of Israeli-Palestinian Peace negotiations
In spite of the optimistic reports emanating from the media about progress of negotiations on the Palestinian Israeli track, a sober assessment of the present course of Peace talks is needed if we want to have a clear vision of the obstacles ahead of us and of the tasks before us and before our friends throughout the world in the long and difficult path to put an end to a century-old conflict. The first obstacle is the Israeli refusal to implement the remaining, and as yet still not carried out elements of the signed interim agreements: the third redeployment, which, according to Oslo and all the subsequent agreements, should include the totality of the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967, at the exception of the issues discussed within the framework of the permanent status talks - settlements, Jerusalem, borders and specified military sites; the operation of the northern "Safe Passage"; the release of Palestinian political prisoners, and the return of the Palestinians displaced as a result of the 1967 war. Without tangible and visible progress on the ground concerning these issues, it is practically impossible for the Palestinian leadership to engage seriously in permanent status negotiations. If the Israeli signature on signed agreements cannot be respected, how can Palestinians work out a permanent agreement with a partner who does not carry out its own commitments ? How can the process as a whole retain any credibility at the eyes of the Palestinian people, already frustrated and angered at the continued onslaught of settlement colonization, land confiscation, road building, house demolitions, and constantly exposed to the public Israeli claims of annexation, denial of Palestinian rights and military threats ? Implementation of the Interim agreements (Oslo-Cairo-Taba-Washington-Hebron-Wye River-Sharm-El Sheikh) has become an indispensable confidence-restoring measure, without which no substantial progress can be envisioned on other tracks. On the key issues of permanent status, the gap between the positions of the parties is still immense. True, reports and press leaks on the negotiations suggest that important progress has been achieved on the territorial dimension: The Israeli demand to annex Palestinian territory has been reduced from 35% to 10 %, which is still not acceptable, but demonstrates that the Israeli government can be made to budge on this matter, and that with sufficient efforts - and help from our friends - a satisfactory formula, built on the concept of land swaps, could be elaborated. Some progress has also been noticeable in the Israeli discourse on the Jordan Valley and on the Southern and Eastern border of the Palestinian State, and Israeli media are today openly evoking the possibility that part of the settlements would be dismantled, or remain under Palestinian sovereignty. Of course, this is accompanied by an unacceptable demand to annex "settlement clusters" to Israeli territory. But it also shows that it is possible to dismantle settlements, a very important step forward in the proper direction. Unfortunately, all these openings have until now remain oral, tentative, and totally unbinding. Not a single written Israeli proposal has been submitted so far, which means that the whole megotiating process remains so far virtual and immaterial. Moreover, the Israeli prime minister has recently sent alarming messages whereby his negotiating team has no mandate to conclude, or even propose anything, and that everything should be negotiated directly within the framework of a tripartite American-Israeli-Palestinian Summit meeting in the US. But, gravest of all, the Israeli position on the two core-issues of Jerusalem and Refugees remains unaltered, and totally incompatible with the minimum requirements of an accord which is supposed to put an end to the historical conflict between the two peoples. Without restoring Palestinian, Arab, Islamic and Christian sovereignty over the Holy City, there can be no agreement, no peace and no reconciliation. East Jerusalem is occupied territory, its annexation and the unilateral expansion of its municipal borders are illegal, and the discrimination and ethnic cleansing policies of the Israeli government in occupied Arab East-Jerusalem are the concrete expressions of this illegitimacy. Only after Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem is effectively restored can we start to envision practical urban solutions which will allow the city to remain physically undivided. But no Palestinian leadership can ever agree to relinquish Palestinian rights in Jerusalem, and the lack of motion in the Israeli stand on this issue does not encourage optimism as to the final outcome of the ongoing negotiations. Without solemnly recognizing, and effectively allowing, the return of Palestinian refugees to the territory from which they were expelled by force in 1948, and without a fair solution to the question of compensation for absentee property, it will be impossible to defuse the historical root-cause of the conflict. The Israeli rejection of the internationally recognized right of return of Palestinian refugees, indeed, the very official denial of Israeli historical responsibility in the creation of the refugee problem keep on shutting the door to the option of historical reconciliation, and jeopardize the very possibility of reaching a global Palestinian-Israeli Peace Treaty. The insistence on reducing the issue to a humanitarian one, whereby Israel would, at its own convenience, allow a small number of refugees under the Family Reunification scheme, does not allow for much optimism on this crucial matter. For here again, it must be very clear to all that no Palestinian leadership can ever forfeit Refugee rights in exchange for whatever percentage of Palestinian territory. On September 13th - tomorrow - the Interim period will end, the interim agreements will lose their binding character, and we will enter a totally new legal and political framework. Hopefully, the huge gaps mentioned above will be bridged by then, and the "sovereign, peaceful, democratic and viable State of Palestine" called for by the European Union Berlin Declaration will emerge together with a comprehensive peace agreement, opening a new era for the peoples of this area. But if this does not happen, we will proclaim, as it is our inalienable and universally acknowledged right, our sovereignty on our territory; and it is as an independent, and partially occupied, state that we shall continue to negotiate the full recovery of our land and the full restoration of the rights of our people. This, however, must be understood for what it is, a contribution to peace and an act of faith in the future, and the contrary of a threat. For Peace remains our strategic option, irrespective of the ups and downs, and the pains and pangs of the present negotiations. July 1st, 2000.
|
||||
The Editor |
