The
peace process between the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships has lain dormant
and dysfunctional for years now, but Professor Alan Dershowitz, a staunch
supporter of Israel, has recently proposed a plan meant to break the deadlock between
the two parties.[1]
Dershowitz’s plan to resume negotiations, however, is rife with Israeli
advantages that play into the current weaknesses of the Palestinian leadership.
Palestinian negotiators have demanded that Israel halt all settlement activities
before they will once again return to the negotiating table. Conversely, Israel
rejects any preconditions to negotiations and refuses to halt the continued
expansion of what are recognized around the world as illegal settlements.[2]
Thus
Dershowitz has a plan that proposes that negotiations begin without
preconditions, as the current Israeli government demands, where the two parties
will immediately agree on the status of three types of areas: in the first type
of area, Dershowitz explains, are areas that everyone knows will be a part of
Palestine (main urban centers like Ramallah and Jericho that are populated
exclusively by Palestinians) where illegal Israeli construction will stop; in
the second type, areas that “will definitely remain part of Israel after any
peace agreement,” (which Dershowitz identifies explicitly as “areas contiguous
to greater Jerusalem”) construction will continue; finally, in all other areas
that remain, using Dershowitz’s jargon, “disputed” there will be a temporary
freeze of illegal Israeli construction. Only
days ago, these “disputed” areas were among the sites that Netanyahu announced
a further expansion of settlements, though the lion’s share of these new
illegal structures are targeted at East Jerusalem, further galvanizing Israel’s
claim to “greater Jerusalem” (re: an undivided, Israeli Jerusalem).[3] Dershowitz
explains that at the end of this process, both sides will get what they want, a
resumption of negotiations and a freeze in settlements.
However
there are several problems with this plan, a plan that Mahmoud Abbas has
apparently already agreed to. The most glaring of these problems is that it
pre-empts the status of Jerusalem, once an issue deferred to final status talks
that would now be conceded by Palestinians to Israel’s successful—albeit
criminal—campaign of expansion. Moreover the “freeze” of illegal settlement
construction elsewhere in the occupied Palestinian territories is offered as a
prize to Palestinians rather than the proper, legal course of action that it ought
to be for the government of Israel.
That
under this framework negotiations begin with a Palestinian concession is a
fairly clear signal: Israel expects more concessions and is ready impose more
still. Dershowitz went on to suggest that the resumption of negotiations was
the only remaining obstacle, explaining that “Everyone knows what a negotiated
peace would look like.” Dershowitz describes the apparently self-evident
conclusion to the long, tortuous peace process with several points whose sum
amount to a troublesome future for any Palestinian state:
- The borders will be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed upon land swaps. Dershowitz however fails to complicate just how “mutual” any such agreement may be, given the fragile nature of Abbas’ legitimacy. Abbas was due for re-election in January 2009, but the elections were postponed indefinitely, ostensibly due to the schism between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. In any event, Dershowitz’s previous criteria that divide occupied Palestine by its relationship to Israel’s expansionist goals have transgressed the 1967 lines resulting in a de-facto annexation of Jerusalem.
- Palestine will exist as a “demilitarized” state. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vision of this concept was spelled out in a speech he gave from Bar-Ilan University in 2009. Netanyahu elaborated, saying that this meant that Palestine would have no control of airspace, no right to make treaties with other nations, and no right to form and maintain army. The first stipulation seems like quite a breach of sovereignty, though one that is relatively minor in comparison with the following two tenets of “demilitarization” that leaves Palestine implicitly dependent on Israel for continued security and protection.
- Israel will retain a military presence in the Jordan Valley. This is another point of contention that has recently manifested earlier this year during talks hosted by King Abdullah in Jordan. Israeli officials have for years claimed that a permanent presence in the Jordan Valley was necessary to protect Israel, however Israeli negotiator Isaac Molho explained that Israel was now seeking a long-term presence.[4] Since Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967, Israel has built not just military bases in the Jordan Valley, but also illegal civilian settlements. In Al Aqaba alone the population has been reduced from approximately 2000 inhabitants in 1967 to less than 300 today.[5] To this day, the Israeli army carries out demolition orders on civilian structures from tents to water containers, claiming that such structures are built without the proper permits, though the permits remain difficult to obtain. The status of the Jordan Valley has additional effects on the remainder of the West Bank however. Due to the presence of military installations and illegal settlements, there are numerous Israeli-only roads that cut across the West Bank that Palestinians have no access to. This means that the Palestinians are forced to accept infrastructure in their areas that they are forbidden from using, while they are resigned to building new infrastructure to circumvent the Israeli-only network. Additionally the Jordan Valley holds large amounts of water resources that the Oxfam International estimates could generate an additional $1 billion per annum for the Palestinian economy.[6] As of today, most of these resources go to Israel and to Israeli settlements.
- There will be a “realistic resolution of the Jerusalem issue.” We can only infer from Dershowitz’s proposal that East Jerusalem would be remain under Israel’s sovereignty. The illegal settlements that surround East Jerusalem, according to Dershowitz, belong to Israel and the Palestinians should simply accept this. This amounts to a demand that Palestinians accept Israel’s expansionism and colonialism as legitimate, and discard the reality that Israel’s settlements anywhere beyond the green line, including in East Jerusalem, are illegal. However, we may return to Abbas and the Palestinian negotiators concessions that have already been issued with regard to Jerusalem. During the 2009 talks, as revealed by the Palestine Papers, the Palestinian leadership offered Israel all of Jerusalem—much to the ire of the Palestinian population—save for Abu Dis, a heavily populated Palestinian neighborhood.[7] This offer was rejected by the Israeli negotiators as well as the supposedly neutral mediator of Condoleezza Rice, who, confronted with Palestinian firmness on the neighborhood of Abu Dis, replied, “Then you won’t have a state!” A “realistic resolution of the Jerusalem issue” ought to be reasonable as well. Israel’s negotiators historically have obstinately refused the idea of dividing Jerusalem, even in the face of drastic and unpopular concessions on the part of the Palestinian leadership. Dershowitz’s proposal for the start of negotiations (as well as the subsequent forecast to their end) only serves to reinforce this stubbornness
- Palestinians will abandon what Dershowitz dismisses as “the so-called Right of Return.” Just last week Abbas hinted that the Right of Return was being drastically revised by the Palestinian leadership—again to the consternation of the Palestinian population, both in the territories as well as abroad in refugee camps and elsewhere. However, due to popular dissatisfaction Abbas quickly backtracked on the comments.[8] In any event, the right of return, according to Human Rights Watch, is an individual right, not a collective right that can be conceded by any one leader.[9] The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research conducted a poll in 2003 that suggested that the overwhelming majority of Palestinian refugees would prefer to remain in either a newly created Palestinian state or their current country of residence.[10] However, it is still imperative that Israel (and apparently Abbas) recognize the Right of Return, as those who do not wish to return to Israel are still entitled to compensation. This compensation would be costly (estimated at approximately $100 billion, funded by the international community), but as David Gardner writes, this sum “will prove a lot cheaper than the alternative: a beleaguered Israel ringed by dozens of camps, desperate huddles of misery so cut off from any hope of a decent future they will become the new universities of Jihad. No Israeli wall will be proof against that.”[11] In short, the price of peace will inevitably be cheaper than the cost of continued violent confrontation and enmity.
- Finally, Gaza will be discarded as a lost cause in any negotiations. This is, perhaps, one of the more egregious of Dershowitz’s profanities. The situation in Gaza was rapidly deteriorating following the blockade on the tiny strip of land (approximately 2% of historic Palestine) after Hamas’s 2006 electoral victory, and the situation became dire following Hamas’ successful defense against Fatah’s disastrous 2007 attempted coup. The destruction visited upon Gaza’s civilian infrastructure during the December-January 2008-2009 Israeli assault resulted in what was largely recognized (though not by the American or Israeli governments) as a humanitarian catastrophe. Following a recent visit to Gaza by famed public intellectual Noam Chomsky, he described the situation with language similar to others, declaring that Gaza is “the world’s largest open-air prison.”[12] Israel has met any attempts at a political reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas with predictable threats, thus preventing real progress on ameliorating the situation in Gaza. Under such conditions no reasonable, informed mind can think that Hamas will be made more likely to cooperate and submit to Israeli power. Dershowitz implies that unless Hamas recognizes “Israel’s right to exist,” the situation in there will remain the status quo, but while Hamas has a history of obfuscating this demand there is an opportunity for negotiations and diplomacy to resolve this issue. The militant group has insisted in the past that it would accept a two-state solution in which recognition is implicit, while at other times Hamas leaders have refused to admit this fact.[13] Nevertheless, Hamas has demonstrated that it is willing to be a part of negotiations and end violent actions toward Israel, albeit with certain—not unreasonable—conditions. In the face of such an opportunity, Hamas’ cognitive dissonance between embracing a two-state solution and refusing to recognitze Israel is entirely irrelevant. However, if such an outcome is to be realized, the collective punishment visited upon the Gaza Strip will have to end, and democratic, free, unhindered elections will have to return to the occupied territories to establish a national consensus and a legitimate forum of leadership. The issue of Gaza is absolutely critical to moving ahead with the peace process. No party can afford to move ahead while Gaza moves closer and closer toward oblivion.
Dershowitz’s
proposal for negotiations is more accurately described as the Palestinian
leadership’s most recent invitation to hear Israel’s demands. Under
Dershowitz’s framework and subsequent prognostication, future negotiations
appear more as a forum for Palestinian concession, not negotiation. Anyone who
truly wants to move the peace process forward must accept that the issues are
more complex—and in some instances, more dire—than Dershowitz has thus shown
fit to treat them.
[1]
Dershowitz, Alan M. “Following the elections, Mideast peace negotiations should
resume.” Gatestone Institute. 3
November 2012. Accessed 8 November 2012. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3432/mideast-peace-negotiations
[2] “Legal
Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory.” International Court of
Justice. Press Release 2004/28. Accessed 9 November 2012 http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&ca
[3]
Horowitz, Adam. “Netanyahu on election eve: Approves 1,200 new settlement homes
while promising Israel won’t wait for US to attack Iran.” Mondoweiss. 6 November 2012. Accessed 9 November 2012. http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/netanyahu-on-election-eve-approves-1200-new-settlement-homes-while-promising-israel-wont-wait-for-us-to-attack-iran.html
[4]
Hatuqa, Dalia. “Israel restricts Jordan Valley water access.” Al Jazeera. 28 July 2012. Accessed 8
November 2012. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/07/20127259518330800.html.
[5]
Ibid.
[6]
“On The Brink: Israeli settlements and their impact on Palestinians in the
Jordan Valley.” Oxfam International.
5 July 2012. Accessed 8 November 2012. http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp160-jordan-valley-settlements-050712-en_1.pdf
[7]
Carlstrom, Gregg. “The Palestine Papers: “The biggest Yerushalayim.”” Al Jazeera. 23 January 2011. Accessed 8
November 2012. http://www.aljazeera.com/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122112512844113.html
[8] “Abbas
‘refugee’ comments wow Israel, enrage Gaza.” Ahram Online. 4 November 2012. Accessed 9 November 2012. http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/57111.aspx
[9]
“Human Rights Watch Policy on the Right of Return.” Human Rights Watch. Accessed 8 November 2012. http://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/israel/return/
[10]
“Results of PSR Refugees’ Polls in the West Bank/Gaza Strip, Jordan and Lebanon
on Refugee’s Preferences and Behavior in a Palestinian-Israeli Permanent
Refugee Agreement.” Palestinian Center
for Policy and Survey Research. 18 July 2003. Accessed 8 November 2012. http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2003/refugeesjune03.html
[11]
Gardner, David. “Israel-Palestine: solving the refugee question.” OpenDemocracy. 18 August 2009. Accessed
8 November 2012. http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/israel-palestine-solving-the-refugee-question
[12]
Chomsky, Noam. “Gaza, The World’s Largest Open-Air Prison.” In These Times. 7 November 2012.
Accessed 9 November 2012. http://inthesetimes.com/article/14148/gaza_the_worlds_largest_open_air_prison
[13]
Mccarthy, Rory. “We can accept Israel as neighbor, says Hamas.” Guardian. 21 April 2008. Accessed 9
November 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/21/israel.
Hass, Amira. “Haniyeh: Hamas willing to accept Palestinian state with 1967
borders.” Haaretz. 9 November 2008.
Accessed 9 November 2012. http://www.haaretz.com/news/haniyeh-hamas-willing-to-accept-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders-1.256915. Waked, Ali. “Mashaal: Hamas willing to accept
peace deal with Israel.” Yedioth Ahronot.
20 October 2010. Accessed 9 November 2012. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3972646,00.html
No comments:
Post a Comment