8 - 14 November 2001
Issue No.559
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 8 - 14 November 2001 Issue No.559 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Peace must be imposed
More process means less peace, writes John Whitbeck*
If all the established powers that be -- the United States, the European Union, the Arab League, Israel and the Palestinian Authority -- publicly profess to agree on anything, the subject of their agreement should be rigourously examined to determine whether it makes any sense. The conventional wisdom that Israeli-Palestinian violence should end and negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships resume makes no sense whatsoever -- at least for Israelis and Palestinians.
It is, of course, unorthodox to appear to support violence (other than violence engaged in by the United States) or to oppose negotiations (other than negotiations with "terrorists"), but the intractability and critical importance of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict calls for unorthodox thinking.
Palestinians are being urged to renounce the internationally recognised right of resistance to an illegal occupation in return for the opportunity to negotiate with Ariel Sharon, who has just announced his intention to lead any negotiations personally. If anyone had suggested to the leaders and people of occupied Kuwait that they should renounce resistance and negotiate with Saddam Hussein, such a suggestion would have been branded, correctly, as absurd and immoral. The conventional wisdom of the "international community" that the Palestinians should renounce resistance and negotiate with Ariel Sharon is no less absurd and immoral.
It is true that it is in the selfish interests of almost all established governments that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "go quiet" for a while. The daily televised death and destruction are inconvenient and bothersome for the international establishment, threatening the stability of certain regimes in the region and potentially interfering with other wars deemed, for the moment, more important.
It should be obvious, however, that Arafat-Sharon negotiations, if they ever happened, would only provide a very brief lull in the hostilities before they flared up again, probably even more ferociously. The Israeli and Palestinian peoples desperately need to put a definitive end to their conflict. With the occupation in its 35th year, the time to do so is finally ripe, but it will never happen if Israelis and Palestinians are left to their own devices and the traditional American formulation that "whatever is acceptable to the parties is acceptable to us" (an elegant way of saying that law is irrelevant and "might makes right") remains the framework for any "peace process."
It is now exactly 10 years since the current "peace process" began at the post-Gulf War Madrid conference. Sadly, it has produced a great deal of "process" and no peace. If the current conventional wisdom continues to prevail, the world will no doubt be discussing how to revive the "peace process" ten years from now -- indeed, probably 20 and 30 years from now. By definition, so long as there is a "peace process," there is no peace.
It should now be clear that the issues separating Israelis and Palestinians are too difficult and too emotionally charged for any Israeli leadership (let alone Ariel Sharon) and any Palestinian leadership (even Yasser Arafat) to reach a definitive peace agreement through bilateral negotiations. Indeed, on the Israeli side, this realisation has already taken hold and led to much discussion of unilateral "solutions" to be imposed by Israel on Palestine.
If negotiations are recognised to be pointless (apart from producing temporary lulls in violence), what are the alternatives? The first is a continuation of the status quo, with each side hoping to inflict so much pain on the other over a sustained period of time that the other side eventually loses heart and gives the first what it failed to achieve through negotiations -- an end to the occupation, or acquiescence in the occupation.
It is most unlikely that either side will obtain satisfaction of such hopes by such means in the foreseeable future. Still, such a strategy does make somewhat more sense from a Palestinian perspective than from an Israeli one. While the chances of obtaining an end to the occupation through sustained violence are slim, the chances of obtaining an end to the occupation through bilateral negotiations alone are as non-existent as the chances of the Palestinians ever accepting a permanent occupation, however restructured and relabeled.
The second alternative is for the "international community" to impose peace on the belligerents, leaving their respective leaderships no choice and thereby relieving them of the need to agree to anything (other than minor details of implementation) with the other side. To actually be implemented and to last, any peace must, of course, be perceived as just and consistent with international law.
A special session of the UN General Assembly could be convened to put practical, up-to-date flesh on General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 1947, which recommended the partition of Palestine into two states. The fundamental parameters to be fixed would necessarily not be fully acceptable to either side but would be firmly rooted in international law and relevant UN resolutions and would not be subject to contestation or negotiation.
If the General Assembly acted wisely, these parameters would be consistent, in particular, with two fundamental principles of international law. First, the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," an essential principle of the post-World War II world order, which is emphasised in the first recital to Security Council Resolution 242. This would confirm as the borders of the two states the lines of control existing prior to the June 1967 War. Second, the sovereign right of every state to determine who has a right of residence in that state. This would mean that only those Israelis acceptable to Palestine would have a right of residence in Palestine and only those Palestinians acceptable to Israel would have a right of residence in Israel.
These principles are clear and comprehensible. Any variation from them or effort to "compromise" on them would lead away from a durable peace and back to the swamp of a never-ending "process." If all current Israeli settlements on Palestinian land occupied in 1967 were eventually evacuated but left intact and in good condition, then, particularly in light of the proven ability of Palestinians to live more tightly packed than Israelis, there might already be available sufficient (indeed, superior) housing for all Palestinian refugees currently outside historical Palestine who would prefer return to the state of Palestine, as against other alternatives for resettlement (which should be made simultaneously and generously available for their free choice), as well as for many currently living in refugee camps within historical Palestine.
The United States has no veto in the General Assembly, so its leverage to water down any resolution there, making it unjust and inconsistent with international law (and thus ensuring that it would not produce peace) would be limited. If a constructive and principled General Assembly resolution along the above lines were passed on to the Security Council, the body capable of transforming recommendations into binding international law, for its ratification, the United States would know that a veto would cost it all remaining regional support for its war against Afghanistan. This just might motivate the United States, if only for the wrong reason, to do the right thing.
Further Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are a dead end, not a viable option for peace. The only alternatives are continuing violence or a just peace imposed on the parties to the conflict by the United Nations. The latter alternative is much the better one, and it is urgent.
* The writer is an international lawyer who writes frequently on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page