Here is my column in the May 10 Christian Science Monitor. (It’s also here.) The title is The UN must drive Middle East peace and the subtitle is Global stability can no longer be held hostage to the claims of Israeli settlers.
In it I argue, by clear implication, that the US no longer has the political credibility required to continue to dominate Palestinian-Israeli peacemaking… This, in the context of the upcoming 40th anniversary of the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza– and the Syrians of Golan– having had to endure rule by foreign military occupation.
I argue:
- the Israeli-Palestinian issue remains one with crucial impact on global stability. The time has come for the United Nations and other world powers to tell Washington that the near-monopoly the US has exercised over Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy for most of the past 40 years needs to end…
But while the Palestinians and Israelis all desperately need to see the definitive end of the 40-year-long occupation– a transition that can only take place in the context of a final peace agreement being concluded between them– Condi Rice and the administration she works for continue merely to fiddle away with tweaking a tiny, tiny part of the interim peace agenda: namely, the extensive system of extremely tight movement controls that Israel has imposed over the Palestinians of the West Bank in recent years– as too, around all the borders of Gaza.
How draconian are these movement controls?
Well, the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA) regaularly publishes a whole booklet of very detailed maps that show you exactly where all the IOF-staffed checkpoints, baricades, earth barriers, trenches, gates, and barriers are, that choke each Palestinian sub-community off from its neighbors. Here‘s the April 2007 version of the booklet. But be warned it’s a vast, vast PDF file. If you want to look at just one of those maps, go to p.7 of that PDF file and look at the one for Nablus. The blue roads are the “apartheid roads”– that is, the roads on which Palestinian traffic is either prohibited or strictly restricted. The purplish blobs are the Israeli settlements– and the lighter purple areas around them are the lands the settlements have expropriated. The yellow-toned areas are the areas with Palestinian population or cultivation.
As I note in the column:
- Today, as many as 440,000 Israeli settlers live among the nearly 2.5 million Palestinians of the occupied West Bank (including East Jerusalem.)
The size of this settler population considerably complicates the search for a solution. The settlers now form more than 5 percent of Israel’s electorate. And their appropriation of huge quantities of the West Bank’s land and water makes it hard to imagine how any viable Palestinian state could be established on the land that the settlers have not (yet) taken.
… Earlier today, the World Bank issued this report that looked at the effect that the whole Israeli-imposed movement-control system has had on the Palestinian economy.
The report’s Executive Summary notes,
- Beginning in December 2004, … all parties (including the Government of Israel (GOI) and the Palestinian Authority (PA)) agreed that Palestinian economic revival was essential, that it required a major dismantling of today’s closure regime and that closure needed to be addressed from several perspectives at once…
Currently, freedom of movement and access for Palestinians within the West Bank is the exception rather than the norm contrary to the commitments undertaken in a number of Agreements between GOI and the PA. In particular, both the Oslo Accords and the Road Map were based on the principle that normal Palestinian economic and social life would be unimpeded by restrictions. In economic terms, the restrictions arising from closure not only increase transaction costs, but create such a high level of uncertainty and inefficiency that the normal conduct of business becomes exceedingly difficult and stymies the growth and investment which is necessary to fuel economic revival.
… In the West Bank, closure is implemented through an agglomeration of policies, practices and physical impediments which have fragmented the territory into ever smaller and more disconnected cantons. While physical impediments are the visible manifestations of closure, the means of curtailing Palestinian movement and access are actually far more complex and are based on a set of administrative practices and permit policies which limit the freedom of Palestinians to move home, obtain work, invest in businesses or construction and move about outside of their municipal jurisdiction. These administrative restrictions, rooted in military orders associated with the occupation of West Bank and Gaza (WB&G), are used to restrict Palestinian access to large segments of the West Bank including all areas within the municipal boundaries of settlements, the “seam zone”, the Jordan Valley, East Jerusalem, restricted roads and other ‘closed’ areas. Estimates of the total restricted area are difficult to come by, but it appears to be in excess of 50% of the land of the West Bank. While Israeli security concerns are undeniable and must be addressed, it is often difficult to reconcile the use of movement and access restrictions for security purposes from their use to expand and protect settlement activity and the relatively unhindered movement of settlers and other Israelis in and out of the West Bank.
While GOI has shown a willingness to consider a relaxation of specific restrictions, including the provision of several hundred permits to unique categories of Palestinians such as businessmen, or the removal of certain physical impediments, incremental steps are not likely to lead to any sustainable improvement. This is because these incremental steps lack permanence and certainty and can be easily withdrawn or replaced by other restrictions. Moreover, sustainable economic recovery will remain elusive if large areas of the West Bank remain inaccessible for economic purposes and restricted movement remains the norm for the vast majority of Palestinians and expatriate Palestinian investors. Only through a fundamental reassessment of closure, and a restoration of the presumption of movement, as embodied in the many agreements between GOI and the PA, will the Palestinian private sector be able to recover and fuel sustainable growth.
And here, if you are interested, is the WB’s report on the dire fate the Palestinian economy suffered in calendar 2006.
It says:
- After having experienced a modest recovery in 2003–05, the Palestinian economy suffered another decline in 2006, as a result of the domestic and international political difficulties. Although hard data are scarce, real GDP is estimated to have fallen within a range of 5 to 10 percent in 2006, less than initially had been feared, but still leaving average real per capita GDP at almost 40 percent below its 1999 level.
…The worsening political and security situation has clearly been detrimental to economic growth. Production has been lost due to outright destruction of physical infrastructure and assets, or dampened by the numerous closures and checkpoints, the shortage of funds to finance government spending, as well as by the increased uncertainty about the Palestinian territories’ prospects.
The surest way to end this uncertainty? To have the Security Council speedily declare that Israel’s military occupation of these areas must end forthwith on the basis of the well-known principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, as spelled out in numerous previous SC resolutions, and on the basis of the Palestinians gaining their sovereign independence in the West Bank and Gaza and concluding a final peace with Israel.
Forty years of living under the yoke of a foreign military: It’s enough!
The Palestinian/Israeli problem is the core of the MidEast Troubles. Without a solution here, there will be no solutions anywhere in the area. Without dwelling on history, I will go directly to the solution.
First, Jerusalem becomes an International City and the Israeli capital is re-acknowledged as Tel Aviv. The Palestinians name their own capital.
Second, Israel pulls back to the pre-1967 borders.
Thirdly, the area of Jerusalem is physically defined to form many functions :
– The city will become host to most large-scale UN functions.
– Jerusalem will have a local security force and a UN security force of limited scope.
– The borders will be maintained by Israel and Palestine, either in tandem or separately.
– There will be an International airport.
– The area will be large enough to be physically defended and observe adjacent areas.
– The area will control the major highland aquifers, and oversee per capita national allocations.
– The area will allow a transnational journey by either nationality. By passing through Jerusalem, an Israeli transits N/S, and a Palestinian travels E/W. This allows Palestine to have international borders with Jordan and Egypt, but not Syria or Lebanon, respecting current treaties and civilities.
The area will be a duty/tax free area, and the allocated ownership will be dispersed to the “right to return” Palestinians, the displaced Israeli colonists, and all who have lost their homes. Internal agriculture (because of crowded conditions) will also be “eminent domained”, the owners compensated and they and the land are included in the allocation.
The Jerusalem area should be as small as possible, hence the agricultural exclusion. The land should be Israeli or Palestinian, as much as possible.
Jerusalem will be a service, marketing and manufacturing zone. Each family unit will be prorated by size, then entered into a lottery for both a plot of residential land and a plot of commercial value. The allocations will be random to negate ghettoes and insularity. The residential and UN infrastructure will be internationally funded and built immediately. The residents will have startup funding of some sort. The residents of Jerusalem will have ownership, equity, involvement, and potential.
They, and the UN personnel, will not abide terrorism, and will self-police effectively. The key to controlling terrorism is to remove the cause and the base. This will do both. This is a step towards World Peace.
If the Israeli/Palestinian situation was settled to both their satisfactions, then the world, in all fairness, could ask Iran why it feels it needs nukes. Who are they aiming at?
Fat chance getting the Security Council to do anything.
Several years ago someone noted that the UN Charter had a back-door way for the General Assembly to trump SC inactivity. That method needs to be found again, and brought to the UN’s attention.
If territory cannot be acquired by force, then I suppose we should just scrap the Palestinian state altogether. After all, it has used a campaign of violence and terror to bring the outside PLO into the territories and to establish a government.
And then of course, there’s the fact that the Jewish parts of the Old City, the entire Gush Etzion bloc, and Hebron were taken over by Arab forces via massacres or the 1948 war.
Helena’s ritualistic incantation of “the inadmissibility of territory acquired by force” doesn’t accomplish anything. Neither Israel nor Palestine may acquire territory by force. But boundaries may be determined by negotiated agreement. That is what the peace process is supposed to be about.
So, Joshua, you’re an advocate of one man, one vote? If Israel wants to keep as much of the territories as it has taken thus far, the Palestinians won’t have a viable state and so they should just go for broke and join Israel.
Or they can just go for broke and join Jordan and Egypt.
Funny how advocating forced confederation of Israel with Palestine is considered progressive, but that calling for such confederation with Jordan and Egypt is somehow the province of “Likudniks.”
But thanks for your comment. It demonstrates that the issue really is not “the occupation” but that there are still people who refuse Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state. No amount of obfuscation by Helena will change that.
Joshua, I guess there really is something that you deeply don’t understand: namely that the Palestinian claim to the West Bank and Gaza is not based on the “acquisition” of it by force– since they have already been there for many, many generations, and they also have the international “title deed” to these territories that was provided to them by the UN in 1947-48. Thus, they do under international law have the right to use force to liberate (which is different than to “acquire”) their own land– as the French macquis did in the early 1940s, or as Kuwait did in 1991, or countless other national-liberation movements did throughout the 20th century… By the way, that right should also allow the Palestinians– as it did the macquis or the Kuwaitis– to bring in any outside help that they choose, to help in that endeavor.
The actions of participants in a national-liberation struggle should of course be governed by the strictures of the laws of war. (As should those of the occupying forces. There have been too many massacres– perpetrated, albeit asymmetrically, by both sides.) Additionally, myself, I strongly believe the liberators would do far better to focus their efforts on mass organizing for liberation and the use of nonviolent tactics– as Gandhi did, to win the liberation of his nation from foreign rule. But Gandhi never said the Indians had no “right” to take up arms against their foreign rulers. And neither, of course, did Mandela, who was the founding head of the ANC’s military wing.
Israel’s claim to the West Bank–including East Jerusalem– is based, as I understand it, on two strands of argument: (1) the current control of it, as initiated and maintained through the use of violence against the indigenes, and (2) some claims related to a history from 2,000 years ago. Goodness, if all the peoples of the world were allowed to win a return to the status quo sovereignty-wise of 2,000 years ago, where would be be! Also, why 2,000 years? From a world-historical point of view, that’s completely random. So perhaps all the peoples of the world should each be allowed to choose the optimal point of their own history, sovereignty-wise, to which they’d like to return? That would, after all, only be fair if we really believe in the equality of all peoples…
As it is, for a long time now, the peoples of the world have almost completely concurred that the system set in place in 1945– based on the principles enunciated then and in the following 2-3 years– is the one that we all agree to work within. It’s not problem-free. But let me assure you from my experience of living and working in war zones, it is a whole lot better than any “might makes right” system could ever be.
Plus, the Jewish/Israeli people got huge support from the post-1945 system to establish their own state. They are in a far better position than, say, the Kurds or the indigenous peoples of Central America, who were definitely not so lucky… Why don’t you and the many other uncritically ardent supporters Israel has around the world spend a bit more time appreciating that fact rather than trying at every turn to counter the Palestinians’ efforts to win the viable independent state alongside the Israeli state to which they are equally as strongly entitled?
Do you really think the claims of the Palestinians, the wellbeing of all Palestinians and non-settler Israelis, and the stability of the entire global system should all be held hostage to the claims of these 400,000-plus, illegally implanted, Israeli settlers? Do tell us (briefly) your views on that question, which was after all the central issue in my column.
Israeli newspapers repeatedly point out that many, if not most of the 400,000 settlers in the West Bank do not want to be there. Economic circumstances created by the Israeli government make it much more feasible to have decent housing by moving to the West Bank settlements than by remaining in Israel proper. Only a small, but highly powerful, group of the settlers constitute the hard core settler movement. If the American taxpayer money which is used to finance this massive illegal relocatiion of people were stopped there would be a much better chance of settling the problems of the area.
Joshua, ever heard of the Irgun, the Stern gang, the King David Hotel? Israel was born out of heroic acts of struggle, including acts of terror and ethnic cleansing, and wily playing off the post-WW II foreign policies of Britain and the U.S. Don’t get me started on who made mistakes in 1948. This is 2007, and Israel has been an international criminal regime since 1967.
Helena,
Your error is twofold. First, that you assume that Palestinians are “indigenous” and Israelis are “foreign.” Second, that this distinction means anything.
First, there was a continuous Jewish presence in many of the areas that were conquered by Jordan. These even predated Zionist settlement. And, of course, some of the Palestinian population also were relatively recent migrants.
Why you consider Jewish historical ties to be mythical or to far removed, and Palestinian historical ties to make them “indigenous” is curious, but it appears to come out of bias and prejudice.
Nevertheless this is not really relevant to the issue at hand. Beyond the clear historical ties, the Israeli claim to portions of the West Bank rests on the fact that 1) the sovereigns that did exercise control have relinquished it, and, 2) it acquired control in a defensive war, and, perhaps most importantly, 3) the Palestinians, through Oslo AGREED to negotiate over final borders.
Before you (again) misinterpret my argument, I’ll explain it carefully for you again. I do not believe any of the above gives Israel entitlement to the land AS OF RIGHT. However, it does mean that, as an agreed upon peace agreement, the borders can change. Borders agreed upon in a peace treaty are not acquired by force.
I do not believe the “settlers” should hold up a peace agreement. But they’re not doing so. The settlers can be removed if it would actually create peace. But the track record isn’t very good. Most recently, Palestinians achieved their goal of a Judenrein Gaza. But violence has in fact INCREASED. Whatever the causes for the violence, and I’m sure you can always find a way to pin blame on Israel (since that’s what you do), it aint the settlers.
Ultimately, it’s the stance you enunciate that is really holding peace hostage. That the Palestinians have claims as of right and have a right to engage in violence to “liberate” those claims. This is incorrect for two reasons. First, as discussed above, the Palestinians do not have claims to all of the territories as of right.
Second, you again confuse symptom with cause. The violence engaged in against Israel was in existence well before the occupation. And the current governing majority in the territories adopts an explicitly racist and genocidal platform. Israel’s occupation, while sometimes very harsh, is done to ensure that belligerents don’t kill Israelis.
Helena, your main problem is that you really don’t listen at all. You repeatedly mock and demean the other side’s position and make counter-factual statements, dishonest interpretations of international law, and outright vitriol when your position is challenged. I would suggest that you give yourself a time out and maybe reflect on some of the hate which is driving your often vile rhetoric. I know you like to dress your columns up talking of “peace” and “justice” and the like. But it really is a thin veil for some awfully disrepectful and in some cases outright racist beliefs.
For all your talk of peace, you belie it when you talk about the “right to resist” and claim that the Palestinians can call in foreign powers to protect them. Just like you belied it when you started your bizarre cheerleaading for the “daring” and “inventive” Hezbollah raid that left Lebanon in shambles. Whatever you are, it is simply not an advocate of peace.
Joshua, you provide no evidence at all for your claims that I engage in [making] counter-factual statements, dishonest interpretations of international law, and outright vitriol. Ditto, that I harbor “outright racist beliefes.”
Those are weighty accusations, but I’ll let ’em pass. They are on the same level as the other unsubstantiated name-callings you’ve engaged in on the blog over the years. Let’s just let the other readers here make their own judgment as to the validity of your accusations.
Of course, there was a longstanding Jewish presence in a few parts of the West Bank; and I hope that kind of presence could be maintained– as, too, the already existing presence of Palestinians as a national minority inside Israel– after all or nearly all of the WB comes under Palestinian sovereignty.
Your argument that “some” Palestinians were recent immigrants to Palestine doesn’t carry much weight. The number of such immigrants was far, far smaller than those claimed by, e.g., the widely discredited Joan Peters. Also, the vast and longstanding demographic preponderance of the Palestinians in the areas that the UN allocated to the Palestinian state in 1947 was a strong factor in them making that allocation. (The sovereign self-government of the legitimate population of a territory is a key principle of the present international system, after all. Would you want it any different?) Of course the Palestinians’ indigeneity has always mattered– in 1947, as today.
You’re a one trick pony, Joshua
Actually, I juggle as well!
Just got back. Actually, Joshua, it’s true that I don’t accept the right of Israel to have driven out the Palestinians in 1948, so feel free to translate that into whatever insults you want, but as a practical matter the two state solution seems like the only realistic goal to work for. A genuinely democratic one state solution with equal rights for Palestinian Arabs and Jews alike, though the obviously morally correct solution, has too little support and if imposed might (I would guess) lead to a rather nasty civil war.
The Palestinians have already lost 78 percent of the land, so settling for 22 percent doesn’t seem like too much to ask.
Actually, I juggle as well!
Juggle,what? Loyalties?