
JVP News Roundup August 28
Here is your weekly JVP news
roundup for August 28, 2007. Click on the highlighted links for news
articles that expand on the summary here.
JVP News Roundup, August 28, 2007 Click here for printer-friendly version
The
much-ballyhooed Middle East Peace Conference, which is not yet firmly
scheduled, is taking shape, at least in terms of the negotiations
currently underway between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. In order for the conference to
have any weight at all, the Bush Administration is hoping the Israeli
and Palestinian leaders can agree to a set of principles that would
outline the settlement they hope to achieve.
Before even
considering the principles in question, it is important to remind
ourselves that a prerequisite for any progress, whether at this
conference or in any other endeavor, is for the two peoples, Israelis
and Palestinians to be fully represented. That means finding a way to
include Hamas. This task is less daunting than it might appear--under
the government that existed before the split in early June, Hamas had
agreed that Abbas could handle negotiations with Israel and that they
would abide by any agreement he struck provided that agreement be
validated by a referendum of the Palestinian people.
Any
agreement reached by a government of only part of the Palestinian
people would not survive a week, and it would surely not bring the end
of this long and bloody conflict any closer. Indeed, it is more likely
to presage a new surge in violence. In any case, a conference without
the Palestinians being fully represented is more of an exercise in
public relations than a diplomatic step. Still, any agreement of
principles that Abbas and Olmert agree to is likely to have diplomatic
repercussions for years to come, particularly since Abbas is insisting that the principles cover all of the outstanding issues between Israel and the Palestinians.
Abbas
does not want to see any more temporary arrangements. The Oslo
experience has soured the Palestinian public on temporary accords, so
he wants the conference to come to permanent agreements on all the
issues at hand. Israel is in much less of a hurry to come to a
permanent arrangement. Abbas is also trying his best to keep the negotiations quiet. A
further pitfall is that Israel wants the negotiations on borders
between itself and the West Bank to start with the current route of the
separation wall. It is clear that Israel intends to annex the 8% of the
West Bank included on the west side of the wall, and that negotiations
would cover what compensation for this annexation the Palestinians
would receive, compensation that would include whatever modes are
arrived at to connect the West Bank and Gaza.
Abbas may be forced to accept those terms, but they will be exceedingly unpopular among the Palestinians. He quickly rejected a land swap similar in nature
to what the right-wing Avigdor Lieberman had proposed to swap
settlements for Arab areas in Israel. It must be recalled that the
international consensus for years has been that Israel must withdraw to
the pre-1967 borders, possibly with some mutually agreed upon border
adjustments. Palestinians are wondering, with considerable
justification, why, after they have conceded 78% of Mandatory Palestine
(Yasir Arafat did this way back in 1988).
The terms Israel and Abbas are discussing seem to be loosely based on the Clinton Parameters of 2000. They include:
- Borders
-- The starting point is the separation fence, without additional areas
slated for the expansion of settlements. This leaves 92 percent of the
area of the West Bank in Palestinian hands. The final area of the new
state will be larger than the area east of the fence, but smaller than
the area proposed in the Geneva Accord.
Among themselves, Israeli
officials talk about the need to begin applying the principles of the
Evacuation-Compensation Law on West Bank settlers. Two bills have
recently been proposed on this issue, one by Colette Avital (Labor) and
Avshalom Vilan (Meretz), and the other by Amir Peretz and Yuli Tamir
(Labor).
- Jerusalem
-- According to a government official, Israel would be willing to
transfer to the Palestinians at an early stage a number of
neighborhoods and refugee camps outside the fence and in the area of
the Seam Line. At a later stage, it would transfer more or most of the
Arab neighborhoods.
The guiding principle is similar to that of the
Clinton Plan: Jewish areas for Jews and Arab areas for Arabs. The
"basin" of sacred sites in the Old City would be administered jointly
by representatives of the three religions, each responsible for its own
sites.
- Refugees
-- Israel would recognize Palestinian refugee suffering and accept
indirectly some responsibility for the refugees from the 1948 war.
Israel would also take part in an international project to rehabilitate
refugees in Palestine, in areas Israel would transfer to the
Palestinians and in the countries where they are now living.
This
seems like another Camp David in the making. For Israel, especially
given that the past seven years have seen, far and away, the greatest
violence on Israeli territory since the 1948 war, these terms will seem
generous, even to a fault. Much of the Israeli body politic will oppose
these terms with great fervor. That opposition is likely to extend past
the right wing in Israel and into the perceived center. Yet these terms
are a great distance from minimal Palestinian demands and will find
little support among the Palestinians.
A recent poll by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre
shows a clear majority of Palestinians (51.1%) still support a
two-state solution over a one-state (30.9%). But it also shows strong
opposition (61.4%) to any exchange of land, to a capital in only parts
of East Jerusalem (67.2%), to Israel keeping any settlements in the
West Bank (81.9%), and to any Israeli control over the area of the holy
sites (93.5%). On refugees, 68.5% hold that refugees should be allowed
to return to their original lands. Clearly, the two peoples are still
very far apart on the issues. How much room there is for compromise is
uncertain, but it cannot help that Olmert's approval ratings remain below 10%
and the same JMCC poll had Abbas as the most popular of available
choices, but still had more people judging him poorly than well (51.2%
to 45.3%). These are not leaders who are well positioned to push
through unpopular compromises. There is a general feeling that the gestures by the Olmert government
have had little impact on Palestinians' faith in Abbas' course of
diplomacy. In Israel, ongoing attacks are similarly undermining their
willingness to trust in negotiations.
The failures of Oslo and
Camp David II ushered in seven years of bloodshed and severely
destabilized the region. It seems a repeat performance is being set up.
While the results may differ because Abbas is not likely to be entirely
blamed the way Arafat was (due to the imperative in Washington and
Israel of opposing Hamas), failure will still have terrible results. If
the ground for compromise is not sufficiently prepared in both Israel
and Palestine, if a greater understanding of the needs and demands of
the other side is not created, matters could get dramatically worse,
hard as that may be to imagine today.
In Israel
Israel
has long promised to remove "illegal outposts." [NOTE: These outposts
are called "illegal" based on Israeli law. International law considers
all settlements established on occupied territory illegal.] It has not
followed through on these promises, except for a few scattered trailer
encampments from time to time. In recent weeks, the US has increased
pressure on Israel for substantive gestures to the Palestinians, and
new Defense Minister Ehud Barak is now responsible for complying.
Yet Israel continues to operate in a very different framework. They are negotiating with the Yesha Council
(the representative body of the settlements) to dismantle some outposts
while legalizing others. This is a demonstration of the kind of
disproportionate sway the settlers have over the Israeli bureaucracy as
well as the difficulties Israel faces in carrying out any kind of
compromise with the Palestinians. Most of all, the refusal of the
Defense Minister to stand up to the settlers bodes very ill for the
future.
In a recent roundup, we reported on the repeated
assertions by both Israel and Syria that they did not welcome war, yet
each is preparing their defenses, increasing the possibility of
confrontation. This was reinforced this week as the Syrian newspaper Tishrin accused Israel of preparing for war,
due to US pressure to attack the Assad regime. Israeli exercises in the
north, near Syria, are undeniable as are Syrian defensive buildups on
their side of the border. Hysterics from the media, both the Syrian one
and the way it is reported in Israel, only stoke that fire further.
Some Israelis are concerned about a poll of American foreign policy experts
which showed some 14% of respondents believing that Israel was the US
ally which least served US interests. The question only asks about the
single "worst" ally, implying that other respondents might have
believed Israel to poorly serve US interests, but not as poorly as some
other countries (Russia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia got more votes than
Israel). The poll is an indication that American Mideast policy is
being questioned much more widely in elite intellectual circles, even
while another poll, in the Financial Times, shows that Europeans' view of Israel is improving.
In the Palestinian Territories
Reports are increasing regarding Hamas' rule in Gaza and the increasing governmental oppression there. Fatah supporters are being targeted, with accusations of torture being featured.
While Hamas is maintaining law and order, their tactics seem to be very
questionable. There are also incidents of serious crackdowns on freedom of the press. After Hamas harshly broke up a Fatah protest in Gaza, it appears they also targeted some journalists. In particular, the attempted arrest of an AFP reporter
which was thwarted only by an act of civil disobedience raised serious
alarm bells about Hamas' behavior in Gaza, and how much it mirrored the
worst days of Fatah's rule.
Meanwhile, Fatah, borrowing a page from the United States, moved to enact a law that would permit monitoring of all overseas funds by the president,
effectively cutting off a good chunk of Hamas' potential funding.
Abbas' tactic, very much supported by the US and Israel, of working to
undermine and disrupt Hamas at every turn shows no sign of letting up.
Hamas has framed it as Abbas staging a war against Hamas,
and this is not an unfair description. Yet even militias that are part
of Fatah may soon be targeted as well. The al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade
issued a statement saying they would no longer abide by the cease-fire with Israel.
Thus far, they have refrained from targeting civilians, but they are
smarting from the loss of dozens of their fighters to an amnesty deal
with Israel several weeks ago. They are calling on those who accepted
that offer to renounce it. Should any of the fighters who were granted
amnesty return to violence against Israel, it will seriously damage any
future prospect of reaching accords that do not include mass arrests of
Palestinian fighters.
Finally, and most tragically, a one-year old Palestinian baby died waiting at a checkpoint
for admittance into Israel for emergency medical treatment. The baby
had a heart condition and, while the cause of death was not reported,
he and his father had to wait at the Erez Crossing for over 4 hours
before the baby expired, even though they had a permit to enter Israel,
something difficult to obtain. There are no words sufficient to
describe such a needless tragedy, and sadly it is not an isolated
incident. Far too many people have died waiting for medical care,
including babies who were delivered while waiting for clearance at
checkpoints. Incidents like this are entirely avoidable, and when they
are not avoided, the hatred and anger rise. One has to ask how allowing
an infant to perish can possibly be explained away by excuses of
"security concerns."
© Copyright by JewishVoiceForPeace.org
|
|