Madison-Rafah Journal

This week's briefing is the latest "News Roundup" from Jewish Voice for Peace, which contains some news and analysis about the latest maneuverings involving Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the U.S.

If you are interested in receiving the News Roundup service, sign up for the JVP e-newsletter.

If you are interested in working with JVP in Madison, please contact Judith, jlaitman (at) tds.net, or Tsela, thirdfloorcloset (at) sbcglobal.net.

Barb Olson
MRSCP

JVP News Roundup, August 28, 2007

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