Arabic Media Internet Network,
18th April 2004
Change in US Policy May Destroy Peace Process
Yasser Abed Rabbo*
[Excerpt]
The euphoria generated by the promise to evacuate Gaza settlements is being used
to allow for profound changes of US policy dealing with immediate matters.
Settlement activities that are regarded as illegal by the whole international
community including, until less than a week ago, the US are being legitimized. The separation wall is being
allowed to continue as a "temporary" "security" measure. At the same time the
President himself is acknowledging that temporary facts on the ground – in this
case the settlements – end up becoming irreversible factors that "realistically"
must change the outcome of permanent status negotiations. It is reasonable to
expect now that settlement activities and building the wall in the West Bank
will intensify. This will destroy the prospects of the two-state solution
endorsed by the international community, the Roadmap, and the President himself.
This is not mere speculation. This represents the explicit aim of PM Sharon who,
just before departing to Washington, stated that the "unilateral disengagement"
is intended to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state. Thus, just as the
letter of guarantees attempts to limit the return of refugees to the state of
Palestine, conditions are being put that would make such a state unable to
absorb ts current residents, let alone any returning refugees...
In his version of a two-state solution, PM Sharon envisages a Palestinian state
with none of the essential attributes of sovereignty in the Gaza Strip along
with some Bantustans in the West Bank which would be – in the best case scenario
– minimally contiguous within the confines of the Wall. In his version of the
two-state solution, the Palestinian state will be unviable with no borders with
the world nor will it have any of the other important aspects of sovereignty,
Jerusalem will not be resolved, and the refugees will only be further
radicalized. If the US Administration has immediate electoral reasons for
supporting this approach, we – the Palestinians, Israelis, the region and the
rest of the world – should not be expected to pay the disproportionate price in
terms of our security and stability.
[Complete article]
The change of US policy in the Middle East that took place on April 14th
following the meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon has the
potential to destroy the whole foundation of the Middle East peace process.
It is true that the evacuation of any settlement is in and of itself a good
precedent. Yet instead of such an evacuation being engineered in such a way as
to be a catalyst to furthering peace, it is instead being used to create a
dynamic that might spell the end of what remains of the peace process.
For one thing, the much-touted "Gaza withdrawal" will not mark a qualitative
departure from the status quo. While Palestinians will have more land in Gaza,
the regime governing these areas will not change. Israel will continue to
control the "airspace, territorial waters and land passages" of Gaza, preventing
the potential for Gaza to become in any meaningful way a microcosm and a model
of the future Palestinian state. Instead, the President has reaffirmed his
support for Israel's continued freedom of military action against Palestinians
in Gaza. By agreeing to maintain "certain [Israeli] military installations"
therein, the US has consented to the creation of another "Shebaa Farms" that
will continue to be a flashpoint and a focus for ongoing violence. In reality,
this is more of a troop redeployment than a genuine withdrawal. Had the Israeli
withdrawal been complete – both in terms of territory and attributes of
sovereignty – the Gaza withdrawal would have indeed been a fundamentally
significant step. As it stands now, it is a quantitative step that carries
within it the seeds for continued conflict.
The price that PM Sharon is exacting for this partial withdrawal is quite
significant. In his speech and in the letter of guarantees he submitted to PM
Sharon, President Bush has adopted fundamental Israeli demands that undermine
international law, prejudice permanent status issues and potentially preempt a
negotiated settlement, give a boost to the expansionist policy of the current
Israeli government, and deal a mortal blow to the Quartet Roadmap.
Some of the issues endorsed in the President's letter stand in direct opposition
to international law including one-sided determination of borders, endorsement
of and legitimization of settlement activity, unilateral preemption of issues
slated for negotiation, disregard for the democratically elected representatives
of a whole people and general abrogation of previous treaty obligations. This
has set a dangerous precedent not only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict but also for international relations as a whole. This flippant
disregard of norms of international law – which were, after all, designed to
keep a level of order in international relations – is a recipe for chaos. It is
ironic that the same US administration that recognized the importance of
international law before starting the war against Iraq is choosing to ignore it
at this instance.
In terms of permanent status negotiations, President Bush has effectively
cancelled the US' role as an honest broker. On the one hand, the US position on
the issues of borders, settlements, and refugees has no legal validity since it
is not up to a third party – not even the US – to negotiate away Palestinian
rights. Still, a dangerous precedent is set when the world superpower attempts
to negotiate with the occupier the fate of an occupied people in the total
absence of the elected representatives of this people. On the other hand,
though, lending the US' weight to the negotiation position of the current
Israeli government damages the prospects of a balanced outcome of future
negotiations and, in doing so, endangers the President's own two-state vision.
In the long term, this damages even Israel's interests since a peace deal that
is not satisfactory to the Palestinians can never be sustainable or stable. In
the short term, the already fragile public support for efforts to make peace and
end violence will be further eroded.
Besides its prejudice to permanent status negotiations, the position expressed
by President Bush has more immediate implications. The euphoria generated by the
promise to evacuate Gaza settlements is being used to allow for profound changes
of US policy dealing with immediate matters. Settlement activities that are
regarded as illegal by the whole international community including, until less
than a week ago, the US are being legitimized. The separation wall is being
allowed to continue as a "temporary" "security" measure. At the same time the
President himself is acknowledging that temporary facts on the ground – in this
case the settlements – end up becoming irreversible factors that "realistically"
must change the outcome of permanent status negotiations. It is reasonable to
expect now that settlement activities and building the wall in the West Bank
will intensify. This will destroy the prospects of the two-state solution
endorsed by the international community, the Roadmap, and the President himself.
This is not mere speculation. This represents the explicit aim of PM Sharon who,
just before departing to Washington, stated that the "unilateral disengagement"
is intended to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state. Thus, just as the
letter of guarantees attempts to limit the return of refugees to the state of
Palestine, conditions are being put that would make such a state unable to
absorb ts current residents, let alone any returning refugees.
In effect, what happened on April 14th has all but signed the death warrant of
the Roadmap. It negated its very logic as a set of mutually supportive measures
between two partners aimed at reaching a mutually accepted peace deal. The
endgame has been undermined by the pronouncements on settlements and the
refugees; the concept of partnership negated through the total exclusion of the
Palestinians in this process; and the only measures that Israel now has to
undertake will further undermine the Palestinian moderates' political capacity
to implement their Roadmap obligations. The framework of the Roadmap, i.e. the
Quartet, is also significantly weakened. The US has negotiated this deal with
the Israeli government to the exclusion of its Quartet "partners", who are
expected now to rubberstamp the deal and clean up the mess that will ensue.
While the US' credibility as an honest broker has been undermined, the rest of
the Quartet members' credibility as effective players has been weakened.
President Bush' endorsement of PM Sharon's positions will cause tremendous
difficulties for pragmatic moderate forces in Palestine. Unilateralism
undermines the whole logic of negotiations which presupposes mutual compromises
and it strengthens the logic of extremism which advocates gains through
violence. It will also be very difficult for moderates to argue for an agreed
settlement when the parameters of such a settlement are defined by the US on
Israeli terms that disregard Palestinian interests.
If the deal struck by the US and Israel is allowed to continue as planned, a
fundamental assumptions that has guided us for many years will become
irrelevant. Efforts towards a permanent, stable end of the conflict will be
replaced with fragile, volatile interim arrangements that will keep the Middle
East in a state of conflict for a long time to come.
Despite all the apparent pitfalls, the Gaza withdrawal can still be turned to an
opportunity. It can be turned into a catalyst for peace if it is brought into
the framework of the Roadmap. This requires the withdrawal to be negotiated with
the Palestinians to reinforce a sense of partnership and strengthen the belief
that negotiations pay. It must be accompanied by a settlement freeze in the West
Bank – as required in the Roadmap – to ensure that "Gaza first" is not "Gaza
last". It must represent a real change for Palestinians by encompassing not only
limited geographical redeployment but rather full withdrawal of all settlements
and military installation and the transfer of attributes of sovereignty in Gaza.
On a more strategic note, the letter of guarantees constitutes a departure from
this Administration's policy of ignoring permanent status issues. There were
many previous requests – all of which were rejected – to the Administration to
start spelling out the components of Phase III of the Roadmap. Ironically, had
the President gone the extra step of elaborating a comprehensive, balanced
permanent status package, he would have given a considerable boost to efforts to
reestablish public confidence in peace and to create a political horizon.
Instead, he chose to selectively deal with some issues in a manner that ignores
the interests of the Palestinians. But in doing so, the President has opened up
an opportunity for those seeking to solve – rather than manage or contain – the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict to forcefully adopt a comprehensive vision of all
permanent status issues. The Geneva Initiative – which PM Sharon has vowed in
his letter to President Bush to "oppose" – represents such a package and we urge
you all to adopt it as a clear signal of your commitment to a comprehensive
solution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict based on a mutually acceptable
agreement that takes the interests and concerns of all sides into account.
In his version of a two-state solution, PM Sharon envisages a Palestinian state
with none of the essential attributes of sovereignty in the Gaza Strip along
with some Bantustans in the West Bank which would be – in the best case scenario
– minimally contiguous within the confines of the Wall. In his version of the
two-state solution, the Palestinian state will be unviable with no borders with
the world nor will it have any of the other important aspects of sovereignty,
Jerusalem will not be resolved, and the refugees will only be further
radicalized. If the US Administration has immediate electoral reasons for
supporting this approach, we – the Palestinians, Israelis, the region and the
rest of the world – should not be expected to pay the disproportionate price in
terms of our security and stability.
*Yasser Abed Rabbo is a member of the PLO Executive Committee and head of the
Palestinian Peace Coalition.
Appendix
"Sharon to Get U.S. Nod to Keep W. Bank Land", Reuters, 10th April 2004
"U.S. to declare Israel won't have to return to 1949 border", Ha'aretz, 11th April 2004
"Beware of Ariel Sharon bearing gifts", International Herald Tribune, 13th April 2004
"Bush says Israel could keep some occupied land", Reuters, 14th April 2004
"Bush Mideast policy shift causes Palestinian outrage", Reuters, 15th April 2004
"Bush: No Return of Refugees, No Return to pre-1967 Borders", IMEMC, 15th April 2004
"Arafat: No One Can Deny or Limit Refugees' Right to Return", IMEMC, 15th April 2004
"EU insists no unilateral change in Israel borders", MIFTAH.org, 15th April 2004
"Bush says return to Green Line 'unrealistic'", Ha'aretz, 15th April 2004
"Powell: Bush Did Not Endorse Settlements", IMEMC, 16th April 2004
"Russia Wants Urgent Meeting of Mideast Quartet", Reuters, 16th April 2004
"Road map up a cul-de-sac", Press Release, BADIL, 16th April 2004
"EU Calls for Quartet Meet to Move Mideast Process", Reuters, 17th April 2004