Have you ever thought of Palestine as a State?
Today, I want to deal with the thorny issue of the statehood of Palestine.
I don’t think you’ve ever thought of Palestine in these terms, but what I want to demonstrate is that Palestine it was and it is a State and the fact that many pundits, scholars and governments say that a State of Palestine will born through negotiations with Israel is only a mere political choice.
I’ll try to sketch the history and politics of Palestine in few pages.
Before the World War I, Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire and, when the latter was defeated, Palestine was placed under the British Mandate Government by the League of Nations, according to Article 22 of the 1919 Covenant of the League of Nations. This Article asserted that the territories previously belonging to Turkish Empire had reached a stage of development that allowed to admit their existence as independent nations, even if assisted by a Mandatory. Those territories, which included Palestine, were categorized as Class A Mandate, because they were considered the closest to independence.
So, in 1920, Palestine was put under the administration of the British Government, that took the responsibility to ensure the establishment in that territory of a national home for the Jewish people, as agreed in the 1917 Balfour Declaratiom, without prejudicing the rights of the existing non- Jewish communities living in Palestine (the legal value of the Balfour Declaration is highly questionable).
Under the British Mandate, Jewish immigration was facilitated, giving rise to conflicts and uprisings. Having any attempt made by the British administration to reach a settlement acceptable to both parties failed, Great Britain in 1947 addressed the “Palestine Question” to the General Assembly of the United Nations. On November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 (II), recommending the partition of Palestine into two independent States, with an internazionalized Jerusalem. Due to the fact that it provided 55 per cent of the land to the proposed Jewish State, even if Jewish population constituted the minority, this plan was refused by the Palestinians and the situation gave rise once again to conflicts. Thus, British authorities announced their interntion to terminate the Mandate and prepared to leave.
In 1948, when the Mandate expired, Jewish leaders proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel and immediately war broke out. At the end of the war, Israel gained the whole Palestinian territories, except the areas known as the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Rhe West Bank, Jerusalem included, was administered, then annexed, by Jordan; the Gaza Strip was placed under the Egyptian administration.
In 1967, new tensions between Israel and its neighboring Arab Sates resulted in the so- called Six Days War, after which Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip and annexed Jerusalem, declaring it the capital of Israel in 1980.
Since the occupation, Israel didn’t recognize its status of occupant and denied the de jure application of the international humanitarian law, on the basis that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip didn’t constitute a State when it occupied them, thus, they were not “High Contracting Parties” (as the texts of the Hague Regulations and Geneva Conventions say).
Putting aside the issue of whether international humanitarian law applies or not, with regards to the legal status of Palestine, it can be argued that Palestine was a State since the Ottomona Empire. During the British Mandate, this didn’t change: indeed, Palestine was among the Class A Mandates (as we have seen); it had foreign relations; it had a nationality and its own courts; it was subrogated with regards to the rights and obligations of the former Ottoman Empire as a “successor State” (a prerogative that only States have). Moreover, according to an American lawyer (John Quigley, on which my assertions are based), the UN GA Resolution 181 (II), inviting the parties to create two independent States, was based on the premise that Palestine was already a State. Furthermore, by the end of the 1960s, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) began to be accepted in international organizations as the representative of the people of Palestine and States began to entertain international relations with the PLO and accorded to its members diplomatic protection.
Aside from the recognition of the PLO as the legitimate representative of the people of Palestine, Palestine’s statehood can’t be properly addressed without considering whether or not Palestine meets the so- called Montevideo criteria, established in the 1933 Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, being the statehood and recognition by the international community two different issues.
Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention says that “The stae as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states”.
Meanwhile, Article 3 states that the political existence of a State is independent from its recognition by other States and according to Article 6 the recognition “merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law”.
With regards to Palestine, it can be argued that it has a population; it has a defined territory, whose borders were clearly established under the British Mandate, even if Israel, in 1948, modified them and even if the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are not contiguous, being contiguity “not necessary to statehood”; it has international relations with other States, it maintains with them diplomatic relations and it has been accepted in several international organizations; the criterion of government is more problematic. Indeed, it is on the lack of control of the territory by a government that it is argued that Palestine is not a State. Nevertheless, after the 1995 Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip it has been established a Palestinian National Authority (hence PNA) vested of administrative and governmental powers. It was created the Palestinian Legislative Council; the PNA acquired control of the police forces and it set up a cabinet, including several ministries; citizenship began to be ruled by the law; a new legislation was adopted to regulate the judicial system and so on.
A last word on the criterion of government. It seems that two obstacles hinder to state with absolute certainty that Palestine has a government over its territory: first of all, 60% of the West Bank is considered Area C, according to the Oslo Agreements, and it is under nearly full Israeli control; secondly, in 2007 Hamas ousted the government of Fatah from the Gaza Strip, establishing there its own government, politically dividing the West Bank, with a Palestinian Authority administration supported at the international level, and the Gaza Strip, administered by Hamas, that lacks of international support.
From this brief overview of the history of Palestine and the legal framework according to which statehood has to be analyzed, Quigley concludes that Palestine statehood dates from the mandate period and that it meets the Montevideo criteria, even if Israel had occupied it. Indeed, the occupation of a territory does not affect the continuity of a State, the occupant does not have sovereign title over a territory and its authority over it is temporary. With regards to the most debated issue of the control over the territory, Quigley observes that: with the 1995 Interim Agreement, it has been created the Palestinian Authority, vested of different administrative functions, as noted above; the fact that, after the elections of 2006, the Hamas- sponsored party prevailed in the Gaza Strip, where it set up a government, does not affect the governance criterion for statehood, indeed “when state administration split as a result of internal conflict, statehood is not negated”; finally, the governance criterion is not impaired by the circumstance that the Palestinian Authority does not have a total control, by the way, it is self- evident for me that, in time of occupation, the powers of the legitimate sovereign are curtailed.
To conclude with the issue of statehood, it should be noted that the recognition by other States and the membership at the United Nations are not a requisite for statehood. In the case of Palestine, it should be noted that on the one hand the majority of the world States recognized Palestine as a State (126); on the other hand, the 2012 UN General Assembly Resolution 67/19 conferred to Palestine the status of a non-member observer State in the United Nations. Notwithstanding, among the international community, the legal status of Palestine remains unclear: while States deal with Palestine as if it were a State, it is said that “Palestine should become a state only by negotiation with Israel”. This uncertainty became evident in 2009, when the Minister of Justice of the Government of Palestine presented to the International Criminal Court a declaration accepting its jurisdiction, according to Article 12, paragraph 3, of the Rome Statute, in order to make the Israeli violations occurred in Palestinian territory since 2002 prosecuted. The Office of the Prosecutor rejected the Palestinian request, pursuant to the unclear legal status of Palestine and asserting that it is up to the United Nations bodies or to the General Assembly to clarify whether Palestine is a State or not. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect that, with the adoption of the UN General Assembly Resolution 67/19, recognizing Palestine as a State, another declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court submitted by Palestine, according to Article 12, para. 3, of the Rome Statute, will be accepted.
As we have seen, the implications and the problems are many when dealing with the statehood of Palestine. Relying on international law, in these cases, is the most useful thing to do. And, as we have seen, the Montevideo criteria provide us the general standards adopted and accepted by the international community. Though, these standards when applied to Palestine are not relevant, because they have not been applied rigorously by the international bodies and organizations. For example, in 1945, Ukraine and Belorussia were admitted as members of the United Nations, even if they were constituent republics of the USSR, that had the control of their foreign relations and domestic policies. Another example is Bosnia, that with the 1995 Dayton Agreement was placed under a sort of international control to ensure the cooperation between the different groups, formerly engaged in conflicts: under this agreement, a “high representative”, appointed by the UN, was to monitor the implementation of the peace settlement and he had the last word on every decision. Bosnia was not free to make its own decisions on the basic issues. The Democratic Republic of Congo lost the control of many areas of its territory, that now are in the hands of armed groups. Limited control is exercised in all the trust States, like the Republic of Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia (trusts of the USA, that takes the decisions in key spheres. They are members of the UN and many other international organizations).
Would anyone argue that these are not States?
An yet, they satisfy the Montevideo criteria less than Palestine.
Legal interpretation is something difficult and sometimes it’s not so clear as it could seem. Law is told to be general and abstract, because it has to be applied to many situations each different from the other. This is to say that I have given you my interpretation of legal texts (and I’m not the only one) and what I ask you is to find your own interpretation and your own answers, without taking anything for granted.
Palestine is told to be not a State, but this is an error. Palestine is a State and it should be treated like that. The fact that people deny the reality is only due to economic, military, political and diplomatic considerations and not on international law.
Under Deafening Silence. Palestinian Refugees’ Tragedy.
Yarmouk Refugee Camp, Syria 2014, Refugees’ queue for receiving food distributed from the UNRWA.
As promised in the last post, I will now talk about Palestinian refugees. Who are they? What do they want?
They are often surrounded by an air of mystery and misunderstanding. But, let’s try to understand something more clearly.
From 1947 to 1948, more than 700.000 Palestinians were expelled from or forced to leave their homes and lands, as a consequence of direct military assaults or from fear of an imminent attack by the Jewish militias. This period, in the Palestinian history, is referred to as the Nakba (Catastrophe). 150.000 Palestinians, by chance, remained in the areas of Palestine, that then became the State of Israel, other 40.000 were internally displaced and Israel never allowed them to return to their former homes.
In 1967, after the Six Days War, Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip: other 300.000 Palestinians were forced to leave their homes in other parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories or across regional borders. This phenomenon is called by Palestinians Nakbatein (the second Catastrophe).
Since 1947, Palestinians have lived a life of continuous displacements within and from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as a result of the Israeli policies. Not only Palestinians were expelled from their homes, but their villages were destroyed. In 1969, former Israel Defence Minister Moshe Dayan stated that:
“[J]ewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushu’a in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”
Following the 1948 war, the United Nations created the UN Relief and Work Agency for Palestinian refugees, whose services included the organization of camps, schools, health care, microfinance, emergency, social services and so on. In 1948, more than 700.000 Palestinians registered themselves as refugees.
Palestinian refugees are, according to the definition of the UN General Assembly Resolution that established the UNRWA, “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.” The descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children, are also eligible for registration. That means that every son or daughter of a male refugee is a refugee too and he/ she shares the common destiny of this displaced people. That’s why I am so sensitive to the refugee issue. As my father is a refugee, I am a refugee too. A realization I made 6 months ago and that, since then, tortures me.
The fact that one is a Palestinian refugee in reason of his male lineage is contested by Israelis and is, for others, hardly understandable. Indeed, in other cases of displaced people, there is not a specific agency dealing with them and when these people move in other countries they can become, if they want and if they’re eligible to, citizens of that country. That doesn’t happen in the case of Palestinian refugees in the Arab States, such as Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Jordan. In each of this State, the Palestinian refugee issue is ruled differently. Suffice here to say that, even when citizenship is accorded to Palestinians, they don’t enjoy the same rights of the other citizens.
Why this situation is so particular?
If Palestinians living in the West Bank, in the Gaza Strip, in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, USA, Europe, South America (so, not only in refugee camps) were not to be recognized as refugees, as persons who were forced to leave their homes, that would mean to recognize that they had not rights to that piece of Earth. That they weren’t entitled to live there. That that wasn’t their place. That would mean that their presence in the world, their right to live and their past can be cleared from history books. That won’t happen. Palestinians will still live in refugee camps even when they’ll have the means to live elsewhere, because it reminds them that they’re entitled to live in other places. This will remind them that they had a former place where they lived and that they could have had another life there. This will remind them their history as dispossessed persons. It’s not fair to say: hey, come on! More than 65 years have passed and you’re still dreaming of your former and destroyed house in a destroyed Arab village. Go on!
It’s true that 66 years have passed and that life goes on. It’s true that we don’t have to look just to the past, because the future is much more important. It’s true that we have to try the best to change and improve our living conditions. It’s true that we don’t have to live just as victims but as citizens of the world. And, indeed, many Palestinians left the refugee camps, many of them studied abroad and came back and some of them stayed to work in the country were they studied. Though, life is not easy for everyone. Palestinian refugees still live in miserable conditions in these camps and, most of them, don’t have the means to go to school and don’t have access to the basic human needs. The situation is even worst in refugee camps in the Arab countries, that claim that they don’t want to assimilate the Palestinian population completely because that would mean that they’re doing the job Israel should do. That’s why remembering their status is fundamental for Palestinians. Memory is precious and the statement of Moshe Dayan confirms that. Palestinian presence in Palestine was cleared and to complete the operation all the former names of mountains, villages, springs, etc. were changed to delete the collective memory of an entire people. That was an attempt to rewrite history, in order to make impossible for Palestinians to remember their origins and their roots and to “legitimize” that horrible ethnic cleansing. Then, many Israelis claim that Palestinians left voluntarily from their homes or that the violent actions perpetrated by Jewish militias were justified by violent actions undertaken by Palestinians. First, it’s a legend that Palestinians voluntarily left their homes and that abandoned their lands and properties (under “property”, I include also money, that was in the hands of the British and Ottoman banks and rulers. When the State of Israel was created in 1948, British banks gave the new formed State the money and belongings of Palestinians. Moreover, Israel seized and appropriated all what if found in Palestine: homes, properties, land, jewels- namely the Bedouin ones, ancient books and handcraft objects). Palestinians fled because they were attacked or they feared attacks. I know that because not only this is well documented in history books (also Israeli), but because my father told me this horrible story. Moreover, when I was in Jerusalem in 2012, I went in a library located in East Jerusalem. This library is interesting because it has a great variety of books on the conflict (in English) and because it has a coffee shop inside it. So, I took a cup of coffee and I started to flip through the pages of books and reviews. I found out that between 1947- 1948 a great number of Palestinian families left their homes, leaving there the old relatives and the disabled ones, in order to put in a safe place women and children first. The objective was to come back later to pick up the other relatives, unable to escape. When those people returned to their villages, after having found a safe place for the family, they went in their homes and they found their old and disabled relatives burnt alive or suffocated by gas in their homes. I can’t state with complete certainty that this really happened. But it’s at least likely, if we take in consideration what still happens today in Palestine (Israeli soldiers usually go in Palestinian villages at night and throw a great number of tear gas and gas canisters, suffocating and injuring the civilian population. For more information, read 972mag.com). This wouldn’t be the first example of inhumanity. And for sure, this won’t be the last one.
Then, when Israelis say that they used violence in self- defence, this is questionable too. First, they often refer to a particular event, that was a violent and bloody confrontation between Jewish and Muslims/ Christians in 1929. Second, this confrontation was the product of years of frustration on the Palestinian side: it was by then clear that the negotiations between Ottomans, British and Jewish on Palestine didn’t include the Palestinians and that the imbalance of power between British and Ottomans would have resulted in Jewish favor. That’s why Palestinians took arms and fought against Jewish immigrants, who wanted to create a State, where there were already a population and a State.
Another factor to be taken into consideration is that, according to UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of 1948
…the [Palestinian] refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.
This resolution entails two legal consequences for refugees: the right to return in what now constitutes the State of Israel and reparations for loss and damage of property. It is worth noting that, according to this Resolution, it is up to the refugee to choose between right to return and compensation, which makes sense. Indeed, many Palestinians living in Jordan for example do not wish to go living in the West Bank or Israel. They have their own homes, jobs, properties and life there and they are not willing to change everything just because they want to go back to their ancestral land. So, the Israeli public discourse that wants to create terror among the Israeli society has not grounds. Israel says that it can’t absorb millions of Palestinian refugees (in the meanwhile, though, it allows Jews from all over the world to go in Israel, according to the Law of Return) and that Arabs will change the demographic composition of the Jewish State. This doesn’t make sense, because not every Palestinian wants to return to his former village. More likely, Palestinian would choose compensation. But, maybe, even not that. The recognition of that massive ethnic cleansing would be enough. As would be enough being able to come back both in Palestine and Israel without having a visa released by the Israeli army.
What we want is justice.
Unfortunately, the right to return and to compensation are far from being recognized and implemented.
Finally, I would like to end quoting Paula Schmitt, a Brazilian journalist and Middle East correspondent: “But time inflict a heavier load on Palestinian refugees, because unlike other poor people they are denied the most precious and immaterial of all commodities: the hope to overcome one’s condition. Palestinian refugees are sentenced to life at birth, and for many of them even winning lottery ticket wouldn’t be enough to buy the right to own property, or enough education to become a lawyer or a doctor”.
We don’t have the right to play. A stolen childhood.
Today, I wanted to shed some light on Palestinian refugees, a sensitive and controversial issue, often even misunderstood.
But, I won’t. Why? Because, reading the news on what is happening in Palestine, I found out that something really humiliating and frustrating happened. I always try to choose an issue and to discuss it, analyzing the different points of view and giving my personal opinion. I am not a journalist and I don’t have first- hand news, so I don’t like to post news. But, today, I have to.
Many foreign governments, institutions, non-governmental organizations are involved in Palestine, in cultural, artistic, technical and political projects. All these actors offer their expertise and their financial aid to projects in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Many of those projects relate to building schools, infrastructures, etc.
One project particularily note worthy was that sponsored by the Italian government (it really surprises me because Italians aren’t so pro- Palestine) and an Italian NGO (Vento di Terra): they fostered the construction of an eco- friendly school in Khan al Ahmar, with tires, metal sheets, wood and beams. The school has been projected by the Italian studio “Arcò- Architettura e cooperazione” and built by the local inhabitants of that village, located in Area C, in the street between Jerusalem and Jericho. The school has been very difficult to be built, because Palestinians aren’t allowed to live and build houses and permanent constructions in Area C, under full Israeli military control (though, the number of settlers and settlements in the Jordan Valley is “surprisingly” rising). Despite the complications and the obstacles, the school has been built and, finally, after years children can go to school, without walking for kilometers to reach the nearest school (in Jericho, where 5 children were killed and four have been crippled when crossing the street).
Living in the Jordan Valley area is one of the most stressful situations in the West Bank, because the inhabitants are under costant threat of forced displacement and house demolitions (all the inhabitants of the Jordan Vally have seen their homes demolished and now they live in shacks and they are not linked to the water and electric grid, because they don’t form part of the planning plans, as the Bedouin communities in the Naqab. In the meanwhile, their neighboring Israeli settlers are allowed to build towns and are connected to the electric and water grid).
The population of Khan al Ahmar is mainly constituted by the Jahalin community, expelled from the Naqad (Negev desert) in 1950.
Even if this school is only a “temporary” structure, it has had a positive effect on children and their parents. The school gave back to Palestinians faith and dignity.
Few days ago, though, the swing and the slide offered to the school by the Italian government have been seized by the Israeli authorities under the scared eyes of hundred children.
Honestly, I am speechless. I have no words to express how I feel.
How can those people hate so much Palestinians? How can those people hate like this innocent children? How can this happen under the blind eyes of the world? How can we accept this?
Preventing children from playing and living their childhood is another mean to kill an entire nation. Those children, who already face harsh conditions because even going to school and playing is luxury, will grow up with anger, terror, despair and without dignity.
But, aside from the human consideration of this tragedy (or at least, I consider it a tragedy), there’s another issue to be taken in consideration. The duplicity of all European governments and even the European institutions. They give money to Palestinians to build schools, hospitals, water pipes and to buy medicines, and at the same time they entertain economic relationship with Israel, never questioning the legitimacy of its actions.
A last reflection: maybe this little respect for others life is an expression of the little respect they have towards themselves.
Sources:
http://www.amnestykids.it/scuola-di-gomme/
Negotiating without Committing.
Al Quds (Jerusalem), Dome of the Rock, 8 December 2013.
“Negotiations? What negotiations?” You may ask. And I can understand you. Those interested in foreign policy, international relations, the Middle East and Palestine know that the peace process has been resumed in July 2013, but those who aren’t or who live in countries where the coverage of the Palestinian conflict isn’t the priority may not know that.
What I would like to do in this post is to summarize the current negotiations, the main issues at stake for both parties and why these negotiations will fail. For doing that in the most clear and understandable way, I will divide the issues in Borders, Jerusalem, Refugees, Settlements and Security and Prisoners, being aware that these aren’t the sole issues of the conflict (this is the division used on the website of the Palestinian Negotiations Affairs Department- hence PNAD).
Borders. The definition and delineation of borders is essential for ending the conflict and establishing a viable Palestinian State. Since 1948, the Palestinian position on borders has drastically changed: at the beginning, Palestinians claimed all historic Palestine (encompassing West Bank, Gaza Strip and Israel). Then, in 1988, they renounced to all Palestine in exchange for peace and security. Thus, they now claim sovereignty over 22% of the former historic Palestine, that comprises the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, occupied by Israel in 1967 (even if the 1947 UN Partition Plan had allocated to a future Palestinian State 45% of the whole land. Though, when Israel proclaimed itself as a State, it appropriated 78% of the land). After 47 years, the occupation should end, because it is entailing illegal situations (we have explored some in the last posts), one of those is the wall, whose construction has begun in 2002. Among the several violations of international law that this wall has entailed, the International Court of Justice stated in an advisory opinion that it constitutes an annexation of land by force, which is prohibited by the 1945 UN Charter. The PNAD claims that Israel has no title over the West Bank and Gaza Strip (that is actually true) and that the borders of a future Palestinian State should be those of the “Green Line” (the border between Israel and Palestine before the 1967 war) and that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip should constitute a single territorial unit linked by a secure territorial link. Though, Palestinians are willing to discuss this territorial link and they are ready to make concessions of land in exchange of other portions of land in Israel. Though, for Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are disputed territories and they’re not willing to discuss borders for the only reason that they don’t want anything similar to a sovereign and independent Palestinian State. As far as I know, borders have not yet been discussed. And, as the wall snakes throughout the West Bank, with the clear purpose to annex the settlements, grab land and appropriate water resources and fields, it is unlikely that the borders will be those of the “Green Line”.
Jerusalem. Jerusalem has always been the economic, cultural and spiritual heart of Palestine. According to the 1947 UN Partition Plan, it should have been placed under an international administration, or a corpus separatum, given that it is one of the holiest place for Islam, Christians and Judaism. Though, in 1948, the new born State of Israel invaded Jerusalem and occupied 85% of the city, leaving to Palestinians the Eastern side of Jerusalem. Then, in 1967 Israel occupied the whole Jerusalem, it annexed it and declared it the eternal capital of Israel. Since then, Israel began to build a ring of settlements in the area of Jerusalem, with the precise intent of disconnecting it from the area of Ramallah and Bethlehem. Moreover, the 200.000 Palestinian Jerusalemites have suffered from land confiscation, home demolitions, building restrictions, residency permit (yes, they’re not citizens of their own city, but they have to obtain a residency permit, to be renewed every 3 years, where Palestinians have to demonstrate that they constantly live there, if not they lose their permit). Additionally, Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip can’t go to Jerusalem without a permit and if they marry a Palestinian from Jerusalem, they will not have a permit to live there. The PNAD claims that Palestine should have sovereignty over East Jerusalem (which is true because it has been illegally annexed), but it is ready to find other solutions and to negotiate on Jerusalem, considering it an “open city”, where Jewish, Muslims and Christians could live in harmony and in peace, with equal rights and duties. Though, Israel doesn’t seem really willing to negotiate on Jerusalem, where the most ultra- orthodox live and any government wants to lose their support.
Refugees. As I want to explain the refugees issue more in depth, here I will just give a hint on them. Palestinian refugees are those who were forced or threatened to leave in 1948, by Jewish militia, and those internally displaced after the 1967 war, after which Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Nowadays, there are 7 million Palestinian refugees world- wide and 1.4 million Palestinians registered at the UNRWA, living in camps in the Arab region (Jordan, Lebanon, Syria), or who fled in Europe, North and South America. According to UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of 1948, those refugees should be entitled to return to their homes and should have the right to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors. Other international conventions on human rights establish that people have the right to go away from their countries and to return whenever they want. Israel has never recognized that the Diaspora of Palestinians has been created by it and never recognized Palestinian refugees. What Palestinians ask is an Israel’s recognition of the Palestinians’ forced displacement and their right to return to their homes and lands (seized, occupied and destroyed), according to the general principles of international law, which will constitute the basis for negotiating how this right will be implemented. Palestinians also say that other issues to be discussed are reparations. The choice whether to return or to choose reparation should be the right of refugees. Nevertheless, Israel has never recognized this right and, to the contrary, recognize the right to return of all the Jewish in the world, who have no territorial lineage to Palestine and Israel, neglecting, in the meanwhile, the right of Palestinians to go back to their ancestral land. Moreover, while allowing mass immigration of Jews from Europe, they argue that Israel and Palestine won’t be able to absorb those numbers of refugees. Though, the PNAD proposes other options to be negotiated. Why Israel refuses to negotiate isn’t understandable.
Settlements. As it has been said in previous posts, since 1967, Israel has led a policy of settlement building in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (dismantled in 2005), violating the Fourth Geneva Convention, the 1998 Rome Statute which established the International Criminal Court and other international instruments. This policy has been motivated by the wish of Israel to change the demographic composition of Palestine and to put at risk the creation of a future independent State. These settlements other than being illegal and making impossible a two- state solution, endanger the quality and the quantity of land available for Palestinians and their associated regime poses on Palestinians grave obstacles. Thus, the position of Palestinians is that Israel should freeze the building of settlements, should dismantle them or, at least, should reduce the economic incentives it gives to foreign Jewish Europeans or to Israelis to move to the settlements in the West Bank. Though, Netanyahu not only has violated one of the conditions posed by Palestinians to resume the negotiation process (that is freezing the building of settlements), but has also said that he wouldn’t force any Jew to leave the West Bank.
Water. I have already dealt with the issue of water few weeks ago, suffice here to say that control and access to water is for Palestinians a pre- condition for the realization of their complete sovereignty and independence. Indeed, a State is really sovereign if it has the control over its natural resources and it is able to provide the essential services to its population.
Security and Prisoners. Security is one of the most controversial issues of the negotiations. Indeed, Israel claims that it must retain its military forces on Palestinian territory and that it should continue to control the borders with Jordan, even when a Palestinian State will be created (disregarding that a Palestinian State already exists and has always existed). To the contrary, for Palestinians the main source of insecurity is the Israeli presence on their territory: since the occupation, they have suffered from attacks, imprisonments, killings, injures and fear from uncommunicated military drills led near Palestinian towns and villages. Thus, for Palestinians it is essential to have complete and full control of their territory (borders with Jordan, Egypt and Israel included), to have an army and policemen able to ensure the security of the population. It is unlikely that Israel will allow Palestinians to have complete control of their territory and their borders, because it argues that if so, Palestinians will allow anyone (see “crazy Muslims of Al Qaeda”, as if every Arab would be a terrorist) to enter, thus endangering the safety of Israel. Then, another fundamental issue is that of prisoners: since the occupation, Israel has imprisoned some 700.000 Palestinians, that constitutes 20% of the Palestinian population. Sometimes, it has imprisoned Palestinians on the basis of their political activity against the occupation and their participation to non- violent protests, but sometimes it has imprisoned people without reason (as far as I am concerned, even the other two situations aren’t fair and legal basis for administrative detention). As of 2011, there were some 6.000 prisoners, included 255 children and 39 women. Palestinians see the immediate and coordinated release of political prisoners as one of the most important goals to be achieved, in order to reach a meaningful peace agreement. Israel has released prisoners in autumn and it should release others at the end of the months, as agreed when the negotiations were opened (Israeli media report that this may not happen if Abbas wouldn’t accept a Kerry proposal, if Kerry were ever to produce such a document)
These are the main topics on which the parties should negotiate. If this is the situation, where are we now?
The negotiations are sponsored by the Obama administration and the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, since the beginning of the peace process has done several trips to Israel and has met Netanyhau and Abbas several times. Though, during these 8 months, no document has been produced and the parties aren’t able to agree to any single issue. The negotiations should end in April and, a week ago, the US proposed to extend the nine months deadline, a move that the Palestinian chief negotiator (Saeb Erekat) rejected and that it is likely to serve Israeli and American interests (for Israel because it is taking time and it negotiates without committing, gaining international support merely by talking; for the US because of the mid- term congressional elections).
But, why these negotiations won’t produce a permanent status agreement?
The reasons are many and the answers vary from the point of view adopted. I’ll propose my reasons and my answers.
First, Israel has never been committed to fairly negotiate with Palestinians and they don’t want at all anything similar to a sovereign and independent Palestinian State (in the meanwhile, Israel proposes to Palestinians to build their State in Jordan. I’m not joking, it’s true.). They still have the dream of the so- called “Greater Israel”, which encompasses Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (called by Israelis Judea and Samaria). It’s not just an historical and religious will (a Jewish State for the Jewish people, cleared from any different religious or cultural background), but it’s a political one. They fear that, by allowing Palestinians to have a State on their own, where they control borders, natural resources, economy and so on, they will endanger the safety of Israel, because Palestinians will be more numerous than Israelis, thus threatening the existence of the State of Israel, in a region where Arabs are the majority. But, this scenario, in the current state of affairs, is unlikely to take place. Israelis have something that Arabs don’t have, that is political and economic support from the Western countries. It’s true that things may change suddenly, but this won’t happen in the immediate future. And, I think that after years of war and sufferings, the last thing Palestinians want is another confrontation with Israel and the rest of the world.
Another reason why these peace process will fail is that it is indeed a peace process and not a peace agreement. The parties don’t negotiate to reach a deal, or at least Israelis don’t (Saeb Erekat told Maan that “If there was a committed partner, we wouldn’t even have needed nine hours to reach that deal”). They resume negotiations to not lose the international support. Abbas doesn’t want to be considered guilty to not give an opportunity to Israel and the US and doesn’t want to be blamed to “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”. Netanyahu, to the contrary, wants the international pressure to be softened and to have the international support on the one hand; on the other hand, he wants to be a hawk to not lose the popular support he has from his electors. Americans have all interest to put an end to this conflict, because by doing that they will once again gain the scene as the main power in the world. Though, they have also significant economic interests in Israel: that is the trade of billion dollars in weapons to Israel. Moreover, we shouldn’t underestimate the powerful Jewish American lobby, that has always shaped the American foreign policy in the Middle East.
Then, Kerry is supposed to present a proposal to the parties in the future weeks. Pundits start to cast doubts on this proposal. Some say that he will not present the parties any framework agreement. Others say that he will present a proposal completely acceptable by Israelis, but unacceptable and intolerable to Palestinians. It is said that, indeed, Kerry would include the Israel’s demand to be recognized as a Jewish State (whose consequences have been already explored); that a Palestinian right to East Jerusalem will be mentioned but not defined and recognized; that there won’t be any reference to refugees; that the land swaps will not be 1:1, that means that Israel would be able to annex other Palestinian territory without giving anything in exchange; that Israel will be entitled to retain military control in the Jordan valley. This proposal will be unthreatening to even the most Israeli hardliners, but it’s clearly against Palestinians. No one of their requests has been considered. No one of their rights has been recognized or mentioned. Any reasonable Palestinian would never ever accept such a proposal. It’s unfair. That’s why, in my opinion, Palestinians should refuse the American mediation. The American administration is clearly pro- Israel and will not produce anything favorable to Palestinians, who have hands tied, because they receive great amounts of money by the US. But, Palestinians and Palestinian rights are not on sale!
The balance of power between Israel and Palestine is huge. Palestinians don’t have the support of any single country (except Iran, though for the wrong reasons), while, Israel has the support of the whole international community, that never held Israel accountable for its violations of international law and international criminal law. The civil society all around the world is trying to raise awareness on the Palestinian situation, through the BDS movement and several European enterprises, bank and pension funds have cut their links with Israeli banks and financial institutions. For this situation, Israel is claiming that it can’t negotiate with a gun on the head. But, this doesn’t reflect the reality. It’s not true that Israel is losing all its economic support from Europe or other Western economic activities. They decreased maybe, but they didn’t disappear.
On the other hand, Palestinians are negotiating with a gun on their head. I want to remind you that they’re negotiating while still being under occupation. Israel, whenever it wants, can cut the supply of fuel, electricity, water, drugs, can impose curfews, can close checkpoints, can imprison people without trial and so on. This increases the inequality. Palestinians can say anything about the occupation. Even if it’s related to them, it’s always considered an Israeli matter, where only Israel has the legitimacy to say something. The occupation will end (if ever) when Israel unilaterally will decide to end it. Here Palestinians have nothing to say. Why Palestinians accept to negotiate without putting the end of the occupation as a pre- requisite to enter in new negotiations will always be for me an inscrutable mystery.
In the meanwhile, since the resumption of negotiations, Israel has escalated the violence against Palestinians, as a report of the PNAD shows: 10.489 new units in Israeli settlements; 44 Palestinians killed; 3.360 military raids conducted in the West Bank; 2.702 Palestinians arrested; 154 homes demolished; 497 settlers’ terror attacks. I add impunity over crimes committed against civilians, above all children, as Palestinians weren’t human beings as Israelis.
I would like to end with a provocation: if the occupation is about to continue, entailing the application of the Israeli military rule over the Palestinian population; if Israel doesn’t want a Palestinian sovereign State; if negotiations are futile because they always fail, what about a binational State, where Palestinians and Israelis were to live together, enjoying the same human, civil, social and political rights?
Sources and other readings:
wedonthaveacountry 