|
In a previous column, we looked at how the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) failed to heed the warning signs - indeed, the explicit counsel of American legal expert Francis Boyle - that the Israeli intentions in negotiating the Oslo accords were malicious, and were aimed at creating the illusion that the Palestinians were abandoning their rights under international law.
Well, as the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
The Israelis' recent dazzling display of "flexibility" towards the splay of "concessions" urged by Clinton was just another attempt to set up the Palestinians as the bad guys.
Clinton was hoping that another agreement (meaningless though it might have been) between the two parties would establish his legacy. Barak was of the hopes that he could get away with pretending to accept a compromise on Jerusalem (that most of his countrymen did not accept) by making his agreement conditional on Arafat's acceptance of an abandonment of the right of return that, legally, he (Arafat) has no right to accept. Since the Palestinians would undoubtedly reject the compromise, Barak could blame Arafat for Clinton's failure.
To keep our perspective, let us remember that there are five issues being dealt with in the final status negotiations: the right of Palestinians to return to their land; the status of Jerusalem; the question of the Israeli settlements; the definition of borders; and the issue of water rights. With the arguable exception of borders, international law is squarely on the side of the Palestinians on these issues.
The Israelis loot enough water from the Palestinian aquifer in the north to account for the water they dump into the Negev in the south. In other words, they "make their desert bloom" by depriving the Palestinians of their own water - water that they need for drinking, bathing and agriculture. This issue was completely unaddressed by the Clinton proposals - making them, at best, incomplete.
The Geneva Conventions clearly prohibit settlements within occupied territory, and numerous U.N. resolutions have confirmed this prohibition with respect to occupied Palestine. Israel is the only country in the world that refuses to define its borders (unless we accept Menachem Began's definition, "from the Nile to the Euphrates" and "up to Turkey" made to Jerry Falwell in the 1980's ). Yet, the international community has defined its borders as the 1948 armistice line. A recognition of these borders, not of the territory now occupied by Israel, should be the starting point for negotiations. On the contrary, a demand is being made for yet another concession on the part of the Palestinians.
The Clinton proposal involved a trade in which the Palestinians were asked to compromise on Jerusalem in return for giving up the right of Palestinian refugees to return. This compromise clearly required that the Palestinians give up something that is of value to the Israelis (its claim of sovereignty over the West wall and the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem), and therefore might have been a starting point for negotiations except for one basic flaw.
Instead of asking the Palestinians what they would like from the Israelis in exchange for their compromise, the proposal demanded that the Palestinians give up the right of return "in exchange." What kind of negotiation asks you to compensate for something you are giving up?
Even if Arafat had thought this perverse offer was a good idea, he has no right under international law to accept it - the right of a people living outside out of their country to return home is firmly established. Since this includes those who have left their homes voluntarily, how much more so do those who have been driven out - whether by war (as the Israelis claim is the case with the Palestinians) or by a deliberate policy of persecution and confiscation (as is actually the case for many if not most Palestinians) - have that right? It is absurd for Barak to consider that his pretense of being willing to negotiate concerning territory beyond the 1948 borders constitutes a concession on his part.
Clinton thought that he could bully the Palestinian leadership into betraying the people they profess to represent by exchanging their rights, as given to them by Allah (SWT) and as recognized by international law. The Palestinian people, as well as all Muslims, are relieved to see that his efforts did not work. If anyone thinks that the failure of this ploy is due to "intransigence" on the part of the Palestinians, it is the fault of the Palestinian leadership for not declaring the "offer" as absurd at the outset.
Insha'Allah, Palestine will again become Palestinian (and Muslim). The question is when and how. If the United States were to cut off aid to Israel, Israeli intransigence would become untenable, and a peaceful accommodation by which Israeli Jews could live peacefully and enjoy full rights in the land could be negotiated. However, if the United States continues to support Israel, the latter will persist in flouting international law and human rights - at a great cost to the Palestinians.
Still, in the end, the demographics will turn against the Israelis. Their society will collapse under the combined stresses of its manifold fractures: religious vs. secular; Jew vs. non-Jew; conservative vs. liberal; Ashkenzi vs. Sephardim.
Muslims would rather see peace realized now; however, peace without justice does not exist. To pretend that it does is to live inside of a fantasy..
|
