It's Time to Internationalize the Solution
Ever since the Peel Commission report of 1937 stated that "partition offers
a chance of ultimate peace", many plans have been proposed for partitioning
the country between the Jews and Arabs - and all have failed. The common
denominator of all the plans, from the UN's decision of 1947 to the Oslo
Accords and the road map is the dependence on the goodwill of the sides.
That recipe led over and over to deadlocks and outbreaks of violence.
A similar fate befell the armistice agreements that in effect divided the
country after the Israeli war of independence, and the Israeli occupation of the
territories, which was based on territorial unity and "administrative partition"
between civilians with full rights and subjects of the military government.
Ariel Sharon's latest hit - an imposed interim agreement (also known as
"disengagement" with a separation fence) - doesn't even pretend to promise
quiet, but only that the conflict will continue from improved lines.
The idea of partition has much support, both international and domestic. But
in light of the failed performances by the sides, which have prevented its
execution, it is worth considering the alternative of internationalization:
expropriating the authority to determine the borders and security arrangements
from the Israelis and Palestinians and giving the authority to the superpowers,
led by the U.S. In recent years it has become evident that negotiations do not
lead to a solution or to solving the conflict because the domestic price of the
concessions appear to each side as higher than the advantages of compromise.
The Geneva initiative, which tried to present a model for an historic
compromise showed that even when faced with the most moderate Israelis, the
Palestinians could not give up their demand in principle for the "right of
return" or explicitly recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Living together has
not softened suspicions and hatred between the communities. The Palestinians
believe Zionism is a plot to take away their land and many Israelis believe that
terror and murder are built into the very nature of their neighbours. Now Sharon
wants to give up the ethos of "settlement throughout all of the Land of Israel"
to buy some quiet. But like Ehud Barak, he'll find out that the Palestinians
don't give up something for nothing. Their desire to fight was not reduced even
when their cities were conquered, their government was crushed and their leader
jailed in his office. And they enjoy broad international support for their
struggle, as shown by the "fence trial" in The Hague last week.
Internationalizing the solution would free the sides from conflict with
their respective national ethos. In their name, the superpowers would give up
"the right of return" and "Judea and Samaria" and would also have to give up
their own contribution to fanning the flames of the conflict. The Europeans
regard the Palestinians as the heirs to the Resistance, and the Americans
compare the Israelis to the pioneers who won their Wild West. That romance of
the war has to stop and make way for the encouragement of normalcy. The idea of
internationalization prompts nearly automatic rejection in Israel on the grounds
that foreign intervention would get in the way of the war on terror. But that is
very short-sighted. It is true there is no point in positioning an international
force in the territories just for decoration, like UNIFIL in Lebanon. First a
solution has to be set, dictated with sticks and carrots to both sides, which
depend on aid and legitimacy from the international community.
The arrangement in Cyprus is an example of international determination that
overcame the hatred between the communities. The American historian Howard
Sachar wrote recently in The Los Angeles Times that small countries are captive
to the concept of "territorial security" and are unable to compromise. The
superpowers dictated the borders in Europe and the Far East after the world
wars, and that should be their function now, instead of hiding under the cover
of "honest broker." The current international constellation offers Israel a ripe
moment for just such an arrangement, with the world being run by a single
friendly superpower. Thus, perhaps, the conclusions of the Peel Commission can
be fulfilled, in which even if the partition does not offer the Jews and Arabs
"all they want, it offers each what it wants most, namely freedom and security."
Source: Ha’aretz, March 4, 2004,
Israel - Palästina:
Zur Notwendigkeit einer internationalen
Unilateral detachment from Gaza:
In a Small Piece…
Gershon Baskin, Israeli Co-Director of the Israel/Palestine
Center for Research and Information, reflects on the potential repercussions
of a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Baskin advocates
that “the main thing is to get the [authority transition] process moving in
the right direction by planning for it now in parallel with any Israeli
planning for disengagement and redeployment.” (Source: IPCRI, March 4, 2004)
Silent - no longer:
Call It Enlightened Self-Interest
OneVoice founder and President Daniel Lubetzky
discusses the OneVoice fast growing campaign whose mission is “to isolate
the forces of terrorism and violent absolutism […] by giving the
overwhelming but heretofore silent majority of Israelis and Palestinians the
opportunity to have their voices heard and seize back the agenda from the
minority that creates and sustains the current intractable situation.”
(Source: Jerusalem Post, February 17, 2004)
The Geneva Accord Series VII/VIII:
Even those who oppose the Geneva Accord in the Palestinian and Arab mass
media, for whom Arab satellite channels open their arms and screens, cannot
deny that the initiative has stirred the stagnant waters in the lake of a
frozen peace, since the extremists and hardliners from both the Palestinian
and Israeli sides took matters into their own hands.
The Geneva Accord Series
Hope and Glory - Geneva
In this last article of the Geneva Accord series,
former speaker of Israel's Knesset Avraham Burg presents the reason for the
collapse of the previous peace initiative - Oslo, including the conclusions
that are required for the rescue and success of the next attempt - Geneva.
(Source: CGNews, March 5, 2004)