No
More Ideas,
We Need Implementation
By Rifat Odeh Kassis
The
Electronic Intifada
28 November 2003
One wonders why the Geneva Accord has
not created any serious debate inside the Palestinian community, despite
the fact that the ink in which the Road Map was written had dried already.
I should confess
that I, myself, did not read this accord and, honestly, I do not intend
to read it. This is not because I am passive. It is not because I am
frustrated. Nor is it because I have my prejudices about it. I am not
going to read the Accord simply because I am fed up with new initiatives.
For the past three
decades, tens if not hundreds of initiatives have been launched and
each new one has claimed that it is better than the previous initiative.
In almost every Arab summit since the early eighties, there has been
a peace initiative that did not see the light of day for various and
sundry reasons; the most prevalent reason has been the continuous Israeli
rejection of Arab peace plans.
We dont need
more ideas. We need implementation.
The aim of the Zionist
movement was and still is the creation of a Greater Israel and the destruction
of any possibility for Palestinians to build their own state, especially
in Palestine. In order to do this, Israel has tried and continues to
do its best to keep instability in the region by threatening its neighbors
and by interfering in the internal affairs of all Middle Eastern countries.
Indeed, they have not restricted their interference to the region but
have extended it to countries in Latin America, North America, Asia,
Africa and other places. Their justification is that Israel is under
threat and must be strong enough to defend itself. Using this justification,
they maintained their nuclear cooperation with the late Apartheid System
in South Africa and kept their missiles pointing at southern parts of
the Former Soviet Union.
In addition, both
the US and Europe in general have played a role in keeping Israels
superiority in the region both militarily and economically and they
use the same justification. The neighboring countries of whom Israel
is afraid include Egypt, who has had a peace treaty with Israel since
the late seventies; Jordan, which has also had a peace treaty with Israel
since the 1990s; Djibouti; Somalia; and other starving countries who
queue in front of the American and European embassies asking for their
daily bread.
It is important
to mention here that Israel has had the chance to be integrated into
the region since they signed the first treaty with Egypt in the late
1970s. Their chances were greatly increased in 1988 when the PLO recognized
the state of Israel and stopped demands for the whole of historical
Palestine. Israel, however, did not listen to the sound of logic and
continued its policies of occupying Palestinian and other Arab territories.
The only change in policy was their demand, backed by the Americans,
that the Arabs and the entire Islamic world recognize their State but
without receiving anything from Israel in return. Instead of Land
for Peace, they raised the slogan of Peace for Peace.
This slogan was carried by both the Labor Zionist party and the Likud
Zionist party. The worst among the two parties was Labor.
Why? Simply because
when they are in power, they do whatever they can to continue the occupation.
They were the first to start building settlements in the Occupied Territories;
they were the first to start the deportation policy; they demolished
homes; the list is countless. Whenever there is a need to change their
policies, they simply put silk gloves over their iron fists. The irony
is that when Labor is the opposition party they hypocritically talk
of peace for when they return to power, their actions are war.
After the second
Intifada and George Bushs War Against Terror, Israel, under the
Sharon government and his ultra right wing alliance, moved very quickly
to create facts on the ground in preparation for future negotiations
with the Palestinians where the Palestinians would not have any thing
about which to negotiate. These facts, however, created a quandary:
what to do with the Palestinians if there is no viable state for them.
Would the Palestinians accept? Of course not, and so the only option
for Israel is to eliminate them. Historically, this has happened before.
It happened in US, its happened in Australia and in Europe. Why
shouldnt it be repeated in Israel/Palestine? If George Bush is
able to transfer his troops from another continent to fight terror,
why shouldnt Israel be allowed to fight terror in their own country?
If Bush and his regime choose to combat Malaria by shooting all the
anopheles instead of drying the swamps, why shouldnt Israel be
allowed to eliminate an entire terrorist nation!?
Sharon and his government,
instead of using the golden opportunity resulting from the war against
terror to build bridges and reconcile with the Middle Eastern countries,
chose to hide behind George Bush and waged the same war against every
country and every individual in the region. The shelling inside Syria
is only one example; Sharons trip to Russia to convince them not
to cooperate with Iran is another. The examples are countless.
The concept of annihilation
began to be considered by the other side of the Zionist coin, the Labor
party. Here I refer you to a courageous article published by the former
speaker of the Knesset from the Labor party Abrahan Burg that discusses
the dying principles of Zionism. Abraham Burg and others started to
analyze the regions hatred of the US and Israel.
Beginning to question
the ethics and the morals behind the Israeli occupation and measures
against the Palestinians, they were moved by the fact that the Labor
party is dying and the last election proved this. Splits inside the
party, weak leaders, and a lack of clear vision were the dominant indicators
that this party needed something new to resurrect it. Some of its leading
members such as Yossi Beilin, the former Labor Party leader Amram Mitzna,
the former speaker of the Knesset Avraham Burg and others, thought that
the Geneva Accord could do something for their political careers. The
conundrum is why these courageous Labor representatives did not launch
this initiative while they were in power. Why did they not revolt against
Barak? Why did they not come up with such a plan while they were in
power? They would have saved many lives from both nations.
One wonders what
power these men have on the ground. If they have any power at all, why
dont they take to the streets to protest against the current policy
of the Israeli government? Why dont they encourage the refusniks
or the pilots who refused to shell the children in Gaza? Why dont
they stop, with their bodies if need be, the Apartheid wall? Instead
of being here on the hot ground, why did they leave to quiet Switzerland
to negotiate peace? These and many other questions call into question
their intentions and true purpose.
What is the difference
between the Road map and this initiative? The Road Map, which was launched
by the US and supported by the Quartet, has not been implemented because
Sharon has fourteen points of concern against it. Given this one fact,
why should anyone believe that this accord will have a better chance.
The peace plan of
Crown Prince Abdallah of Saudi Arabia, which was endorsed at the Arab
Summit in Beirut of March 2002, offered Israel normal relations with
the entire Arab world once it withdrew to its pre-1967 borders and allowed
the emergence of an independent Palestinian state. In essence, it is
similar to the Geneva Accord.
This was rejected
by Sharon and Bush so why this initiative would have better chance than
the previous one? At the same time, this initiative has completely ignored
Syria and Lebanon without whom a comprehensive peace in the region will
be impossible. This is the same mistake the Palestinian delegation made
in the corridor dialogue in the US. They took their own path and signed
the Oslo Accord alone and the results speak for themselves.
Ehud Barak was the
first to say that there is no Palestinian party with whom to negotiate
and declared Arafat a terrorist. Sharon hid himself behind this statement
and continued to justify his policy waging his war against everybody
in Palestine. Unfortunately, at that time we did not hear the voices
of other party members to stop Barak from doing this. Almost all of
them accepted his arguments and blamed the Palestinians for missing
his generous offer. Peres, the current head of the Labor party, is against
this initiative as well. This then begs the question of who it is that
is behind this initiative. Are they the same marginalized members of
the Labor party trying to come to power this time riding on the backs
of the Palestinians?
By launching this
initiative, the death of the Road Map was declared but done cleverly
so that blame was not attached to the Israeli government; responsibility
was equally distributed to both sides. But if the Road Map is dead even
with all the support it received from the Quartet, then what guarantees
does this initiative have if it has only been signed by the marginalized
members of the dying Labor party?
If this initiative
is to see the light of day, it should become the Labor partys
political program and they should adopt it in a conference. Why not
stop the confusion?
Shlomo Ben Ami,
a former Israeli foreign minister from the Labor party, has publicly
called for an international mandate over the Palestinian territories.
If he is serious about it, why he did not make this call while in power?
The mere fact is
that the Palestinians dont have an Israeli partner for peace and
not the opposite. All we have are Sharon, Lieberman, a cowered left
without clear vision and a few of the more courageous leftists who do
not have any weight in their society. They seem to be asking us to support
all their initiatives by claiming that the initiatives will strengthen
their dead parties therefore enabling them to better present themselves
inside their community. Why we should pay this price to strengthen an
already cowered, dead and unclear left?
Is it our destiny
to continue signing more and more accords to prove that we are peace-loving
people? In every accord, we lower our ceiling and diminish our rights
by our own hands. We do this to convince the Israeli public that we
are serious about peace; instead, what we need is to see is how serious
they are about peace.
First and above
all, they should recognize that this is an occupation and they should
feel ashamed about this. They should work to end the occupation first
to let us see that they are serious.
How long must the
Palestinians continue to address Israeli public opinion about our will,
desire and need for peace without a clear reply from their side? We
are fed up from the hundreds of initiatives and accords that we have
already signed; what we need now is implementation. Is it not enough
that we recognized Israel free of charge? Is it not enough that we recognized,
also free of charge, their right to our land? Yet they still ask us
to stop our resistance to their occupation saying, as if we were recalcitrant
children that they want to wait and see if we behave well or not.
If we behave, then
maybe they will consider withdrawing; perhaps then, they will discuss
the percentage of their withdrawal. Are we school children whose teacher
asks the students to give the answers first and then he will give the
questions? It has become a vicious circle: we resist the occupation,
Israel says Stop your resistance and we will cease our occupation,
but since it is the occupation that we are resisting and the occupation
that has not ceased, we continue to resist.
For myself, I would
say to the imposed Palestinian leadership, enough playing with our rights
and enough delusion. The UN resolutions are the best basis for a solution
and should be respected; the total withdraw from our land occupied since
1967 including our Right of Return is the only viable initiative and
is the only guarantee for permanent peace. If this not to happen then
a one state solution will appear and more strongly this time.
Why should we accept
Israels definition of who is peace loving and who is not? Why
should we allow Israel to decide with whom they should talk and with
whom they should not talk. Abu Mazen is nice, Arafat is bad, Abu
Alla is fine, Abed Rabbo is better and we, the Palestinians, are
led like a herd sheep. It is the right time for a referendum to ask
the Palestinians what they want and which leadership they wish to have.
Is this not democratic enough? The International community should only
help us in this matter; not more or less. Let us select and elect our
own leadership without any interference from either Bush or Sharon.
I declare here that
I do not want anyone to speak in my name without being elected by me.
The terms of the entire leadership and the entire legislative council
members, elected eight years ago, have expired. Every day there is a
new/old leader who claims that he represents me and he knows the best
for me. Some of them are called new blood and some are called old guards.
Enough is enough.
It seems that our
mission is a mission impossible; we want to please the International
community, we want to please Europe, we want to please the US, we want
to please Israel. The only player no one seems to want to please is
the Palestinian.
Rifat Odeh Kassis
is the Executive Director of the East Jerusalem YMCA and the President
of Defense for Children International - Palestine Section.