|
|
|
A symptomatic approach
by Ibrahim
Nafie
That calls to "end the
violence" have come to dominate the diplomatic rubric for resolving the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict indicates a tendency to treat symptoms rather
than causes. This approach is fraught with dangers. If the calm and
stability that all concerned parties hope to restore is to last, symptoms
and causes must be addressed together.
Fortunately, there is a
growing awareness of this need, as exemplified by the Egyptian- Jordanian
initiative and the recent report of the Mitchell Committee. Both efforts
stress that the cessation of violence must coincide with a complete halt
to Israeli settlement construction in the occupied territories, the
withdrawal of Israeli forces, and efforts to re-engage Palestinians and
Israelis in negotiations at the point at which they broke off under the
Barak government.
What is taking place in
Palestine today is a conflict between an occupying power and a
people striving to liberate their land and establish an independent
state. It is a conflict, moreover, in which the occupying power is
using some of the most inhuman practices in modern history. Under
direct orders from the minister of defence and the prime minister,
Israeli forces have bulldozed Palestinian homes, fired live
ammunition at children and adolescents, bombarded Palestinian
residential neighbourhoods and civilian structures with tank and
helicopter missiles, and, only recently, unleashed the latest F-16s
in a massive assault over the occupied territories. Against the
rhetoric of "ending the violence" one cannot help but be struck by
the enormous discrepancy between Israel's highly advanced military
machine and the Palestinian stones, light weaponry and, at most, the
occasional home-made mortar bomb.
This discrepancy drives
home the fact that the Sharon-led government has a single objective.
Whereas Barak had thought he could impose a prejudicial settlement
on the PA through political coercion, Sharon believes he can
accomplish it by bombing the Palestinians. He has drastically
miscalculated if he thinks he can break the Palestinian spirit of
resistance, grounded as it is in the internationally sanctioned
right to fight for what the UN has termed their "inalienable
rights."
Both the Egyptian-
Jordanian initiative and the Mitchell report recognise the
complexity of the situation and offer a range of balanced, practical
measures to end the violence. If there are minor discrepancies
between the two initiatives, they agree in substance. Both call for
a "comprehensive halt to violence" and a complete freeze on Israeli
settlement expansion -- including, the Mitchell report stressed,
those activities aimed at accommodating "natural growth of
settlements," and the resumption of negotiations. The
Egyptian-Jordanian initiative further called for the withdrawal of
Israeli forces to their positions prior to 28 September, while the
Mitchell report cautioned the Israelis against the use of
"excessive" force. In addition, the Egyptian-Jordanian initiative
stressed that negotiations should resume at the point they left off.
The PA welcomed the
Egyptian-Jordanian initiative, unlike Sharon. The modifications
Sharon wanted introduced, notably to the provisions on Jewish
settlements and the resumption of negotiations, would have robbed
the initiative of any substance and transformed it into a tool for
serving Israeli security objectives. Similarly, when the Mitchell
recommendations were put before the two sides, the PA accepted them
as "a package," in spite of what it felt were certain shortcomings,
whereas Tel Aviv's initial reaction was to reject it. In spite of
the fact that the Mitchell report was carefully formulated to
accommodate a number of Israel's positions, Sharon rejected the
provision on settlement construction because it did not allow for
"natural growth" and the provision linking the cessation of violence
with a specific mechanism for resuming negotiations. If the Sharon
government subsequently declared its approval of the report, it
nevertheless stuck to its reservation regarding settlement
construction in the occupied territories.
Now CIA director George
Tenet is in the Middle East in order to hammer out an agreement
intended to satisfy Israel's security concerns. The exclusive
emphasis on the security dimension that this visit represents
cannot, though, serve as a basis to stop what they term violence.
What Tenet appears to be seeking is a cessation of violence from the
US- Israeli perspective -- a Palestinian white flag declaring the
relinquishment of the legitimate right to resist occupation. That is
all one can deduce from a proposal that calls upon the PA to arrest
some 300 Palestinian nationalists whose names have been provided by
Israeli security agencies.
Clearly, something has
gone amiss. The Egyptian-Jordanian initiative and the Mitchell
report are based on the awareness that the current violence is
primarily the product of Israel's continued procrastination in
implementing its contractual obligations and its relentless
violation of inalienable Palestinian rights. The Tenet mission, in
its attempt to push for the fulfilment of Israel's security demands,
appears to have ignored the import of this message. Any calm
resulting from such a one-sided approach can only be ephemeral.
On the other hand, the
Arabs are pursuing initiatives at an international level in order to
promote awareness of the true nature of the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict. One of the most significant results of these efforts was
the UN General Assembly declaration issued last Sunday, with the
support of the G-77, asserting "the need to safeguard the rights of
peoples under occupation and to protect civilians," and urging
international cooperation towards "ending all impediments preventing
peoples under occupation from the fulfilment of their rights."
Egypt's permanent representative at the UN further called on the
General Assembly to consider Jewish settlements in occupied Arab
territories as war crimes under the provisions of the charter of the
International Tribunal for Crimes against Humanity.
Such efforts should help
drive home the fact that the actions the Palestinian people are
taking against the Israeli occupation are not "terrorist violence,"
but internationally sanctioned armed resistance, and that Israel's
attempts to alter the demographic character of the occupied
territories are war crimes.
This is the message that
should be brought home to those intent upon securing a halt to
violence without addressing its political underpinnings.
Source:
|
|
|
