The Israel-Arab Reader (103 page)

However, to this day, Arafat has not managed, has not wanted or has not been able to break the habit of constantly using the slogan about Palestine being redeemed only through blood and fire. Instead of leading his people down the road to conciliation with Israel, he is leading them down the road to terrorism, murder and anti-Semitic incitement.

Has a speaker of the Knesset ever walked upon the Palestinian flag? Yet Abu Ala, speaker of the Palestinian Parliament, his head held erect, walked on a “carpet” consisting of Israeli flags. Arafat missed his chance with Yitzhak Rabin, and he missed his chance with Shimon Peres.

Now the only Israeli leader with whom Arafat can arrive at an agreement is Prime Minister Ehud Barak. “After me, the flood!” seems to be Arafat's motto.

The Palestinians have been offered things that the Labor Party, in its various historical metamorphoses and in all its election campaigns, promised never to give to them. From Arafat's standpoint, this is a golden opportunity that might never recur in his lifetime.

He should pay attention to what the leaders of the Likud are saying. They want an immediate halt to the Palestinian-Israeli talks and they also want to sabotage the anticipated peace treaty right now, so that if their party wins the next general election, it will not be forced to honor that agreement. Their solution is an iron-fist policy and war on the Palestinians.

Arafat would have to be out of his mind not to grab with both hands what he is being offered. Barak has gone to the very limits of the concessions he is prepared to make. Even Peres admits that Barak has conceded too much. Yet what was Arafat's reaction after Israel's major concession at Camp David? He instructed his people to launch an
Intifada
and thus he planted among the members of Israeli society the seeds of distrust. “What,” Israelis began asking themselves, “after declaring ourselves ready to make such concessions, we're being ‘rewarded' with the deaths of our fellow Israelis?”

Politically speaking, Barak could have taken the easy way out: He could have set up a national unity government with Likud chief Ariel Sharon, thereby saying, in effect, “To hell with the peace process!” Instead, he risked his political skin, lost his partners in the coalition and has reached the point where his reelection is in doubt.

Barak has repeatedly warned the Israeli public that failure to arrive at a peace treaty with the Palestinians could ultimately plunge Israel into a regional war where non-conventional weapons will be used. Why is Arafat not broadcasting a similar message of urgency and catastrophe to his own people?

The Palestinians could not ask for a better time to get the best possible peace treaty than right now. But they want more. They want sovereignty. More than anything else, they want the right of return to be recognized and fulfilled. The Palestinian refugee problem was not caused by Israel; it was caused by the Arab states, which have tried, time and again, to use brute force to wipe us off the map. Israel bears no responsibility whatsoever for the tragic plight of the Palestinian refugees.

Israel has never demanded compensation for the thousands of Israeli citizens killed because of Arab aggression and has not received even one penny in compensation for the integration of hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from the Arab states and for the Jewish property that those states confiscated. Fulfillment of the right of return would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state, and thus Israel will never agree to this demand.

If the Palestinians have included the clause on the right of return as a ploy intended simply to enhance their bargaining position, they would be wise to withdraw it right now—because time is running out. Even the most patient of suitors gives up trying to capture a hard-to-get virgin. Arafat lost his virginity a long time ago, and we've had it with his game-playing and with his arm-twisting attempts. If they want it, they'll take it.

If they fail to grab hold of these offers now, instead of Barak, they'll get Sharon, Limor Livnat, Avigdor Lieberman and Natan Sharansky. Already, instead of Bill Clinton, they'll get George W. Bush, who will first have to learn to find Palestine on the map.

. . . . We wish to explain why the latest United States proposals, taken together and as presented without clarification, fail to satisfy the conditions required for a permanent peace. As it stands now, the United States proposal would:

The United States proposals were couched in general terms that in some instances lack clarity and detail. A permanent status agreement, in our view, is not merely a document that declares general political principles. It is, rather, a comprehensive instrument that spells out the details, modalities, and timetables of ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. For such an agreement to be effective, it must be backed by clear, effective international implementation guarantees. We believe that a general, vague agreement at this advanced stage of the peace process will be counterproductive. This conviction has resulted from our past experiences with vague agreements and from Israel's history of noncompliance with signed agreements. The permanent status agreement must be a truly final agreement rather than an agreement to negotiate.

The United States side presented proposals regarding four primary issues: territory, Jerusalem, refugees, and security.

On the issue of territory, the United States proposed that Israel annex 4 to 6 percent of the West Bank; that the annexation be compensated through a “land swap” of 1 to 3 percent; and that the Parties also consider a swap of leased land. The United States recommended that the final map be drawn in a manner that would place 80 percent of Israeli settlers in annexed settlement blocs, but that would nevertheless promote territorial contiguity, minimize annexed areas and minimize the number of Palestinians affected.

This proposal poses a number of serious problems. As the proposal is not accompanied by a map, and because the total area from which the percentages are calculated is not defined, it is difficult to imagine how the percentages presented can be reconciled with the goal of Palestinian contiguity. This is especially worrisome in light of the fact that the Israeli side continues to insist, and the United States has never questioned, that Jerusalem, as defined by Israel, the “no-man's land,” and the Dead Sea are not part of the total area from which the percentages are calculated. Moreover, the United States proposal calls for the “swap of leased land.” It is not entirely clear if Palestinian interests are served by such a swap since the Palestinian side has no territorial needs in Israel, except for a corridor linking the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which will be covered in a land swap. This proposal, taken together with the map presented by the Israeli side in the most recent round of negotiations in Washington (see attached map), provides Israel with control over large swaths of land, rendering the Palestinian state unviable and lacking direct access to international borders.

Without a map clarifying the above ambiguities, the United States proposal does nothing to foreclose a return by Israel to its proposals at Camp David which leaves 10 percent of the West Bank under Israeli sovereignty and an additional 10 percent under Israeli control pursuant to ill-defined security arrangements. It is important to bear in mind that all of the settlements in the West Bank currently occupy approximately 2 percent of the West Bank.

In this context, the Palestinian side rejects the use of “settlement blocs” as a guiding principle as recommended by the United States proposal. The use of this criterion subordinates Palestinian interests in the contiguity of their state and control over their natural resources to Israeli interests regarding the contiguity of settlements, recognized as illegal by the international community. It also contradicts the United States proposal's criteria concerning minimizing annexed areas and the number of Palestinians affected. In addition, the Palestinian side needs to know exactly which settlements Israel intends to annex.

Ultimately, it is impossible to agree to a proposal that punishes Palestinians while rewarding Israel's illegal settlement policies. A proposal involving annexation of 4 to 6 percent (not to mention 10 percent) of the land would inevitably damage vital Palestinian interests. Under such a proposal, a number of Palestinian villages will be annexed to Israel, adding to the already great number of displaced Palestinians.

Moreover, as the attached map demonstrates, a large quantity of unsettled land in key development areas such as Jerusalem and Bethlehem will also be annexed by Israel, destroying the territorial contiguity of the State of Palestine. In addition to compromising Palestinians' freedom of movement within their own state, this would also have serious ramifications for the state's development potential. In addition, any such large-scale annexation will inevitably prejudice Palestinian water rights.

As for the “land swap,” the United States proposal does not identify which areas within Israel are to compensate for the annexed land. The Palestinian side continues to insist that any annexed land must be compensated with land of equal size and value. No argument has been presented as to why this should not be the case. However, the United States proposal explicitly rejects the principle that compensation of land must be of equal size and remains silent on the issue of the location and quality of the compensated land. All previous Israeli and United States proposals concerning compensated land have referred to land near the Gaza Strip in exchange for valuable real estate in the West Bank. In addition to being desert areas, the lands being offered near the Gaza Strip are currently being used by Israel to dump toxic waste. Obviously, we cannot accept trading prime agricultural and development land for toxic waste dumps.

On the issue of Jerusalem, President Clinton articulated a general principle that “Arab areas are Palestinian and Jewish areas are Israeli,” but urged the two sides to work on maps to create maximum contiguity for both. Two alternative formulations were presented addressing each State's sovereignty over and rights to the Haram al-Sharif (“Haram”) and the “Western Wall” (“Wall”). Both formulations provide for Palestinian sovereignty over the Haram and Israeli sovereignty over the Wall, resticting the Parties from excavating beneath the Haram or behind the Wall.

The United States formulations on the Haram are problematic. First, the proposal appears to recognize Israeli sovereignty under the Haram by implying that it has a right, which it voluntarily relinquishes, to excavate behind the Western Wall (i.e., the area under the Haram). Moreover, the “Western Wall” extends to areas beyond the Wailing Wall, including the tunnel opened in 1996 by Israel's former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu which caused widespread confrontations.

The territorial aspects of the United States proposals concerning Jerusalem also raise very serious concerns and call for further clarification. As the attached map shows, as a result of Israel's internationally condemned settlement policy in occupied East Jerusalem, the United States formulation “that Arab areas are Palestinian and Jewish ones are Israeli” will be impossible to reconcile with the concept of “maximum contiguity for both,” presented in the proposal. Rather, the formulation will inevitably result in Palestinian islands within the city separated from one another. Israel, however, will be able to maintain contiguity.

Therefore, the proposal is actually calling for “maximum contiguity for both” translates in practice into “maximum contiguity for Israel.”

Israel's continued demand for sovereignty over a number of geographically undefined “religious sites” in Jerusalem, and its refusal to present maps clearly showing its territorial demands in Jerusalem only compounds the Palestinian concerns. Any formulation that will be acceptable by the Palestinian side must guarantee the contiguity of Palestinian areas within the city as well as the contiguity of Jerusalem with the rest of Palestine.

A key element of the Palestinian position on Jerusalem is its status as an Open City with free access for all. This status is imperative not only to ensure access to and worship in all holy sites for all those who hold the city sacred, but also to guarantee free movement through the State of Palestine. Unfortunately, the United States proposal makes no reference to this essential concept.

On the issue of Palestinian refugees, driven from their homes as a result of the establishment of the State of Israel, the United States proposed that both sides recognize the right of Palestinian refugees to return either to “historic Palestine” or to “their homeland,” but added that the agreement should make clear that there is no specific right of return to what is now Israel. Instead, it proposed five possible final homes for the refugees: (1) the State of Palestine; (2) areas in Israel transferred to Palestine in the “land swap”; (3) rehabilitation in the host countries; (4) resettlement in third countries; and (5) admission to Israel. All refugees would have the right to “return” to the State of Palestine; however, rehabilitation in host countries, resettlement in third countries, and admission to Israel all would depend on the policies of those individual countries.