Middle East in freefall

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Grassroots Information Coordination Center (GICC) : One Thread

Middle East in freefall by IGNACIO RAMONET

They came so close. In June it really seemed as if the Palestinians and Israelis had peace in the Middle East within their grasp. On the thorniest issues - the return of land, the status of East Jerusalem and the question of refugees - a historic compromise seemed on the point of being made (1). Necessarily, this meant concessions - and more for the Palestinians than the Israelis (2) - concessions which extremists on both sides swiftly condemned as unacceptable, even as sacrilege. However, seven years after Oslo, despite its imperfections, the outline agreement seemed to open the way for real steps towards peace. By putting a stop to the violence in the region - after more than 50 years of war - these steps would have guaranteed Israel's legitimate right to security, would have recognised the Palestinians' no less legitimate right to live in a sovereign state of their own, and would have enabled the Middle East to get on with the business of economic and social development. But since late September this virtuous spiral has turned into a murderous spiral of violence which threatens to set the whole region on fire.

We came so close to peace, so why are we now suddenly plunged back into war? At the July negotiations between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak at Camp David, it was clear that the Palestinians, angered by constant violations by the Israeli authorities (3) and under pressure from a civilian population exasperated by the humiliations of occupation, were unwilling to make further concessions. In particular on East Jerusalem, which they intend to make the capital of their future state. They argued that international law was on their side, since UN resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw to its borders prior to the 1967 war, and therefore to give back East Jerusalem, which was taken during that war. This includes the whole of the Old City, which contains the holy places of the three monotheistic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Palestinians were, however, willing to accept that the Jewish quarter of the Old City and the Western Wall remain under full Israeli sovereignty.

Ehud Barak saw himself as representing the desire of part of his people that Jerusalem should be kept undivided, as their "eternal capital". He would not accept division of the city. Yasser Arafat could not move either, knowing that he was bound by Muslims and by Muslim governments to keep the holy places under Arab safekeeping.

This double impasse, on an issue that is certainly political but which has strong religious overtones, was what caused the breakdown of negotiations - a breakdown which extremists on both sides hailed as a victory. They knew that the moment of confrontation was approaching. Ehud Barak's final move - proposing that the Palestinian capital be established, under the name of Al-Quds (the Arab name for Jerusalem), less than two kilometres from the Temple Mount, which would remain under the guardianship (but not the sovereignty) of the Palestinians - was not sufficient to block the spiral of violence.

We all know what happened next: General Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to the al-Aqsa complex, surrounded by a thousand armed police; the protests by Palestinian civilians; the disproportionate brutality of Israeli repression (4); the Palestinian children and teenagers killed by bullets; the odious lynching of two Israeli soldiers in Ramallah; the murderous raids against Israeli Arabs in Nazareth and elsewhere. Inhumanity writ large. It is a political regression towards a Balkans-style ethnic-religious conflict, as happened in Bosnia and Kosovo. And here and there, fanatics on both sides launch calls for "ethnic cleansing" or "separation of populations", as happened in Cyprus (5). For Palestinians, it is a return to despair. For Israelis, the majority of whom remain in favour of a peace agreement, it is a return to fear.

The need for such an agreement is as strong as ever. Israel, a military superpower backed by the hyperpower of the United States (which has been outrageously partial towards Israel), needs to show that it understands the meaning of justice. This is far from a level playing field. In the West Bank and Gaza we have a classic colonial situation, with both colonisers and colonised. Israeli politicians seem incapable of meeting the challenges of post-Zionism, and also seem signally lacking in imagination, boldness and humanity. Will they have the courage to take the steps that need to be taken? First, dismantle the enclave settlements in Hebron and Gaza, which were created illegally, usually by heavily armed far-right fanatics. Second, give up the illusion that the Palestinians are willing to settle for just about anything since the odds are stacked so heavily against them. Third, admit that the Palestinians are fighting for freedom and independence, and that the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, which is criminal in its treatment of civilians, is also suicidal for the survival of the Jewish state (6). Geographic realities and the demands of the future leave these two peoples no choice but to come to an understanding with each other.

Translated by Ed Emery

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED B) 1997-2000 Le Monde diplomatique

http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/en/2000/11/01leader

-- Martin Thompson (mthom1927@aol.com), November 14, 2000


Moderation questions? read the FAQ