When reading about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in the mainstream media, one constantly comes up with the same flaw: Israel is virtually always portrayed as acting in `good faith', i.e. that it is acting with the aim of increasing Israel's security, or that it is trying to achieve peace, albeit in a thoroughly misguided fashion.
Unfortunately, the evidence does not bear this out. What the evidence tells us is this: Israel does not want peace with the Palestinians. Some Israelis point to Oslo and Camp David to prove how much they were willing to compromise for peace. Others point to the Gaza disengagement to show that unilateral Israeli concessions are met with terror and violence. There are several problems with this idea.
Firstly, let's talk Oslo. The Oslo Accord was not an attempt at peace. Essentially, the main outcome of the 1993 Accord was to legitimise the Israeli occupation. After the Gulf War, the PLO was `on the verge of bankruptcy' and `in [a] weakened condition' (Uri Savir, Israel's chief negotiator at Oslo, cited by Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, page xix), and Israel seized the chance to recruit them as "enforcers". As Finkelstein writes, "This was the real meaning of the Oslo Accord signed in September 1993: to create a Palestinian Bantustan by dangling before Arafat and the PLO the perquisites of power and privilege..."
The Accord essentially gave the Palestinians nothing — it didn't even speak of self-determination. Israel's intent in signing it was illustrated well by its actions in the decade following — it continued to rapidly expand its illegal settlements in Palestinian Occupied Territory, as this report from B'Tselem notes: "The political process between Israel and the Palestinians did not impede settlement activities, which continued under the Labor government of Yitzhak Rabin (1992-1996) and all subsequent governments. These governments built thousands of new housing units, claiming that this was necessary to meet the 'natural growth' of the existing population. As a result, between 1993 and 2000 the number of settlers on the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) increased by almost 100 percent."
Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami describes accurately how the Israelis viewed Oslo:
Arafat conceived Oslo as a way ... to come back to the territories and control the politics of the Palestinian family. Don't forget that the Intifada, to which Oslo brought an end, started independently of the P.L.O. leadership, and he saw how he was losing control of the destiny of the Palestinians ... So in Oslo, he made enormous concessions.
In fact, when he was negotiating in Oslo with us, an official Palestinian delegation was negotiating with an official Israeli delegation in Washington, and the official Palestinian delegation was asking the right things from the viewpoint of the Palestinians — self-determination, right of return, end of occupation, all the necessary arguments — whereas Arafat in Oslo reached an agreement that didn't even mention the right of self-determination for the Palestinians, doesn't even mention the need of the Israelis to put an end to settlements ... So this was the cheap agreement that Arafat sold, precisely because he wanted to come back to the territories and control the politics of Palestine.
So now let's move on to Camp David in 2000. The popular myth is that at Camp David, Barak offered these crazy concessions no Israeli leader had dared make before, and the stubborn Palestinians still rejected it. In fact, what was offered at Camp David was the creation of a Palestinian state split into four separate cantons — de facto non-contiguous. Also included was a clause stating that, once signed, this agreement would be the final settlement. In other words, upon signing, the Palestinians would give up prior claims based on international law. There was no way Arafat could sign. Again, contrary to popular mythology, it was not the Israelis who compromised at Camp David, but the Palestinians. As Finkelstein explains:
Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it's illegal for any occupying country to transfer its population to Occupied Territories. All of the settlements, all of the settlements are illegal under international law...The Palestinians were willing to concede 50% - 50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That was a monumental concession, going well beyond anything that was demanded of them under international law.
Borders...Under international law, Israel had to withdraw from all of the West Bank and all of Gaza. As the World Court put it in July 2004, those are, quote, "occupied Palestinian territories." Now, however you want to argue over percentages, there is no question...the Palestinians were willing to make concessions on the borders.
Article comments
1 - Simon H
A good piece, nicely pulls together resources to dispel the myths.
As I remember the rather marvelous Camp David deal also generously took all the decent land agriculturual and water supplies to Israel and kindly gave Israel's waste dumpign areas to the Palestinians.
So kind..
2 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
Yeh, in virtually every respect the Camp David agreement would have been a disaster for the Palestinians, had they accepted it. Of course, the proposed deal was +so+ far away from being acceptable that there was no way Arafat could accept it, but it served a useful purpose for Israel becauase it allowed it to claim that it had tried peace, it offered crazy compromises for peace, and those pesky Palestinians still turned it down.
3 - Deano
the creation of a Palestinian state split into four separate cantons - de facto non-contiguous
I'm curious to know how you magically would divvy things up to end up with a contigous Palestinian state....
4 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
It's eaay, Deano. You don't have cantons, you don't have an Israel. You have a pack of Jews "enjoying" dhimmitude under the Arabs (rapes, massacres, etc.) while Jamie here enjoys himself in London.
That's where this garbage leads. And before that happens, a whole pack of Arabs die, because frankly, we will not take that kind of shit and will die fighting.
The fool who wrote this article has no clue as to just how serious I am. He ran away from "serious" when he left Israel, and so long as the Arabs don't kick him in the balls, he will pontificate till the pigs come home.
5 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
Deano: There is no way Gaza can be literally connected to the West Bank, although there are ways (e.g. high speed rail) to compensate somewhat for this. The point is that Camp David offered to split the West Bank into a further three de facto non-contiguous cantons. Obviously, from the viewpoints of both the Palestinians and international law, this is completely unacceptable.
Ruvy: Is your argument here what it looks like? Are you essentially saying, 'there's no way we can allow the Palestinians no escape poverty and misery and form a viable state, because if they do Israel will no longer survive'?
If you are, that's compeltely ridiculous - unless you'd like to provide some reasoning to back up your assertion.
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Jamie, you know my argument by now. The hostile Arabs need to leave Israel for Jordan, the Arab refugees need to leave Lebanon for Jordan. They get the land east of the river, we get it west of the river.
We do what we can (which is quite a lot once you get the thieves and the traitors out of power here) to see to it that the Arab state immediately to our east lives in prosperity - and not in dependence on us.
But - the thieves in Israel need to go, and the concept of OUR CONTROL OFVER THE ENTIRE LAND needs to be recognized by the ruler of the land east of the Jordan. That is the route of peace and the route of prosperity.
7 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
Hmm - so essentially you're going for the 'transfer' option. That is; when the Zionists first proposed setting up a Jewish homeland in Palestine, they faced a problem - the Palestinians already living there. How to create a Jewish majority, with Jewish rule? There was the 'South Africa' option, where you basically have a minority rule over the majority by force, and the 'transfer' option, where you 'cleanse' the land of its inhabitants.
Either option is both immoral and illegal (actually, come to think of it, doesn't that necessarily make Zionism immoral?).
8 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Jamie, in an essay that I will soon attempt to get published here, I will argue that Zionism is on its way out, having accomplished its essential task of rescuscitating a Jewish nation here.
Zionism is represented by a court jester named Olmert and a chancellor and chamberlain named Peres, a man determined to be "king of the Jews" even if it kills us all.
I do not have any trouble with someone saying that this unholy pair is immoral. It hurts me to see people I have put real faith in, like Rzv Adin Steinsaltz, when they are shown not to live up the potential I prayed for, but that is not the issue here.
You just refuse to bite the bullet and admit that transfer is a better solution than the bullshit that the EU and the US is trying to shove down our throats here - even when trasfer has been used against you very own people. Or have you ostracized the refugees of Gush Qatif from your realm of acceptable people?
9 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
'You just refuse to bite the bullet and admit that transfer is a better solution than the bullshit that the EU and the US is trying to shove down our throats here'
A better solution for who? The Israeli Jews? Does everything to fit around the security needs of the Israeli Jews? Are Jews the only people who deserve the right of self-determination?
The 'transfer' method, i.e. ethnic cleansing, is quite obviously illegal and immoral. The Palestinians have an absolute legal and moral right to form an independent state in the occupied territories. Ethnic cleansing is disgusting - the mass, forced expulsion of millions of people from their homes is a crime against humanity. I can't believe you're advocating it. I can only think its because you have long ago stopped thinking of Palestinians as human beings of equal 'worth' as Israeli Jews.
10 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Jamie,
My solution is a better solution for the Arabs here and for us Jews. I don't propose immediate expulsion of Arabs from the country, but a gradual leaving over two generations that allows the Arabs here to build up wealth enough to resettle east of the Jordan, with the opportunity to buy and cultivate land or to develop buinesses if they so choose. Only the hostile Arabs would have to leave immediately.
The idea is to build up an Arab economy that is independent of Israel so that Arabs would be able to live in dignity and prosperity without being dependent upon Israel. At this point, any Arab entity carved out of our land would be an economic dependency of Israel, and Israelis would continue to view Arabs as cheap - albeit dangerous - labor.
Do you have a better solution or are the Arabs supposed to dip their pita in your heightened sense of sympathy and morality?
11 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
Oh, I see. You're advocating ethnic cleansing because you're concerned about Arab welfare...yes, I missed that one.
It's a question of rights. THe Palestinians have a moral, but more important LEGAL right to an independent state (not dependent on Israel, so you're concern is misplaced) on the West bank and Gaza. If they want to exercise that right, as they so obviously do, then they must be allowed to.
Don't try and base your argument for illegal cleansing, gradual or not, on Arab welfare. All that matters is that the Palestinians want a state in the occupied territories, and they have a legal right to establish one there. That's it, end of story (for this purpose).
12 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Jamie, for you in London, this may seem to be the "end of the story."
I got an interesting e-mail that indicates why the hate spewed from Hamas, (the local branch office of the Islamic Brotherhood, originally from Egypt) means that they, along with the PLO and all the other "Palestinian" terrorists must be eliminated. As in murdered off, exterminated like the cockroaches they are.
While traitors like you defend Moslems in England, this is what Moslems have to say about people like you.
El yahud clabna, falastin bladna: the Jews are our dogs and Palestine is our country
This is part of the text:
A man brazenly shoots his way into the Jewish Federation of Seattle, kills a woman and wounds four others, three critically. As he opens fire, the alleged assailant says: "I am a Muslim and I'm angry at Israel," as if to indicate that his religious affiliation gives him permission to kill Jews.
In a second incident, Mel Gibson, a Hollywood director and actor, is arrested in Malibu on suspicion of drunk driving. He allegedly screams at the officer: "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world," not realizing that nearly all today's wars are Islamic wars. He also asks his arresting officer, "Are you Jewish?"
In the third incident, in the streets of San Francisco, Palestinians chanted proudly in Arabic and without fear of being detected, "The Jews are our dogs!"
The common denominator in all three incidents is hate, racism, intolerance, and bigotry. While Jew-hating is not a new phenomenon, it has recently become the insult de rigueur in many parts of our society. As a human being, I deplore all forms of hate, but the third incident has a special meaning to me, as the following paragraphs will clearly show.
The incident happened when I was at the anti-Israel demonstration in front of the Israeli consulate in San Francisco on Thursday, July 12. The demonstration, organized by a Palestinian group called Al-Awda, was loud, boisterous and passionate. Suddenly and shockingly, demonstrators began chanting in Arabic, "Al-Yahud kelabna!" Or, "The Jews are our dogs!"
My first reaction to the Palestinian chanting was one of disbelief. Then, I felt a mixture of fear, anger and heavy-heartedness. Terrible memories cascaded before me, taking me back to when I was a young boy growing up in Egypt. These memories included Egyptian mobs descending upon the Jewish quarter of Cairo chanting "Al-Yahud kelabna," followed by violence that left some Jews dead and injured, and the community dazed.
Egyptian Muslim mobs no longer do this, because there is no longer an Egyptian Jewish community to speak of. We once were over 80,000. Today, there are fewer than 50 Jews remaining in Egypt. Indeed, once-thriving Jewish communities in ten Arab countries were likewise cleansed. Today, virtually no Jews remain in the Arab or Muslim world.
--------------------------------------------------
I'll leave you to read the rest while you adjust your leash and criticize me for "ethnic cleansing."
13 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
I don't understand your point. That there are Arabs and Palestinians who are extreme anti-Semites? Of course there are.
This is the equivalent of me finding three quotes from Israeli Jews (hell, even Israeli Prime Ministers) of racism twoards Arabs/Palestinians and try to use this to prove some kind of point.
As to the ethnic cleansing - if Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arab countries, would you find this acceptable? What about in any other case - when the pioneers ethnically cleansed the native americans from their land, was this acceptable? Is ethnically cleasning EVER acceptable? No. Its not acceptable no matter who the culprit and victims are, and yes, shockingly, that still holds true if the culprit is Israel.
But anyway, your whole attempt to frame the debate in terms of Irael's security needs is disingenuous. As Amos Oz asks, What does Israel, the fourth ranking military power on the planet, have to fear from a Palestinian state 1//5 the size of Albania and 1/2 the population of Kuwait? Its a ludicrous argument - as one former Israeli Foreign Minister said, 'Israel has as much to fear from a Palestinian state as the Soviet Union does from Luxemburg'.
14 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Jamie,
You really do need to adjust that leash the Arabs have slipped on you so you can get some oxygen to your brain...
I never got a chance to approve of the ethnic cleansing of Jews in Arab states. What you defend is Jew-hatred with pathetic remarks about anti-Arab comments.
And you refuse to get it at all. You, Jamie, are the one threatened in Exile by Arabs who consider you nothing more than a dog. If they beat you up, (G-d forbid), your family will have to argue with cops too gutless to carge the Arabs with a hate crime.
If Arabs try to storm the security of my village, they will be killed. No Jew in Ma'aleh Levona will be beaten by Arabs with impunity. That is what this article is to demonstrate to you. That the people you so busily and spiritedly defend consider you as nothing more than a dog. If you refuse to realize this, maybe you are one...
Like I said, at least loosen your leash and let some oxygen into your brain...