RSS Feeds

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil,    but because of the people who don't do anything about it

Occupation magazine - Commentary Home page  back Print  Send To friend Illusionary peace negotiations can only lead to a hallucinated peace Sam Bahour The Economist 19.10.11 http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/769 The world seems to be in deep, collective amnesia. We have been here before—at a point where half-baked initiatives and distorted negotiations based on the power imbalance on the ground and non-compliant with international law were touted as `the right formula` and `the way forward`. It`s wake-up time. Palestinians do not forget so easily. The deep wounds they carry, of dispossession since the violent creation of Israel in 1948, military occupation since 1967 and non-stop institutional discrimination against Palestinians inside Israel, have never had a chance to heal. Yet Palestinians cling to international law as the way out of their conflict with Israel. I often wonder if one-tenth of what has happened, and continues to happen, to Palestinians were to befall the citizens of London, New York, or Melbourne, would those communities, six decades later, still be begging the international community to uphold the body of law that was designed to keep the peace, or would they choose outright violence to free themselves from foreign military domination? Evidently Palestinians are either extremely bad fighters or they have opted for extreme restraint in the face of insurmountable odds. I think it is a mix of both. The facts on the ground are bitter, very bitter. To end the perpetual turmoil and enable permanent stability and normalcy in the region, an unambiguous frame of reference for negotiations must be acknowledged and adopted before the first word is spoken at the table. This is not rocket science, although some would like us to believe it is. Consider some examples: when you visit your local department store, the retailer does not unconditionally sell you a product. Both of you agree to terms of purchase, including, for example, your ability to get a refund. If this transaction goes bad for any reason, civil law is your recourse. Likewise, when someone robs a bank and is apprehended, the judicial process does not call the parties to the courtroom for an unconditional, coffee-shop-like chat to solve their grievances. Exactly the opposite: lawyers make a living by maintaining careful positioning of their case within criminal law and precedents, providing the judge and jury with a baseline legal frame of reference to judge the case. Anyone who has ever sat on a jury knows exactly what I refer to; some things spoken in the courtroom are admissible and some are not. The relevant lesson here is that, whether buying a pair of pants or holding a thief accountable, we all need and accept documented reference points so that we can all coexist in this world. Consider the sad fact that, for the 20 years since the Madrid talks, Palestinians have failed to insist on a proper legal frame of reference for facilitating an end to Israel`s military occupation. Having belatedly rectified that by requesting UN membership, why are Palestinians now seen as unreasonable in calling for a clear frame of reference (ie, no settlement building) for the negotiation process? The truth is, as a former Palestinian diplomat, Afif Safieh, put it, the Palestinians have been `unreasonably reasonable` and I fear that the international community is now expecting them to stay that way forever. Launching historic peacemaking negotiations is not the same as asking the Palestinians and Israelis to conduct a dialogue. Dialogue can be variously facilitated, although since the construction of Israel`s illegal separation barrier it has been severely hampered. Political negotiations, however, are not `dialogue` and must have a suitable legal foundation. Only the seriously naive or the seriously disingenuous—hoping, perhaps, to discredit the Palestinian side in advance—would promote a resumption of negotiations without a clear and formal frame of reference, especially after the long list of diplomatic failures over the past decades. The only legal framework applicable in this conflict is international law, in all its parts. Many world leaders unconditionally support a peace process while failing to see that such a process is not, in and of itself, the goal. The goal is a just and sustainable resolution; by focusing on the `process` detached from the framework of applicable international law, they align with the camp still trying to defend the indefensible: dispossession, discrimination and military occupation of another people. Sixty-four years have served only to change the reference points for borders in a manner cruelly disadvantageous to the Palestinians, so that calls to respect at least the 1949 Armistice line (the 1967 green line) are no longer respected. Palestinians must expect that remaining on the same path will result in Israel`s gobbling up more land while the international community fumbles the quest for a workable initiative. Meanwhile, the entire two-state paradigm is collapsing. Thus, the real question today is not whether negotiations can serve a two-state solution, but rather, whether a two-state solution is still in the equation. If so, then maybe Palestinians should challenge the legality of UN Partition Plan Resolution 181 instead of seeking membership based upon it. rh Links to the latest articles in this section Is there still a chance to break the cycle of revenge and bloodshed? Israelis Against Apartheid Statement Following ICJ Hearing Three weeks into the Gaza War - a somber and sober assessment, with some historical perspectives