 
The Reoccupation of the West Bank and Gaza and
Bush's Proposal for Peace
An Analysis from KAIROS
28 June 2002
On June 23 George W. Bush finally made public a long-awaited statement
on the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis. At the same
time, hundreds of Israeli tanks were pouring into every major West
Bank city, including those within "Area A" under full
Palestinian control, agreed to in the 1993 Oslo Accords. The military
invasion was in response to two deadly suicide bombings in Jerusalem,
bombings which were supposed to have been prevented by the sweeping
Israeli military raids in April.
The failure of the Oslo Accords has been starkly revealed in the
past two years but any remaining doubts about their viability were
erased by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's declaration that, this time,
the Israeli military would not be leaving any time soon. Nearly
two million Palestinians are now under 24 hour curfew in the West
Bank. Their only opportunity to buy food and other supplies for
survival comes every third day when the curfew is lifted for about
three hours.
This analysis looks at three basic questions:
- What is needed for peace between Palestinians and Israelis?
- What is Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan for the Palestinians?
- What does the Bush statement offer in the way of possibilities
for peace?
1. What is needed for peace between Palestinians and Israelis?
This question is placed first in this analysis to serve as a touchstone
for evaluating the recent events in the Middle East. KAIROS has
argued in various letters to government, and in a draft policy statement
now before the KAIROS board, that the Israeli occupation of the
West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem is a fundamental obstacle to
peace. That argument rests on both moral and legal grounds. Our
experience in visits to the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)
and especially the testimony of our partners points to the humiliation
and misery that Palestinians have experienced as a result of the
social, political, economic and military control that is exercised
through the occupation.
The UN framework for the end of the occupation lies in UN General
Assembly and Security Council resolutions, particularly SCR 242
which calls for "the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from
territories occupied in the recent conflict." For the occupation
to end, Israel must withdraw to boundaries held prior to the 1967
war. The most pressing issue in that regard is the need to withdraw
the 400,000 Israeli settlers from the OPT. Together with Israeli
by-pass highways which crisscross the OPT and essentially carve
them into enclaves, the settlements, which have doubled since 1993,
are the most visible manifestation of the occupation. They are also
illegal under the IV Geneva Convention which explicitly prohibits
the transfer of the occupier's population into occupied territory.
KAIROS also has stated clearly that the integrity of Israel's
pre-1967 borders needs to be respected and acknowledged by the Arab
world, and attacks on its citizens ended. Regarding the former,
a March 2002 peace plan from Saudi Arabia proposed an end to the
occupation in return for all of the Arab states normalizing diplomatic
relations with Israel. The plan was given a tepid response from
Israel and the U.S. and has since disappeared from the political
radar screen.
Those opposed to the "land for peace" deal argue that
the militant groups responsible for suicide bombings in Israel will
never be satisfied until Israel has been wiped off the Middle East
map. Do the suicide bombings grow out of the soil of occupation
or of an unquenchable hatred of Israel? Could they be ended or at
least seriously diminished by the realization of a real Palestinian
state? Rabbi Michael Lerner, with the American Jewish peace group,
Tikkun wrote recently:
"If the Jewish people were to not only end the Occupation
and provide reparations, but also do it in a way that demonstrated
real repentance, and we kept up an attitude of generosity and open-heartedness
for many years, the justifiable Palestinian rage would eventually
melt enough so that most Palestinians would be willing to stop,
villify, and imprison those (and there are certain to be some) who
will want to keep up violence no matter what Israel does. This is
the only way to isolate the fundamentalists--every other approach
guarantees their survival and future acts of terror."
The occupation has now dragged on for 35 years. To restore hope
for all involved in the conflict, a clear plan, including a timetable,
is needed to create a viable Palestinian state and create the kind
of peace that will pave the way for normal relations between Israel
and the Arab world.
2. What is Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan for the Palestinians?
A citizen's movement in Israel during the last national elections
created a spoiled ballot which read, "No more generals!"
They were protesting the limited choice of Prime Ministers between
two former military generals, Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon. Their
analysis told them that leaders whose primary experience has been
shaped by military careers and war were unlikely to be champions
of peace.
Ariel Sharon, who was found culpable in the 1982 massacre of 2,000
Palestinians in a Beirut refugee camp, is first and foremost a military
thinker. A recent analysis by Jeff Halper, an Israeli professor,
is very insightful in laying out the designs of Sharon for the OPT.
Halper identifies three components of the current strategy:
Separation: Israel is presently in the process of constructing
a massive buffer zone in the West Bank roughly parallel to the Green
Line (the line which delineates the Israeli border from the West
Bank prior to the 1967 war). The latest incarnation of this zone
is the beginning of construction of a 120 kilometre long electric
fence, similar to the one that separates the Gaza Strip from Israel.
Halper argues that while the fence and other fortifications do have
a security function, the real agenda is a plan to formally annex
up to 22% of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the territory
encompassed by large settlements in the western part of the West
Bank. Nearly 40% of Palestinian West Bank residents live in this
area.
Cantonization: Sharon was among the most vociferous opponents
of the Oslo Accords and the recent Israeli incursions have effectively
ended Palestinian civil control over areas A and B. However, neither
has Israel indicated it will provide any civil services to these
areas as it did prior to 1993. The result will likely be a further
impoverishment of Palestinians who will now have no civil services
provided by either the Palestinian Authority or the Israeli government.
The Israeli government has announced plans now to create 'security
zones', in reality further solidifying previous actions that have
divided the West Bank into eight pieces. The zones will separated
from one another by Israeli road blocks and by-pass roads, making
it extremely difficult for Palestinian people and goods to move
from one city to another. This system is reminiscent of the South
African apartheid system where Palestinians will essentially become
prisoners of their homes.
Settlement expansion: The illegal settlements that are
now spread throughout the West Bank and Gaza have been the Israeli
government's most effective strategy in staking claim to the OPT.
Despite unanimous international calls for a freeze on settlements,
their expansion continues unabated. The strategy is simple: If enough
Israelis set up homes on in the OPT, eventually they become not
"occupied" territories but "disputed" territories.
The ground has been laid, literally, for Sharon to boldy reinterpret
Resolution 242 in a recent New York Times article as giving Israel
equal claim to the OPT as the Palestinians. Offers by Sharon to
'negotiate' the dispute (after all Palestinian violence is halted)
are ingenious: seven years of negotiations after Oslo resulted in
a deepening of the occupation. With the most powerful country in
the world solidly behind Israel and backed by its formidable military,
the Palestinians know they have precious little capital with which
to negotiate.
Many believe that Sharon's eventual plan, not yet tenable in the
international community, is to transfer the Palestinians out of
the West Bank to other parts of the Arab world (the tiny Gaza Strip
could remain, since surrounded by the sea and an electric fence,
it poses little problem for Sharon) and end any "dispute"
about the West Bank once and for all.
Several analysts have pointed out the politics of cynicism--that
Sharon and the militant Palestinian groups that send suicide bombers
into Israel are essential for each other's survival. The suicide
bombers have provided Sharon with the rationale for the iron-fisted
approach which he has long favoured in dealing with the Palestinians.
Conversely, the military clampdown on Palestinians has guaranteed
continued support and recruits for the fundamentalists.
3. What does the Bush statement offer in the way of possibilities
for peace?
George W. Bush made it clear when he came to office that the Middle
East was not a priority. But because of 9/11, his preoccupation
with eliminating Saddam Hussein and various other factors, he has
reluctantly addressed the conflict in the Middle East. Does the
policy statement of June 23 provide any viable solutions?
The answer, given the historical predisposition of the U.S. to
back Israel, is not terribly surprising: it does not. Bush's call
for the removal of Arafat has likely delighted Sharon, who has used
every opportunity to press the U.S. to delegitimize him. The two
men have been involved in a long feud that goes back decades and
only the previous reluctance of the U.S. to cut Arafat out of the
picture has prevented Arafat's exile or outright assassination by
Sharon. Ironically, now that Arafat has been identified as the main
obstacle to the emergence of a Palestinian state, it may be in Sharon's
interest to preserve him.
What does Bush have to say about the occupation itself? Incredibly
there is no correlation made between the occupation and "Palestinian
squalor and economic stagnation." The former simply seems to
be their lot in life and the latter is tied to Palestinian Authority
corruption in Bush's speech.
The call for new democratic Palestinian leadership is hardly objectionable
but it rings rather hollow given the U.S. eagerness to do business
with any number of undemocratic corrupt Arab regimes. The fact that
the West Bank and Gaza lack oil wells and will likely never be a
thriving market for U.S. arms exports goes some distance in explaining
the double standards at play.
Again, Bush's call for a Palestinian Authority that would clamp
down hard on Hamas and other militant groups fits in well with Sharon's
own strategy. He knows full well that Arafat, or his successor will
be damned if does, and damned if he doesn't do exactly that. It's
a classic chessboard move. On the one hand, if the Palestinian leadership
does not move against these fundamentalist groups, it provides the
pretext for the continued marginalization of any Palestinian Authority,
a military response by the Israelis, and the rationale for not negotiating
peace. On the other hand, a determined and concerted effort to arrest
these groups would almost certainly lead to a civil war within the
OPT. For if the only purpose of the Palestinian security forces
is to provide law and order for the protection of settlers and the
occupiers, while unable to provide Palestinians protection, they
will be seen as pawns of the Israelis. Either way, the Palestinian
Authority is seriously weakened and delegitimized.
Is there anything positive in the Bush speech? One has to stretch
but the fact that they are still referred to as "occupied"
territories, rather than Sharon's preferred term, "disputed,"
means that the U.S. has not fully bought into the Israeli framework.
Also, Bush does call for a freeze on settlement construction and
an end to the occupation, although his qualification that this end
will come "through a settlement negotiated between the parties"
opens up the same loophole that has allowed the occupation to drag
on for years. The closest thing to a timetable is the statement
by Bush that a final status agreement "could be reached in
three years." Other references include "this state could
rise rapidly", "as soon as possible", and "as
violence subsides." These time references are too vague to
provide light at the end of the tunnel and the impossible conditions
attached virtually preclude their fulfilment.
Finally, nothing that Bush called on the Israelis to do is new.
What is radically new is captured well in the two Globe and Mail
headlines of June 24: Arafat must go, Bush says and It's
up to the Palestinians. The ball has been firmly shot to the
Palestinian side of the court while demanding next to nothing of
the Israelis. Ironically, Bush's speech will provide sustenance
to the very extremists who perpetuate violence and war. For the
Israeli extremists, the speech is a green light to continue their
massive military operations and this time, there will not even be
token resistance from the U.S. to the seizure of West Bank towns.
For the Palestinian extremists, the speech will be further proof
to them and their recruits that nothing is possible through the
political process. In the words of Shimon Peres, the Israeli foreign
minister, the speech is "a fatal mistake. A bloodbath can be
expected."
 Top
of page
|
