http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story-08100783659.htm


Home About Us Search Intifada Last updated: Saturday August 11th, 2007 sections select section News Opinion Features Editorials Letters Reviews

Friday August 10, 2007
Régis Debray: Deliberate Blindness in Palestine
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year President Jacques Chirac asked Régis Debray to study the situation in the Middle East. On 15 January 2007 Debray sent the French authorities the following document on Palestine. It is an important key to understanding a long policy drift whose results are now obvious.

Show Your Support

The Palestine Chronicle is 100% reader-supported. If you find our publication worthwhile and valuable, we urge you to subscribe to our online edition today. Without your voluntary subscription the Chronicle cannot survive.

Subscribe Now


By Régis Debray
Le Monde diplomatique

Dennis Ross, formerly the United States envoy to the Middle East, admitted back in 2000 that mistakes had been made in the 1978 Camp David accords: the diplomatic process had not taken enough account of developments on the ground, especially the settlements. The number of Jewish settlers in the Palestinian territories doubled from 1994 to 2000. As many Israelis have settled in the West Bank since the Oslo accords of 1993 as in the previous 25 years. With an international conference again being discussed, it would be a mistake to continue to ignore the real state of affairs. There is no need for a committee of inquiry. The report has already been drawn up, many times over. No conflict in the world is as well documented, mapped and recorded.

The OCHA (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs), a United Nations agency, keeps up-to-date, detailed maps of the disputed territories, with photographs, population counts and graphs. It takes an hour to look at them, but doing so might forestall some of the never-ending statements of good intentions.

The maps show that the physical, economic and human basis for a viable Palestinian state is disappearing. The two-state solution and Israeli writer Amos Oz's "fair divorce" (a territory shared between two national homes, one smaller than the other and demilitarised but sovereign, viable and continuous) are now empty phrases belonging to the realm of might-have-been. Some might argue that we have not yet reached the point of no return and that the Israelis may have won the territorial battle (with only 22% of British mandate Palestine now outside their control) but the Palestinians are sure to win the demographic battle. They invoke the resilience of the local population in the face of the steam roller that is slowly but surely implementing the 1968 Allon Plan and the 1984 "Road Plan 50".

It is clear from developments on the ground that:

-the purpose of the security wall is not, as is believed, to trace a border that, however illegal (since it encloses over 10% of the West Bank), will at least serve as the dotted line for a future international frontier;

-it is true (as Ehud Omert said on Israeli army radio on 20 March 2006) that Israel's strategic border lies on the Jordan: the whole valley has been declared a forbidden area and the intervening area has been nibbled away (cross-river transit is only possible at certain points);

-the new east-west bypass roads built at the expense of the old north-south axis clearly chart a territory in the process of annexation, with space for three or four Arab bantustans (Jenin, Ramallah and Jericho). The exhaustion of natural resources in these overcrowded enclaves will eventually lead to massive emigration (much of the elite, especially Christian, has already left); and

-with the construction of the separation wall, the ongoing judaisation of East Jerusalem and reconfiguration of the Jerusalem municipality, the UN's repeated but purely formal condemnations have no effect on Israel's grip on the whole city (1).

-there is a huge gap between what is said because we want to hear it (local withdrawals, easing of travel restrictions, removal of one checkpoint out of 20, a change of tone) and what is being done on the ground, which we don't want to see (interlinking of settlements, construction of bridges and tunnels, encirclement of Palestinian towns, expropriation of land, destruction of houses). Some would describe that gap as duplicity, others as ambiguity. The gradual encroachment happens out of sight of the cameras, without causing a stir and without an explicit colonial diktat. Nobody makes a formal complaint, even supposing they can find out what's going on - difficult if you haven't grown up locally. Israeli maps and school textbooks refer to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria and, following the Knesset's recent rejection of a proposal from a Labour education minister, obliteration of the 1967 green line is now a legal fait accompli.

This is not just a gap between the de facto and de jure situations. It reflects a method and tradition going back to the earliest days of the Yishuv (2): the strategy of fait accompli. That strategy has always paid off: the Jewish state was there before it was declared and recognised in 1948, as was the army. What we have is a theatre with two stages: on the international stage we hear repeated vague and encouraging speeches concerning withdrawal, coexistence and a Palestinian state, but the things that count (settlements, roads, tunnels, water tables) happen on the operational stage next door, where the outcome is decided out of public view.

Understanding how public opinion works in a democracy, successive Israeli governments of the left and right take care to administer regular painkillers, plans for unilateral withdrawal or the partial dismantlement of settlements and encouraging announcements that are always conditional and come to nothing. The media live from day to day, with no attempt to remember. Who now recalls that the road map (3) was supposed to be "a final and comprehensive settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict by 2005"?

The Oslo process did not just remain a dead letter: with the military reoccupation of Zones A and B (4) in April 2002, it went into reverse.

Territorial fragmentation cuts off local authorities from any possible central Palestinian administration and from each other, while the systematic physical destruction of national institutions, Palestinian infrastructure and political leaders by the Israeli army ensures internal anarchy and the spread of clans and gang violence: bottomless chaos. Clearly the path that has been taken is not that of nation building but the deconstruction of all possible governance beyond the separation wall. It is the logical counterpart of a 30-year annexation process that will be endorsed, when the time comes, "in view of the new reality on the ground".

In these circumstances, constant invocation of the road map by all parties has more to do with autosuggestion than a sober look at the consistent transformation of reality. That reality may not be visible from Geneva, Paris or New York, but it is immediately apparent to anyone travelling throughout the country after a few years' absence. It is a land carved up by military force, where the Israeli settlements are no longer shapes on a Palestinian background - instead the Palestinian areas appear as shapes on a solidly-infrastructured Israeli background: a land where water reserves are confiscated and a temporary travel restriction is very close to a permanent ban.

Some may take comfort in these ideas:

-since it was possible to withdraw settlements from Gaza, it should be possible in the near future in the West Bank. That is to ignore the fact that the withdrawal of 8,000 settlers from one place in Gaza was soon followed by the unpublicised installation of 20,000 settlers in another (the West Bank/Jerusalem). Gaza is not part of the promised land, whereas Judea and Samaria are its backbone. Sharon did not make any secret of the fact that withdrawal on the margins would be compensated by strengthening the Israeli presence elsewhere (438,000 settlers to date, including 192,910 in East Jerusalem);

-the dismantling of four small settlements in the north (1,000 settlers) and the proposed concentration of 60,000 settlers in the most populous blocs, Maale Adumim, Ariel and Gush Etzion, will create a free space. But with the settlements linked in a continuous string under cover of the security wall, the West Bank has been effectively cut in two. The wall separates Palestinians from each other even more than it separates them from the Israelis.

What is taking shape is not the Palestinian state announced and desired by all: it is an as yet unperceived Israeli territory enclosing three self-governing Palestinian enclaves.

All parties have a vested interest in preserving the international pretence (5). For the Israelis, history is being created under the cover of the pretence. The Palestinians cannot be told the truth - they are under occupation yet hoping for a better life and not self-destruction; wishful thinking provides notables, elected representatives and officials with a living, status, dignity and a raison d'être. The Europeans chose to salve their consciences by providing financial and humanitarian aid to apologise for their political passivity and voluntary blindness. The thinking of the Americans owes more to the Old Testament than the New; their link with Israel is a parent-child relationship beyond criticism. This shared illusion of self-protection results from the coincidence of opposing interests.

Is this situation tenable to the end of the century? It seems doubtful, given Israel's obsession with security, which makes it less secure, and its disregard for the demographic and religious trends in the region (6). Could not at least one European government convey to our Israeli friends that we are not all taken in by the deception, and that those who deceive may not be be its first victims - but will certainly be its last?

-Régis Debray is a writer and philosopher, and honorary chairman of the IESR (European Institute of Religious Studies), Paris

Notes

(1) See Dominique Vidal and Philippe Rekacewicz, "Jerusalem: whose very own and golden city?", Le Monde diplomatique, English edition, February 2007.
(2) A Hebrew term used by the Zionist movement before the creation of the State of Israel to designate Palestine's Jewish inhabitants and new immigrants.
(3) The road map, a proposal for ending the Israel-Palestine conflict, was adopted by the Quartet (UN, US, EU and Russia) on 30 April 2003.
(4) The Palestinian territories comprise the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip (45 km long and 10 km wide). The Oslo accords divided them into three zones:
- Zone A comprising, since 1994, Gaza and the towns of Jericho, Jenin, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Tulkarem, Nablus, Bethlehem (Hebron was the subject of a separate agreement in January 1997), in which the Palestinian Authority has civil jurisdiction and police powers; - Zone B comprising the remaining areas of the West Bank, in which the Palestinian Authority has civil jurisdiction but shares responsibility for internal security with the Israeli army;
- Zone C comprising the Israeli settlements establishing in the West Bank, Gaza (since dismantled) and East Jerusalem, which remain under the control of the Jewish state.
(5) See Alain Gresh, "Palestine wrecked", Le Monde diplomatique, English edition, July 2007.
(6) See the report (PDF) submitted to the UN secretary general on 5 May by Alvaro de Soto, UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process.

(Le Monde diplomatique - www.mondediplo.com- 08/05/2007 - translated by Wendy Kristianasen)

http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=24641

Israeli defence minister says meetings between Olmert and Abbas will not lead to peace
Date: 10 / 08 / 2007 Time: 11:18

Bethlehem – Ma'an – Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak says Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert's meetings with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, will not lead to a final peace agreement.

Speaking to the Israeli newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, Barak was quoted as saying "What will determine the situation in the end is if Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) and (Palestinian Prime Minister) Salam Fayyad are capable of implementing anything in the West Bank."

Fantasy

He described the idea of Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank in the near future as "fantasy."

He said withdrawal was not an option until a solution was found to Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. This can only be solved by implementing a missile defence system which could take up to five years.

Roadblocks

Barak also said he would not endorse the removal of any of the roadblocks in the West Bank, despite the promises made by Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert this week to do so.

Barak was prime minister of Israel from 1999 to 2001. He took part in the Camp David 2000 Summit with Yasser Arafat and former US president Bill Clinton, which ended without an agreement being reached.

http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=24619
Not only territory, but viability - By Jeff Halper
Date: 08 / 08 / 2007 Time: 15:47

Abbas with Olmert in Jericho (MaanImages)
On paper, the headlines sounded promising, even stirring. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, it was reported, told Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas at their meeting in Jericho that he would push for the establishment of a Palestinian state as "fast as possible" on “the equivalent to 100 percent of the territories conquered in 1967.” The Palestinians, according to the report, would cede just 5% of the West Bank in return for territorial swaps. In other words, Israel would withdraw from 95.6 % of the combined West Bank and Gaza – although that figure does not include East Jerusalem, which Israel does not consider occupied.

It looked like another “generous offer,” one the Palestinians could not possibly refuse. The problem is, it was much too generous for the Israelis to accept. A few hours after the report appeared, the Prime Minister’s Office denied even the existence of the proposal. “We do not know of any plan as described in the [Ha’aretz] article,” the PMO said. “We would like to clarify that such a plan has not been considered, nor is it being raised for discussion in any forum.”

So much for that. But the proposal itself is useful to examine if only because it presents a “best case” scenario. It appears to relinquish almost all the occupied territory to the Palestinians; it appears to be the maximum that Israel could possibly offer the Palestinians. If it can be shown as nothing more than a sophisticated attempt to expand Israeli control to the Jordan River, with no chance of ending the conflict with the Palestinians, it will provide the best illustration of the futility of basing any peace process on the mere transfer of territory rather than viability. The devil, as we all know, is in the details. Let’s see what this 100% plan hides, even if it not really a plan.

At issue is not a Palestinian state on the equivalent of 100% of the Occupied Territories (that is, we should note, only 22% of historic Palestine). The issue is, as the road map specifies, whether a Palestinian state is truly sovereign and viable, no matter on how much of the territories it arises. I would argue that even the 5% of the West Bank that Israel would retain under the purported plan can prevent the establishment of such a state. What details make the difference between a just and lasting peace and apartheid?

Sovereignty: The basis for negotiations, says Olmert, “will continue to be the road map, which is acceptable to both sides." This is true in general, but with some major caveats. Phase II of the road map is the Palestinians’ nightmare, and they have constantly pressed to have it removed. This phase calls for the establishment of a “transitional” Palestinian state with “provisional borders.” If all is quiet, they fear, and Israel can claim that a Palestinian state exists and that the Occupation has ended, who could guarantee that the road map process would continue into Phase III, where the thorny final status details are to be negotiated and a real Palestinian state would emerge? Their fears are justified – and this may be the “catch.” Israel considers its “14 reservations” as integral parts of the road map. Reservation # 5 states: The provisional state will have provisional borders and certain aspects of sovereignty, be fully demilitarized…, be without the authority to undertake defense alliances or military cooperation, and Israeli control over the entry and exit of all persons and cargo, as well as of its air space and electromagnetic spectrum.”

Read that again and try to square that reservation with the notion of Palestinian sovereignty. Tzipi Livni has worked for months on what she is calling “The Israeli Initiative for a Two-State Solution” based precisely on replacing Phase I of the road map (which calls for a freeze on Israeli settlement building) with this problematic Phase II. Rice has said that the Bush Administration will work towards a provisional Palestinian state, leaving “the details” to the next administration.

A state has no sovereignty without borders. In additional to the problem of provisionality, does Olmert intend to grant the Palestinians an unsupervised border with Jordan? If Israel insists on controlling the borders, or if the Jordan River is part of the 5% the Palestinians must cede, there is no Palestinian state even if they receive all the territory.

Viability: Israel may indeed relinquish 95% of the West Bank but still remain in complete control over a Palestinian Bantustan with no viable economy. If it insists on controlling the borders, denying the Palestinians free movement of goods and people, the Palestinian state is not viable. If the 5% the Palestinians must cede includes a corridor across the West Bank, or if Israel insists on keeping the Ma’aleh Adumim settlement with its “E-1” corridor to Jerusalem, thus destroying the territorial continuity of a Palestinians state, it is not viable. If it includes Israeli control of all the water resources, it is not viable. If Jerusalem is not fully integrated into the Palestinian state politically, geographically and economically – and I would bet that the core of East Jerusalem falls outside the 95% – then there is no viable Palestinian state. According to the World Bank Jerusalem accounts for up to 40% of the Palestinian economy because of tourism, their largest potential industry.

The difference between a truly sovereign and viable Palestinian state and a Bantustan is a few percentage points of strategic territory. It’s clear that Israel could relinquish 95% of the West Bank, Gaza and parts of Jerusalem and still maintain complete control. The very conception of a territorial-based “solution” is flawed. It does not meet the Palestinians’ right to a sovereign and viable state, and it merely perpetuates Israeli control. A workable solution requires an approach based upon a commitment to a viable Palestinian state. That requires addressing the issues outlined above.

In the meantime, Israel’s repeated advancement of territorial-based plans, some more “generous” and some less, all have the same aim: to perpetuate the settlements, an Israeli "greater” Jerusalem and control of the entire country. Until that matrix of control is broken and a real Palestinian state be allowed to emerge – if that is still possible given the Israeli “facts on the ground” – we will have to carefully monitor each proposal to ascertain if it will truly end the conflict or will merely substitute for the Occupation a sophisticated regime of apartheid. Israel’s ongoing settlement construction and its commitment to retaining strategic parts of the West Bank and “greater” Jerusalem justify that suspicion of Israel’s intentions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Halper is the Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. He can be reached at jeff@icahd.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=24638

Hamas forms 'naval' force to protect the Gaza Strip's shores
Date: 09 / 08 / 2007 Time: 15:05

Gaza – Ma'an – The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on Thursday reported that Hamas officials said they have set up a new force charged with guarding the Gaza Strip's coastline. It will fight off incoming Israeli army vessels and prevent fishermen from collaborating with Israeli ships through the relaying of information. It will also monitor any criminal activities, such as drug trafficking, along the Gazan shores.

The fledgling force does not posses any warships, but has heavy machine guns and mortars on the beaches. It will be led by one of Hamas' senior commanders, Jamil Al Dahashan.

A Hamas official admitted to Yedioth that the force will not be able to match the abilities of the Israeli Navy, but that it will attempt to interfere and intervene in Israel's naval operations.

Since Hamas ousted Fatah from the Gaza Strip, Israeli forces have refrained from approaching Gaza's shores, he added.

The official was quoted as saying that "the Israeli's have stopped firing, even at Palestinian fishing boats like they used to. I think they know that Hamas fighters and the new naval force have in their possession some of the security forces' heavy artillery, seized during the takeover of the Gaza Strip."

According to the official, the new force is made up of Hamas members and affiliates, including some who have served in the Palestinian Authority Navy in the past.

http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=24637

UNRWA warns of economic collapse in the Gaza Strip and calls for urgent international intervention
Date: 09 / 08 / 2007 Time: 14:27

UNRWA warns of economic collapse in the sector and calls for an urgent international intervention

Gaza - Ma'an- UNRWA has warned of imminent economic collapse in the Gaza Strip due to the continued closure of the Al-Mintar trade crossing - known as the Karni crossing in Israel.

UNWRA Deputy Commissioner-General, Filippo Grandi, asked the Palestinian and Israeli sides to take immediate steps to open the crossing to enable the import and export of goods.

In a press conference in Gaza on Thursday Grandi also warned of further failure, saying that results of economic collapse would be disastrous and would create an atmosphere of hopelessness and despair in which extremism would flourish.

The Deputy Commissioner-General said that from meetings with businessmen in the Gaza Strip and witnessing the loss of the industrial and agricultural sectors due to the closure of the crossing it was evident that economic collapse was imminent.

The manufacturing industry has suffered losses amounting to $ 23 million - half a million US dollars a day since the imposition of the blockade, Grandi said.

He also said that $ 93 million worth of construction projects implemented by UNRWA in the Gaza Strip, have had to be stopped due to the inability to import construction materials. "There is an urgent need to introduce this very material to the Gaza Strip," he said.

Grandi warned that if the closure of the crossing continues the Gaza Strip would be a hundred per cent aid-dependent within weeks.