 |
Myths & Facts OnlineThe Peace ProcessBy Mitchell G. Bard“Anwar
Sadat deserves all of the credit for the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty.” "Anwar Sadat deserves all of the credit for the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty." FACT The peace drive did not begin with President Anwar Sadat's November 1977 visit to Jerusalem. Sadat's visit was unquestionably a courageous act of statesmanship. But it came only after more than a half-century of efforts by early Zionist and Israeli leaders to negotiate peace with the Arabs. "For Israel to equal the drama," said former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Simcha Dinitz, "we would have had to declare war on Egypt, maintain belligerent relations for years, refuse to talk to them, call for their annihilation, suggest throwing them into the sea, conduct military operations and terrorism against them, declare economic boycotts, close the Strait of Tiran to their ships, close the Suez Canal to their traffic, and say they are outcasts of humanity. Then Mr. Begin would go to Cairo, and his trip would be equally dramatic. Obviously, we could not do this, because it has been our policy to negotiate all along."1 Nonetheless, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin proved that, like Sadat, he was willing to go the extra mile to achieve peace. Although he faced intense opposition from within his Likud Party, Begin froze Israeli settlements in the West Bank to facilitate the progress of negotiations. Despite the Carter Administration's tilt toward Egypt during the talks, Begin remained determined to continue the peace process. In the end, he agreed to give the strategically critical Sinai — 91 percent of the territory won by Israel during the Six-Day War — back to Egypt in exchange for Sadat's promise to make peace. In recognition of his willingness to join Sadat in making compromises for peace, Begin shared the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize with the Egyptian leader. "Egypt made all the concessions for peace." FACT Israel made tangible concessions to Egypt in exchange only for promises. Israel — which had repeatedly been the target of shipping blockades, military assaults and terrorist attacks staged from the area — made far greater economic and strategic sacrifices in giving up the Sinai than Egypt did in normalizing relations with Israel. While it received additional U.S. aid for withdrawing, Israel gave up much of its strategic depth in the Sinai, returning the area to a neighbor that had repeatedly used it as a launching point for attacks. Israel also relinquished direct control of its shipping lanes to and from Eilat, 1,000 miles of roadways, homes, factories, hotels, health facilities and agricultural villages. Because Egypt insisted that Jewish civilians leave the Sinai, 7,000 Israelis were uprooted from their homes and businesses, which they had spent years building in the desert. This was a physically and emotionally wrenching experience, particularly for the residents of Yamit, who had to be forcibly removed from their homes by soldiers. Israel also lost electronic early-warning stations situated on Sinai mountaintops that provided data on military movement on the western side of the Suez Canal, as well as the areas near the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Eilat, which were vital to defending against an attack from the east. Israel was forced to relocate more than 170 military installations, airfields and army bases after it withdrew. By turning over the Sinai to Egypt, Israel may have given up its only chance to become energy-independent. The Alma oil field in the southern Sinai, discovered and developed by Israel, was transferred to Egypt in November 1979. When Israel gave up this field, it had become the country's largest single source of energy, supplying half the country's energy needs. Israel, which estimated the value of untapped reserves in the Alma field at $100 billion, had projected that continued development there would make the country self-sufficient in energy by 1990. Israel also agreed to end military rule in the West Bank and Gaza, withdraw its troops from certain parts of the territories and work toward Palestinian autonomy. The Begin government did this though no Palestinian Arab willing to recognize Israel came forward to speak on behalf of residents of the territories. In 1988, the Jewish State relinquished Taba — a resort built by Israel in what had been a barren desert area near Eilat — to Egypt. Taba's status had not been resolved by the Camp David Accords. When an international arbitration panel ruled in Cairo's favor on September 29, 1988, Israel turned the town over to Egypt. "At Camp David, during the Carter Administration, Israel agreed to halt the construction of settlements for five years. Within months, Israel had violated the accords by establishing new settlements on the West Bank." FACT The five-year period agreed to at Camp David was the time allotted to Palestinian self-government in the territories. The Israeli moratorium on West Bank settlements agreed to by Prime Minister Menachem Begin was only for three months. Begin kept this agreement. Israel's position on the matter received support from an unexpected source: Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who said: "We agreed to put a freeze on the establishment of settlements for the coming three months, the time necessary in our estimation for signing the peace treaty."2 "The Palestinian question is the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict." FACT In reality, the Palestinian Arab question is the result of the conflict, which stems from Arab unwillingness to accept a Jewish State in the Middle East. Had Arab governments not gone to war in 1948 to block the UN partition plan, a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Galilee and the Negev would be celebrating the 54th anniversary of its independence. Had the Arab states not supported terrorism directed at Israeli civilians and provoked six subsequent Arab-Israeli wars, the conflict could have been settled long ago, and the Palestinian problem resolved. From 1948-67, the West Bank and Gaza were under Arab rule, and no Jewish settlements existed there, but the Arabs never set up a Palestinian state. Instead, Gaza was occupied by Egypt, and the West Bank by Jordan. No demands for a West Bank/Gaza independent state were heard until Israel took control of these areas in the Six-Day War. The Arab states have always held the key to solving the Palestinian problem. The Palestinian refugees could long ago have been resettled among their people in Arab lands, which extend over five million square miles. These nations have the land and money to rehabilitate the Palestinian refugees; Israel, with a fraction of Arab land and wealth, absorbed 820,000 Jews driven from Arab countries in the 1950's. The Arabs' refusal to do the same with the Palestinians shows they are more interested in using the refugees as a political weapon against Israel than they are in truly solving the problem.
"If the Palestinian problem was solved, the Middle East would be at peace." FACT The Palestinian problem is but one of many simmering ethnic, religious and nationalistic feuds plaguing the region. Here is but a partial list of other conflicts from the end of the 20th century: the 1991 Gulf War; the Iran-Iraq War; the Lebanese Civil War; Libya's interference in Chad; the Sudanese Civil War; the Syria-Iraq conflict and the war between the Polisario Front and Morocco. "Almost every border in that part of the world, from Libya to Pakistan, from Turkey to Yemen, is either ill-defined or in dispute," scholar Daniel Pipes noted. "But Americans tend to know only about Israel's border problems, and do not realize that these fit into a pattern that recurs across the Middle East."3 If the Palestinian problem was solved, it would have negligible impact on the many inter-Arab rivalries that have spawned numerous wars in the region. Nor would it eliminate Arab opposition to Israel. Syria, for example, has a territorial dispute with Israel unrelated to the Palestinians. Other countries, such as Iran and Iraq, maintain a state of war with Israel despite having no territorial disputes. "A secular, democratic Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the solution to the conflict." FACT There is no such thing as a secular or democratic state in the Arab world. Islam is the official state religion in nearly every Arab country. The only place where mention is made of a "secular, democratic Palestinian state" is in the West, where the slogan is used to generate sympathy. The PLO has never been democratic. Leadership in the PLO is determined by bullets — not ballots. Representation is determined by the size of each faction's militia. Opponents are not voted out of power; they are murdered. Moreover, if anything, the PLO has become less secular in recent years, in part to counter the growing influence of Islamic groups such as Hamas, which would never countenance mention of such a state. In 1947, the Arabs rejected the UN partition plan, which would have created a Palestinian state. From 1948-67, when the West Bank and Gaza were ruled by Arabs, no thought was given to forming such a state. It is therefore ironic that the Arabs demand that Israel do for the West Bank and Gaza what they were unwilling to do when they occupied the area. While Israel long opposed the creation of a Palestinian state, today Israelis recognize this will be the outcome of negotiations and that the Palestinian Authority is already a state in all but name. Israel would feel more comfortable with a democratic neighbor, but it has not imposed any conditions on the type of government the Palestinians adopt in the territories they control. If the Palestinians were content to have a state in the West Bank and Gaza, the prospects for a final settlement would be very good; however, they have consistently held out for much more. Prior to the Oslo agreements, the Palestinians laid claim to all of Israel, but they have subsequently recognized Israel's right to exist (though their rhetoric often suggests the dream of returning to their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and elsewhere has not died). Still, today they want not only the entire West Bank and Gaza but Jerusalem, which they demand as their capital.
"A Palestinian state will pose no danger to Israel." FACT Though reconciled to the creation of a Palestinian state, and hopeful that it will coexist peacefully, Israelis still see such an entity as a threat to their security. Even after returning much of the West Bank and Gaza and allowing the Palestinians to govern themselves, terrorism against Israelis has continued. So far, no amount of concessions by Israel has been sufficient to prompt Arafat to end the violence. This has not reassured Israelis; on the contrary, it has made them more reluctant to give up additional territory for a Palestinian state. Israelis also fear that a Palestinian state will become dominated by Islamic extremists and serve as a staging area for terrorists. The greatest danger, however, would be that a Palestinian state could serve as a forward base in a future war for Arab nations that have refused to make peace with Israel. "In Israeli hands, the West Bank represents a tremendous defensive asset whose possession by Israel deters Arab foes from even considering attack along an 'eastern front,'" a report by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies notes. Today, an Arab coalition attacking from east of the Jordan "would face very difficult fighting conditions" because "it would be fighting uphill from the lowest point on the face of the earth: the Dead Sea and the Rift Valley that runs below it." The mountain ranges in the West Bank constitute "Israel's main line of defense against Arab armies from the east."5 "Israel has no right to be in the West Bank. Israeli settlements are illegal, and an obstacle to peace." FACT Numerous legal authorities dispute the charge that settlements are "illegal." International legal scholar Stephen Schwebel notes that a country acting in self-defense may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Schwebel also observes that a state may require, as a condition for its withdrawal, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory.6 According to Eugene Rostow, a former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, Resolution 242 gives Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank. The resolution "allows Israel to administer the territories" it won in 1967 "until 'a just and lasting peace in the Middle East' is achieved," Rostow wrote. During the debate on the resolution, he added, "speaker after speaker made it clear that Israel was not to be forced back to the 'fragile' and 'vulnerable' [1949] Armistice Demarcation Lines."7 Settlements have never been an obstacle to peace. From 1949-67, when Jews were forbidden to live on the West Bank, the Arabs refused to make peace with Israel. From 1967-77, the Labor Party established only a few strategic settlements in the territories, yet the Arabs showed no interest in making peace with Israel. In 1977, months after a Likud government committed to greater settlement activity took power, Egyptian President Sadat went to Jerusalem. One year later, Israel froze settlements, hoping the gesture would entice other Arabs to join the Camp David peace process. But none would. In 1994, Jordan signed a peace agreement with Israel and settlements were not an issue. If anything, the number of Jews living in the territories was growing. Settlement activity may be a stimulus to peace because it forced the Palestinians and other Arabs to reconsider the view that time is on their side. References are frequently made in Arabic writings to how long it took to expel the Crusaders and how it might take a similar length of time to do the same to the Zionists. The growth in the Jewish population in the territories forced the Arabs to question this tenet. "The Palestinians now realize," said Bethlehem Mayor Elias Freij, "that time is now on the side of Israel, which can build settlements and create facts, and that the only way out of this dilemma is face-to-face negotiations."8 Consequently, the Arabs went to Madrid and Washington for peace talks despite continued settlement activity. And all of the agreements signed with the Palestinians as part of the "Oslo process" have been negotiated without any change in Israel's settlement policy. "Israel is provocatively settling Jews in predominantly Arab towns, and has established so many facts on the ground that territorial compromise is no longer possible." FACT Close to 90 percent of the settlers live in what are in effect suburbs of major Israeli cities such as Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. These are areas that virtually the entire Jewish population believe Israel must retain to ensure its security. Strategic concerns have led both Labor and Likud governments to establish settlements. The objective is to secure a Jewish majority in key strategic regions of the West Bank, such as the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor, the scene of heavy fighting in several Arab-Israeli wars. Still, when Arab-Israeli peace talks began in late 1991, more than 80 percent of the West Bank contained no settlements or only sparsely populated ones.9 Today, approximately 175,000 Jews live in roughly 150 communities in the West Bank. The overwhelming majority of these settlements have fewer than 1,000 citizens. Analysts have noted that 70-80 percent of the Jews could be brought within Israel's borders with minor modifications of the "Green Line" (the unofficial boundary after 1967). "Israel must evacuate all Jewish settlements before a final peace agreement can be achieved with the Palestinians." FACT The implication of many settlement critics is that it would be better for peace if the West Bank were Judenrein. This idea would be called anti-Semitic if Jews were barred from living in New York, Paris or London; barring them from living in the West Bank, the cradle of Jewish civilization, would be no less objectionable. Any peace settlement would inevitably permit Jews to live in the West Bank — just as Arabs today live in Israel. No Israeli government would be expected to enforce the kind of policies instituted by the British by which large areas of Palestine were declared off-limits to Jews. "Israel has not acknowledged Palestinian claims to Jerusalem." FACT Jerusalem was never the capital of any Arab entity. Palestinians have no special claim to the city, they simply demand it as their capital. Israel has recognized that the city has a large Palestinian population, that the city is important to Muslims and that making concessions on the sovereignty of the city might help resolve the conflict with the Palestinians. The problem has been that Palestinians have shown no reciprocal appreciation for the Jewish majority in the city, the significance of Jerusalem to the Jewish people or the fact that it is already the nation's capital. The Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles (DoP) signed in 1993 leaves open the status of Jerusalem. Article V says only that Jerusalem is one of the issues to be discussed in the permanent status negotiations. The agreed minutes also mention Jerusalem, stipulating that the Palestinian Council's jurisdiction does not extend to the city. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said that Jerusalem will "not be included in any sphere of the prerogatives of whatever body will conduct Palestinian affairs in the territories. Jerusalem will remain under Israeli sovereignty." The agreement also says that the final status will be based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, neither of which mentions Jerusalem. Other than agreeing to discuss Jerusalem during the final negotiating period, Israel conceded nothing else regarding the status of the city during the interim period. Israel retains the right to build anywhere it chooses in Jerusalem and continues to exercise sovereignty over the undivided city. Nothing in the agreements that Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have concluded so far changes those conditions. The two sides agreed on interim autonomy for the Palestinians, the creation of a Palestinian Authority, the election of a Palestinian Council and the redeployment of Israeli military forces in the West Bank and Gaza. Jerusalem, however, was specifically excluded from all these arrangements. It was also decided that during the interim period, the Palestinian Council would have no jurisdiction over issues to be determined in the final status negotiations, including Jerusalem. It was explicitly agreed that the authority of the Palestinian Authority would extend only over those parts of the West Bank and Gaza that were transferred to its jurisdiction, to the exclusion of those areas to be discussed in the permanent status negotiations, including Jerusalem and Israeli settlements.
The overwhelming majority of Israelis oppose any division of Jerusalem. Still, efforts have been made to find some compromise that could satisfy Palestinian interests. For example, while the Labor Party was in power under Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, Knesset Member Yossi Beilin reportedly reached a tentative agreement that would allow the Palestinians to claim the city as their capital without Israel sacrificing sovereignty over its capital. Beilin's idea was to allow the Palestinians to set up their capital in a West Bank suburb of Jerusalem — Abu Dis. Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered dramatic concessions that would have allowed the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem to become the capital of a Palestinian state, and given the Palestinians control over the Muslim holy places on the Temple Mount. These ideas were discussed at the White House Summit in December 2000, but rejected by Yasser Arafat. Barak's proposals were controversial. Giving up sovereignty over the Temple Mount would place potentially hostile Arabs literally over the heads of Jews praying at their holiest site. Other suggested of compromises involving a division of sovereignty over the Old City run into practical complications created by the labyrinthine nature of the city, and the intertwining of the Muslim, Christian, Jewish and Armenian quarters. In February 2001, Ariel Sharon ran for Prime Minister against Barak — and was overwhelming elected — on a platform specifically repudiating the concessions Barak offered on Jerusalem. The prospect for a compromise now depends in large measure on whether the Palestinians will recognize Jewish claims to Jerusalem and offer their own concessions
"Any agreement on Jerusalem would require Israel to give up sovereignty over the Temple Mount." FACT The Jewish connection to the Temple Mount dates back more than 3,000 years and is rooted in tradition and history. When Abraham bound his son Isaac upon an altar as a sacrifice to God, he did so atop Mount Moriah, today’s Temple Mount. It also is the site of both the First and Second Temples. The First Temple’s Holy of Holies contained the original Ark of the Covenant, and both the First and Second Temples were the centers of Jewish religious and social life until the Second Temple’s destruction by the Romans. After the destruction of the Second Temple, control of the Temple Mount passed through several conquering powers. It was during the early period of Muslim control that the gold-topped Dome of the Rock was built on the site of the ancient Temples. Israel has shared the Temple Mount since 1967, when Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, upon reuniting Jerusalem, permitted the Islamic authority, the Waqf, to continue its civil authority on the Temple Mount. The Waqf oversees all day-to-day activity there. An Israeli presence is in place at the entrance to the Temple Mount to ensure access for people of all religions. Prime Minister Ehud Barak raised the possibility of some concessions regarding control of the Temple Mount, but these were rejected by the Palestinians and subsequently repudiated by the Israeli electorate when Ariel Sharon was elected to succeed Barak. Giving up sovereignty over the Temple Mount would literally place potentially hostile Arabs over the heads of Jews praying at their holiest site. Other suggestions of compromises involving division of sovereignty over the Old City also run into practical complications created by the labyrinthine nature of the city and the intertwining of the Muslim, Christian, Jewish and Armenian quarters. "All the Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homes; this is a prerequisite for a final settlement." FACT After the 1948 war, no more than 650,000 Palestinians (and probably considerably fewer) were refugees. Today, the number has swelled to 3.9 million. Does Israel have any obligation to accept all of those? Where would they live? The current Israeli population is 6 million. If every Palestinian was allowed to move to Israel, the population would be nearly 10 million and more than 40 percent Arab. Given the Arabs' significantly higher birth rate, the Jews would soon be a minority in their own country, the very situation they fought to avoid in 1948, and which the UN expressly ruled out in deciding on a partition of Palestine. Israel has consistently sought a solution to the refugee problem. David Ben-Gurion said as early as August 1, 1948, that the refugee issue would be part of the general settlement "when the Arab states are ready to conclude a peace treaty."12 The implied danger of repatriating Arabs opposed to its existence did not prevent Israel from allowing some refugees to return and offering to take back a substantial number as a condition for signing a peace treaty. In 1949, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return and agreed to repatriate 100,000 refugees.13 The Arabs rejected all the Israeli compromises. They were unwilling to take any action that might be construed as recognition of Israel. They made repatriation a precondition for negotiations, something Israel rejected. The result was the confinement of the refugees in camps. The United Nations took up the refugee issue and adopted Resolution 194 on December 11, 1948, which states that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which under principles of international law or in equity should be made good by Governments or authorities responsible. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of refugees and payment of compensation..." (emphasis added). The emphasized words demonstrate that the UN recognized that Israel could not be expected to repatriate a hostile population that might endanger its security. The solution to the problem, like all previous refugee problems, would require at least some Palestinians to be resettled in Arab lands. The Arabs demanded that the United Nations assert the "right" of the Palestinians to return to their homes, and were unwilling to accept anything less until after their defeat had become obvious. The Arabs then reinterpreted Resolution 194 as granting the refugees the absolute right of repatriation and have demanded that Israel accept this interpretation ever since. Current peace talks are based on UN Resolution 242. The Palestinians are not mentioned anywhere in Resolution 242. They are only alluded to in the second clause of the second article of 242, which calls for "a just settlement of the refugee problem." The use of the generic term "refugee" was a deliberate acknowledgment that two refugee problems were products of the conflict — one Arab and another Jewish. Furthermore, most Palestinians now live in historic Palestine, which is an area including the Palestinian Authority and Jordan. When Palestinians speak of the right to return, however, they don't mean just to Palestine, but to the exact houses they lived in prior to 1948. These homes are either gone or inhabited now. Even respected Palestinian leaders have begun to acknowledge that it is a mistake to insist that millions of refugees return to Israel. The Palestinian representative in Jerusalem, Sari Nusseibeh, for example, said the refugees should be resettled in a future Palestinian state, "not in a way that would undermine the existence of the State of Israel as a predominantly Jewish state. Otherwise, what does a two-state solution mean?"14 In the context of a peace settlement, Israel could be expected to accept some refugees, as Ben-Gurion said he would do more than 50 years ago. If and when a Palestinian state is created, many of the refugees should be allowed to move there, though it is hard to imagine how the territory envisioned for that state could accommodate so many people, and the Palestinian leadership has expressed no great interest in absorbing these people.
Paradoxically, just as PA negotiators are demanding the right of refugees to return, tens of thousands of Palestinians are bolting the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In the fi rst part of 2002, an estimated 80,000 Palestinians left and another 50,000 were trying to enter Jordan. This time the Palestinians cannot repeat their old charges that they are being expelled. These Palestinians are fl eeing, much as the majority did in 1947-1948, because they do not want to be in the middle of a confl ict, and because their ties to the land are tenuous. The Jordanians are only reluctantly accepting a handful of these new "refugees," and only after they deposit 1,000 dinars ($1,400) to ensure they will not stay in the kingdom. "We have a national duty to Jordan, fi rst, and to Palestine, second, to block gradual transfer and prevent the Palestinian state from being relocated outside Palestine, specifi cally to Jordan," wrote Jordanian columnist Fahed Fanek.15a "Peace with Syria has been prevented only by Israel's obstinate refusal to withdraw from the Golan Heights." FACT For Israel, relinquishing the Golan to a hostile Syria could jeopardize its early-warning system against surprise attack. Israel has built radar systems on Mt. Hermon, the highest point in the region. If Israel withdrew from the Golan and had to relocate these facilities to the lowlands of the Galilee, they would lose much of their strategic effectiveness. One possible compromise might be a partial Israeli withdrawal, along the lines of its 1974 disengagement agreement with Syria. Another would be a complete withdrawal, with the Golan becoming a demilitarized zone. After losing the 1999 election, Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed reports that he had engaged in secret talks with Syrian President Hafez Assad to withdraw from the Golan and maintain a strategic early-warning station on Mount Hermon. Publicly, Assad continued to insist on a total withdrawal with no compromises and indicated no willingness to go beyond agreeing to a far more limited "non-belligerency" deal with Israel than the full peace treaty Israel has demanded.
The election of Ehud Barak stimulated new movement in the peace process, with intensive negotiations held in the United States in January 2000 between Barak and Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa. These talks raised new hope for the conclusion of a peace treaty, but the discussions did not bear fruit. Hafez Assad died in June 2000 and no further talks have been held as Assad's son and successor, Bashar has moved to consolidate his power. Rhetorically, Bashar has not indicated any shift in Syria's position on the Golan. Israel has made clear it is prepared to compromise on the Golan and make significant territorial concessions. The only obstacle is Assad's unwillingness to say yes to peace with Israel.
"Israel's continued occupation of Lebanese territory is the only impediment to the conclusion of a peace treaty." FACT Israel has never had any hostile intentions toward Lebanon, but has been forced to fight as a result of the chaotic conditions in southern Lebanon that have allowed terrorists, first the PLO, and now Hizballah, to menace citizens living in northern Israel. In 1983, Israel did sign a peace treaty with Lebanon, but Syria forced President Amin Gemayel to renege on the agreement. Israel pulled all its troops out of southern Lebanon on May 24, 2000. The Israeli withdrawal was conducted in coordination with the UN, and, according to the UN, constituted an Israeli fulfillment of its obligations under Security Council Resolution 425. Still, Hizballah and the Lebanese government insist that Israel holds Lebanese territory in a largely uninhabited patch called Shebaa Farms. This claim provides Hizballah with a pretext to continue its attacks against Israel. The Israelis maintain, however, that the land was captured from Syria. Given Syria's de facto control over Lebanon, Syria will not allow the Lebanese government to negotiate peace with Israel until its claims on the Golan Heights are resolved. Once Israel and Syria reach an agreement, the expectation is that Lebanon would quickly do so afterward.
“Following the Oslo accords, the Palestinians have been educating their children about Israel and a future of coexistence with Israeli Jews.” FACT Rather than use education to promote peace with their Jewish neighbors, the Palestinians have persistently indoctrinated their children with anti-Semitic stereotypes, anti-Israel propaganda and other materials designed more to promote hostility and intolerance than coexistence. For example, a Palestinian children's television show called the "Children's Club" uses a "Sesame Street" formula involving interaction between children, puppets and fictional characters to encourage a hatred for Jews and the perpetration of violence against them in a jihad (holy war). In one song, young children are shown singing about wanting to become "suicide warriors" and taking up machine guns against Israelis. Another song features young children singing a refrain,"When I wander into Jerusalem, I will become a suicide bomber." Children on the show also say, "We will settle our claims with stones and bullets," and call for a "jihad against Israel."
Palestinians are also calling on their youth to join the battle against Israel in commercials on Palestinian TV that tell children to drop their toys, pick up rocks, and do battle with Israel. In one commercial, actors recreate the incident where a child was killed in the crossfire of a confrontation between Israelis and Palestinians. The commercial shows the child in paradise urging other children to “follow him.”17 Similar messages are conveyed in Palestinian textbooks, many of which were prepared by the Palestinian Ministry of Education. The 5th grade textbook Muqarar al-Tilawa Wa'ahkam Al-Tajwid describes Jews as cowards for whom Allah has prepared fires of hell. In a text for 8th graders, Al-Mutala'ah Wa'alnussus al-Adabia, Israelis are referred to as the butchers in Jerusalem. Stories glorifying those who throw stones at soldiers are found in various texts. A 9th grade text, Al-Mutala'ah Wa'alnussus al-Adabia, refers to the bacteria of Zionism that has to be uprooted out of the Arab nation.
Newer textbooks are less strident, but still problematic. For example, they describe the Palestinian nation as one comprised of Muslims and Christians. No mention is made of Jews or the centuries-old Jewish communities of Palestine that predated Zionism. The State of Israel also is not mentioned, though many problems of Palestinian society are attributed to the Arab-Israeli conflict. References to Jews are usually stereotypical and are often related in a negative way to their opposition to Muhammad and refusal to convert to Islam. A lesson on architecture describes prominent mosques and churches, but makes no mention of Jewish holy places.18a A recent study concludes:
The lessons don't end in school. Summer camp teaches Palestinian children how to resist the Israelis and that the greatest glory is to be a martyr. Campers stage mock kidnappings and learning how to slit the throats of Israelis. Four "Paradise Camps" run by Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip offer 8-12 year-olds military training and encourage them to become suicide bombers. The BBC filmed children marching in formation and practicing martial arts.19 The Palestinian authorities also try to convince children that Israel is out to kill them by all sort of devious methods. For example, the Palestinian daily newspaper, Al Hayat Jadida, reported that Israeli aircraft were dropping poisonous candy over elementary and junior high schools in the Gaza Strip.20 These teachings violate the letter and spirit of the peace agreements.
“Israeli textbooks are no better than those of the Palestinians. Jewish children are not taught tolerance toward Arabs and Muslims and they are told Palestinians do not exist.” FACT The best hope for the future is that Israeli and Arab children will grow up with a greater understanding and tolerance of one another. Unfortunately, the textbooks in Arab countries, and the Palestinian Authority, in particular, do not promote coexistence. By contrast, Israeli textbooks are oriented toward peace and tolerance. The Palestinians are accepted as Palestinians. Islam and Arab culture are referred to with respect. Islamic holy places are discussed along with Jewish ones. Stereotypes are avoided to educate against prejudice. In addition, the Arab-Israeli conflict is factually described as an ongoing conflict between two national entities over the same territory. Both the Arab and Israeli sides are presented. The content of the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and Jordan is detailed, along with the implications of those agreements. Agreements with the Palestinians are discussed as well, and the atlas used in Israeli schools shows the Palestinian Authority.21a “The Interim Agreement called for the creation of a Palestinian police force and that is precisely what the Palestinian Authority created.” FACT Israel was wary of allowing the Palestinian Authority to create a police force because of the threat to Israeli security armed Palestinians might create. Israel understood, however, that the Palestinians required a means of keeping order and the Interim Agreement therefore allowed for up to 12,000 police officers to be deployed in the West Bank and up to 18,000 in the Gaza Strip. Contrary to the agreement, however, the Palestinians have not only created a much larger police force (the Palestinian Authority submitted a list of 39,899 names), but also a variety of other security organizations, most of which are designed less for maintenance of public order than the guarantee of Yasser Arafat's political control. Israel would probably overlook the violation of the agreed limit on the number of police officers if they were carrying out their responsibility to maintain order. It is clear from the violence that has persisted in 2000-2002, however, that the police are not doing their jobs. Worse, in many instances the police have participated in attacks against Israelis. President Bush observed that the "Palestinian authorities are encouraging, not opposing terrorism" and made clear "the United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure." He added that this necessitated "an externally supervised effort to rebuild and reform the Palestinian security services. The security system must have clear lines of authority and accountability, and a unified chain of command."21b “The Palestinians have fulfilled their commitment to arrest and prosecute terrorists.” FACT Israel viewed the Palestinian obligation to prevent terror as crucial to providing the security its citizens needed to make territorial concessions. The Palestinians have arrested suspected terrorists from time to time; however, they have had a revolving door whereby most of them are subsequently released. In the period following the breakdown of the Camp David negotiations on July 25, 2000, and the start of the violence in late September 2000, more than 50 members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine were released from prison. To give one example of the failure to act against the terrorists, the head of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, was not arrested until the end of June 2002, and then he was only placed under house arrest. Shortly thereafter he attended a rally in the Gaza Strip.21c Despite leading the organization most responsible for the suicide bombing campaign against Israeli civilians, Yassin is still not in jail. The Palestinian Authority's treatment of Palestinians suspected of terrorism against Israel is in stark contrast to how it handles Palestinians accused of collaborating with Israel or threatening the political domination of Yasser Arafat. Palestinians who commit "crimes" against the Palestinian people are usually arrested and, in several instances, quickly executed.22The unwarranted release of those accused of violence against Israel sends the message to the Palestinian public that terrorism is acceptable. It also allows the terrorists themselves to continue their campaign of violence against Israel.
“Palestinians are justified in using violence because the peace process has not allowed them to achieve their national aspirations.” FACT The premise from the beginning of the Oslo peace process was that disputes would be resolved by talking, not shooting. The Palestinians have never accepted this most basic of principles for coexistence. The answer to complaints that Israel is not withdrawing far enough or fast enough should be more negotiations, more confidence-building measures and more demonstrations of a desire to live together without using violence. To understand why the Oslo process has not succeeded, and why Palestinians and Israelis are not living peacefully beside each other, it is useful to look at the first Arab-Israeli peace process that did work, the Egyptian-Israeli negotiations. Though the peace agreement was hammered out in intensive negotiations at Camp David, the route to peace was a long, tortuous one that took years to navigate. What made it possible, however, was the commitment both nations made to peace and the actions they took to insure it. Egypt maintained a state of war with Israel for more than 25 years before Anwar Sadat seriously talked about peace. Bloody conflicts were fought in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1968-70 and 1973. The anger, heartache and distrust of a quarter century did not dissipate overnight. The process began after the 1973 war when Henry Kissinger facilitated the negotiation of a disengagement agreement in which both sides made significant concessions. Egypt had demanded that Israel make a substantial withdrawal from Sinai and commit to abandon all its territorial gains from 1967, but Israel gave up only a tiny area of the Sinai. Rather than resort to violence, the Egyptians engaged in more negotiations. The first agreement was signed in January 1974. It took about a year and a half before a second agreement was reached. It wasn't easy. Israel was criticized for "inflexibility," and the Egyptians were no less difficult. Anwar Sadat agreed to limit anti-Israel propaganda in the Egyptian press and to end his country's participation in the Arab boycott. Yitzhak Rabin also made difficult territorial concessions, giving up oil fields and two critical Sinai passes. After "Sinai II," Egypt still had not recovered all of its territory. Sadat was dissatisfied and was pilloried by the other Arabs for going as far as he did toward peace with Israel. Nevertheless, he did not resort to violence. There was no unleashing of fedayeen, as Nasser had done in the 1950s. Instead, he continued talking. It took three more years before the Camp David Accords were signed and another six months after that before the final peace treaty was negotiated. It took five years to work out issues that were as complex as those in the current impasse. In return for its tangible concessions, Israel received a promise of a new future of peaceful relations. Israel could take this risk because Egypt had demonstrated over the previous five years that it would resolve disputes with Israel peacefully, and that it no longer wished to destroy its neighbor. Egypt still wasn't completely satisfied. Sadat demanded a small sliver of land that Israel retained in the Sinai. It took another nine years before international arbitration led Israel to give up Taba. Rather than using this dispute as a pretext for violating the peace treaty, Egypt negotiated.
“Israel has a surplus of water and its refusal to share with its neighbors could provoke the next war.” FACT The supply of water is a matter of life and death, war and peace for the peoples of the Middle East. A Jerusalem Post headline concisely stated the security threat for Israel, "The hand that controls the faucet rules the country."25 King Hussein said in 1990 the one issue that could bring Jordan to war again is water, so it is not surprising that an agreement on water supplies was critical to the negotiation of the peace treaty with Israel. Jordan now receives an annual allotment of water from Israel.26 Israel has had an ongoing water deficit for a number of years. Simply put, the amount of water consumed is greater than the amount of water collected from rainfall. In a drought year, the situation worsens, because the amount of water in reservoirs and the amount of water flowing in rivers and streams is significantly decreased.
The situation is growing more dangerous each year as the population of the region continues to grow exponentially, tens of thousands of immigrants arrive in Israel, political disputes over existing water supplies become more pronounced and Israel and the Palestinians negotiate rights to the water in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel has three main water sources: the coastal and mountain aquifers and Lake Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). Each supply approximately 25 percent of the total consumed. Roughly 20 percent is derived from smaller aquifers. The remaining 5 percent comes from the Shafdan project that recycles sewage in metropolitan Tel Aviv. The coastal aquifer's water quality is deteriorating because of over-pumping and contamination from sewage. Lake Kinneret requires a delicate water level balance. If the level is too low, salty water from neighboring springs seeps in. If the level rises too high, it can flood. The mountain aquifer is in the best condition. The mountain aquifer is also the most politically contentious. Prior to 1967, Israel used 95 percent of this water, the Arabs only 5 percent. Since then, the Arab share has more than tripled, but the Palestinians are still demanding that these proportions be reversed. They argue that since the aquifer lies under the West Bank, it should come under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The Palestinians maintain that Israel is "stealing" their water, but Israel wants to retain control over the lion's share of the water.
The water issue clearly affects Israel's economy and security. One danger, for example, is that pumping of water in Judea and Samaria by Palestinians could increase to a degree that would completely eliminate pumping in Israel. The Palestinians have also demanded the right to expand their agricultural sector, using the same limited water resources that Israel's State Comptroller said were inadequate to expand Israel's agricultural production. Meanwhile, Palestinian water authorities have said as much as 50 percent of domestic water is lost because of old, inefficient supply systems. The PA's dilemma is even worse in Gaza, where the sole aquifer is already virtually unusable because of contamination and salinity. The amount of water to be supplied to the territories by Israel was determined in negotiations between the two sides, and Israel has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Interim Agreement. In response to the threat to water supplies posed by the "al-Aksa Intifada," Palestinian and Israeli water officials issued a joint statement in January 2001 opposing any damage to water and wastewater infrastructure and expressing the intent to ensure the water supply to the Palestinian and Israeli cities, towns and villages in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.27 Israel could secure its water future by maintaining control over three West Bank regions comprising 20 percent of the land; however, pressure from the international community and the momentum of the peace process may force Israel to give up some or all of these territories.
Water is also an issue in negotiations with the Syrians. Syria demands the full return of the Golan Heights in return for peace with Israel. According to water expert Joyce Starr, an Israeli government that concedes territory on the Golan without a guaranteed supply of Yarmuk waters, or some alternative source of water, would be putting the nation in "grave jeopardy."29 Israel is taking steps to ameliorate the water issue by beginning construction of major desalination plants that are scheduled to provide, by 2006, nearly one-fourth of Israel's needs. An agreement has also been reached that will allow Israel to import water from Turkey. Israel has offered to build a desalination plant in Hadera for the Palestinians in the West Bank, but they have rejected the idea. “The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) is a force for moderation in the territories. It advocates Muslim-Jewish harmony and reconciliation.” FACT Hamas is opposed to Israel's existence in any form. Its platform states that "there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad (holy war)." The group warns that any Muslim who leaves "the circle of struggle with Zionism" is guilty of "high treason." Hamas' platform calls for the creation of an Islamic republic in Palestine that would replace Israel. Muslims should "raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine," it says.30 “Israel withdrew from all of the Sinai to achieve peace with Egypt, withdrew to the international border with Lebanon and has offered to withdraw from the entire Golan Heights in a peace agreement with Syria; therefore, Israel should withdraw from 100 percent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to make peace with the Palestinians.” FACT Israel has no obligation, legal or otherwise, to withdraw from the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip. Moreover, those territories are very different than the others that were the subject of negotiations. Israel did not have a claim to either the Sinai or the security zone in Lebanon. Those territories were held as defensive measures to protect Israel after hostile forces had used them to stage attacks. In the case of Sinai, even after the withdrawal, a series of security measures were put into place, including the introduction of U.S. observers to monitor compliance with the peace treaty terms. Israel has not formally offered to withdraw from the entire Golan though it has hinted at a willingness to give up much or all of that territory in exchange for peace with Syria. Such an agreement would also include terms for monitoring compliance and maintaining Israeli security. The situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is very different. Unlike the Sinai, for example, no buffer zone would exist to separate hostile Palestinian forces from Israel if it were to withdraw completely from the territories. Every Israeli government, and most nonpartisan observers, agree that Israel's security requires a presence in the Jordan Valley. Furthermore, Israel has a historic connection to Judea and Samaria, which have been home to Jews for centuries and have imporant religious significance to the Jewish people. Finally, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria could legitimately argue the territories in dispute belonged to them; this is not true of the Palestinians. The West Bank was never part of any country and the Palestinian claim to the territory is no better than that of Israel. Israel has acknowledged that it will be necessary to withdraw from parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians, and has already withdrawn from large swaths of both, but its security needs are such that it cannot withdraw from 100 percent of those lands. “The Palestinians have never been offered a state of their own.” FACT The Palestinians have actually had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers:
A variety of reasons have been given for why the Palestinians have in Abba Eban's words, "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Historian Benny Morris has suggested that the Palestinians have religious, historical, and practical reasons for opposing an agreement with Israel. He says that "Arafat and his generation cannot give up the vision of the greater land of Israel for the Arabs. [This is true because] this is a holy land, Dar al-Islam [the world of Islam]. It was once in the hands of the Muslims, and it is inconceivable [to them] that infidels like us [the Israelis] would receive it." The Palestinians also believe that time is on their side. "They feel that demographics will defeat the Jews in one hundred or two hundred years, just like the Crusaders." The Palestinians also hope the Arabs will acquire nuclear weapons in the future that will allow them to defeat Israel. "Why should they accept a compromise that is perceived by them as unjust today?"30a
“Yasser Arafat rejected Ehud Barak's proposals at Camp David and the White House in 2000 because they did not offer the Palestinians a viable state. Palestine would have been denied water, control of its holy places, and would have been divided into cantons surrounded by Israelis. Israel would have also retained control of Jerusalem and denied refugees the right to return.” FACT Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 5 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third. Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have "religious sovereignty" over the Temple Mount. According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference.
The proposal also addressed the refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them. Israel also agreed to give the Palestinians access to water desalinated in its territory. Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. "For him to end the conflict is to end himself," said Ross.30c The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations – that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the intifada that began in September 2000 – prevailed for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say "yes" to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal. They never did.
“The members of the Arab League signed an antiterrorism pact and oppose any form of terrorism.” FACT The Arab League, a moribund institution that usually convenes only when it feels the need to publicly flay Israel, made headlines on April 22, 1998, for adopting the first Arab antiterrorism agreement. The agreement calls on Arab countries to deny refuge, training and financial or military support to groups that launch attacks on other Arab nations. It says attacks on ruling Arab regimes or the families of rulers should be considered terrorism and that Islam rejects "all forms of violence and terror." The signatories also promised to exchange information on terrorist groups. Arab countries and organizations have typically defined terrorism in such a way that groups attacking Israel are excluded. The new agreement does the same thing by exempting "resistance movements" because efforts to secure "liberation and self-determination" are not considered terrorism by the League (unless it is a liberation effort directed at an Arab government). Not surprisingly, Syria and Lebanon were the countries maintaining that individuals "resisting occupation" in Southern Lebanon, the Golan Heights and the West Bank should not be labeled as terrorists. For the members of the Arab League, the objective of "national liberation" justifies attacks against civilians, including women and children. The agreement did not signal a change in Arab morality or a newfound concern over terrorism. It was merely an act of self-preservation taken by autocrats who recognized that Israel was not as great a threat to them as their own disaffected citizens. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Iraq and Iran all have continued to fund, organize and harbor terrorist organizations, and heinous acts have been perpetrated by Arab terrorists against innocent men, women and children in Israel and elsewhere around the world. “Israel illegally took over the District Governor's Compound and the Palestinians' offices in Orient House, and has reoccupied territory in Jerusalem that was given to the Palestinians.” FACT Following a series of terrorist attacks, including the bombing of a Jerusalem pizza restaurant that killed 15 and injured more than 130, children, men, and women, Israel took a series of defensive measures in the Jerusalem area.One of these steps was to take over the District Governor's Compound and several adjacent buildings that were being used by Palestinian security forces to organize and instigate terrorist activities. A second measure was to close Palestinian Authority offices in the Orient House in Jerusalem. This latter move was especially controversial because Orient House had become a popular place for foreign journalists to meet Palestinians, and was viewed by Palestinians as their unofficial capital, where they frequently scheduled meetings with foreign dignitaries. Under the Israel-Palestinian agreements, security responsibilities in Jerusalem are the exclusive province of Israel (Interim Agreement). In addition to acting according to the well established principal of self-defense under international law, Israel's actions have been consistent with the terms of the Israel-Palestinian agreements. By using these areas as bases to instigate terror, the Palestinians violated their commitment to combat terrorism and violence (Interim Agreement Annex I, Article IV.1.f) and to implement a policy of zero tolerance for terror and violence (Wye River Memorandum II.A.1). Moreover, they have violated the promise to "renounce the use of terrorism and other acts of violence" (letter from Yasser Arafat to Yitzhak Rabin) that was the basis for the entire Oslo process. Finally, the decision of the Palestinian leadership to reject negotiations and to adopt a strategy of terrorism, flouts the first recommendation of the Mitchell Commission Report, calling on the parties to "immediately implement an unconditional cessation of violence." The Palestinians may be angry that they can no longer carry out their political activities at Orient House, but the truth is the agreements with Israel barred them from doing so in the first place. The Interim Agreement states that all PA offices can only be located in areas under Palestinian territorial jurisdiction in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Interim Agreement Article I.7). Furthermore, the frequent meetings held at the Orient House between Palestinian officials and foreign diplomats violated the general prohibition on the exercise of foreign relations contained in Article IX of the Interim Agreement. Israel has agreed to allow the Palestinians to set up economic, social, educational, and cultural institutions to serve the needs of the population in Jerusalem; however, no political activity is permitted under any of the agreements signed by the two sides. And, of course, Israel cannot be expected to permit terrorist operations in its capital. “The Palestinians joined the rest of the world in condemning the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.” FACT Having learned his lesson from allying himself and the Palestinian people with Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, Yasser Arafat did condemn the attack against the United States. Palestinians throughout the West Bank, Gaza Strip and refugee camps in Lebanon, however, celebrated the attacks. In one rally in Gaza, for example, demonstrators carried posters supporting Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden. After the U.S. coalition attacked Afghanistan, Hamas organized another rally in the Gaza Strip in which thousands of Palestinians marched in support of bin Laden. Among those celebrating at these events were members of the Palestinian Authority police force, who fired their guns in the air. Others chanted, "God is Great," and handed out sweets.
“The Palestinian Authority has seized illegal weapons and fulfilled its other obligations under the Oslo agreements to restrict the possession of arms to the authorized police force.” FACT According to the Interim Agreement signed by Israel and the Palestinians, "no organization, group or individual in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip shall manufacture, sell, acquire, possess, import or otherwise introduce into the West Bank or the Gaza Strip any firearms, ammunition, weapons, explosives, gunpowder or any related equipment" except the Palestinian police. The agreement's annex further specifies that the police are only permitted a limited number of pistols, rifles and machine guns and that all weapons must be registered.
In June, when they agreed to the Tenet Cease-Fire Plan, the Palestinians committed themselves, again, to "make a concerted effort to locate and confiscate illegal weapons, including mortars, rockets, and explosives" and "to prevent smuggling and illegal production of weapons." They have failed to do either. This is a serious violation of the agreement signed by the Palestinians, one that provokes mistrust and threatens Israeli security. “Palestinian terrorists only attack Israelis; they never assault Americans.” FACT The PLO has a long history of brutal violence against innocent civilians of many nations, including the United States. Palestinian Muslim terrorist groups are a more recent phenomenon, but they have not spared Americans either. Here are a few examples of Palestinian terrorist incidents involving American citizens (click here for the complete list)::
|
During
the