FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Roadmap and the Wall

by NEVE GORDON

The new peace initiative called the “Road Map” has a few advantages. In contrast to the Oslo Accords and a variety of other proposals, it affirms that Israel must put an “end to the occupation” as well as ensure the creation of a “viable Palestinian State.”

As opposed to “Tenet” and “Mitchell,” the two previous initiatives sponsored solely by the United States, the Road Map was devised and introduced by the Quartet; namely, the United Nations, European Union, Russia, and U.S. Insofar as the Quartet rather than just the U.S. will be the arbiter of this proposal, it will have a more balanced and fairer adjudicator.

The Road Map also states that a peaceful solution must be informed by the principle of land for peace as well as UN resolutions 242, 338,1397, and the Saudi proposal, documents that underscore some central issues not mentioned in the current initiative. Finally, it is a performance-based rather than declaratory document, and each side must carry out its obligations concurrently within very specific and short timeframes. So while the Palestinian Authority democratizes its institutions and tries to quell attacks on Israelis, the Israeli military must withdraw to the positions it held prior to September 2000.

Despite improvements over previous initiatives, the Road Map contains at least one essential flaw that can easily undermine the successful realization of a just peace.

The proposal is based on a three-phase solution. The first two phases have concrete guidelines that specify each side’s obligations and determine the dates of implementation. The four most difficult issues are, however, left to the final phase. Within a year following the beginning of this phase, the two parties are supposed to resolve the differences that have been at the heart of the conflict for over 36 years: 1) the final borders between the two states; 2) the status of Jerusalem; 3) the dismantlement of the Jewish settlements; and 4) the right of return of Palestinian refugees.

The Road Map itself says nothing about how these four problems are to be resolved. Yet, the power differential between the two sides is such that the Palestinians will have to depend on the good intentions of the Israelis. And since Prime Minister Sharon does not seem to have good intentions, this proposal, like the ones before it, is unlikely to beget a lasting peace.

The media has, nonetheless, expressed enthusiasm about Sharon, claiming that he is no longer the warmonger he used to be, but rather a man of peace. To demonstrate their point, they emphasize the military’s current efforts to dismantle Jewish outposts and cite Sharon’s statement that “Israel must end the occupation of 3.5 million Palestinians.” The desire to believe in a better future is so great that some liberal Israelis have even begun to trust the “new Sharon.”

Israel’s premier, however, is a chameleon. The military did indeed dismantle a few outposts in a series of operations well coordinated with the media. But the international press has conveniently forgotten that since entering office Sharon has allowed the settlers to build over 60 outposts. Along the same lines, he is probably sincere in his hope that Israel will end the occupation of 3.5 million Palestinians; however, he is unwilling to end the occupation of Palestine. People yes, land no.

The crucial point is that while Sharon is feigning to be a peacenik, he is creating facts on the ground that will undermine any future agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. The major issue is not so much the ongoing military operations, but rather the separation wall or “security fence,” a complex series of barriers, trenches, roads, and fences.

A map published in the Israeli paper Yedioth Ahronoth reveals that the so-called security fence, whose initial objective was to protect Israelis from the infiltration of suicide bombers, is not being erected on the 1967 borders. Rhetoric aside, the wall is being built in order to expropriate land. If Sharon succeeds, no less than fifty percent of the West Bank will be annexed to Israel!

Additionally, the area allocated for the Palestinian state-to-be will be divided into three enclaves, not including the Gaza Strip, which will be walled in on all sides. The Palestinian city Kalkilya, home of 40,000 people, is already a ghetto. Moreover, eighty percent of the water aquifers will be under Israeli control, making the enclaves dependent on Israel.

One cannot understand Sharon’s attitude towards the Road Map without examining the political objectives of the separation wall. A Palestinian friend put it well when he claimed that the wall is, in a sense, like the Hamas. “The two,” he said, “are against the Road Map.”

NEVE GORDON teaches politics at Ben-Gurion University, Israel. He is one of the writers featured in The Other Israel: Voices of Dissent and Refusal and can be reached at ngordon@bgumail.bgu.ac.il.

Neve Gordon is the co-author (with Nicola Perugini) of the newly released The Human Right to Dominate.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

December 07, 2016
Michael Schwalbe
What We Talk About When We Talk About Class
Karl Grossman
The Next Frontier: Trump and Space Weapons
Kenneth Surin
On Being Caught Speeding in Rural America
Chris Floyd
In Like Flynn: Blowback for Filth-Peddling Fascists
Serge Halimi
Trump, the Know-Nothing Victor
Paul DeRienzo
Flynn Flam: Neocon Ex-General to Be Trump’s National Security Advisor
Binoy Kampmark
Troubled Waters: Trump, Taiwan and Beijing
Tom Clifford
Trump and China: a Note From Beijing
Arnold August
Fidel’s Legacy to the World on Theory and Practice
Dave Lindorff
Is Trump’s Idea To Fix a ‘Rigged System’ by Appointing Crooks Who’ve Played It?
John Kirk
Cuba after Fidel: Interview with Professor John Kirk
Jess Guh
Repeal of Affordable Care Act is Politics Playing with the Wellbeing of Americans
Eric Sommer
Team Trump: a Government of Generals and Billionaires
Lawrence Davidson
U.S. Reactions to the Death of Fidel Castro
John Garvey - Noel Ignatiev
Abolitionism: a Study Guide
Clancy Sigal
Caution: Conspiracy Theory Ahead!
December 06, 2016
Anthony DiMaggio
Post-Fact Politics: Reviewing the History of Fake News and Propaganda
Richard Moser
Standing Rock: Challenge to the Establishment, School for the Social Movements
Behrooz Ghamari Tabrizi
Warmongering 99 – Common Sense 0: the Senate’s Unanimous Renewable of Iran Sanctions Act
Norman Solomon
Media Complicity is Key to Blacklisting Websites
Michael J. Sainato
Elizabeth Warren’s Shameful Exploitation of Standing Rock Victory
David Rosen
State Power and Terror: From Wounded Knee to Standing Rock
Kim Ives
Deconstructing Another Right-Wing Victory in Haiti
Nile Bowie
South Korea’s Presidency On A Knife-Edge
Mateo Pimentel
Some Notes and a Song for Standing Rock
CJ Hopkins
Manufacturing Normality
Bill Fletcher Jr – Bob Wing
Fighting Back Against the White Revolt of 2016
Peter Lee
Is America Ready for a War on White Privilege?
Pepe Escobar
The Rules of the (Trump) Game
W. T. Whitney
No Peace Yet in Colombia Despite War’s End
Mark Weisbrot
Castro Was Right About US Policy in Latin America
David Swanson
New Rogue Anti-Russia Committee Created in “Intelligence” Act
George Ochenski
Forests of the Future: Local or National Control?
December 05, 2016
Bill Martin
Stalingrad at Standing Rock?
Mark A. Lause
Recounting a Presidential Election: the Backstory
Mel Goodman
Mad Dog Mattis and Trump’s “Seven Days in May”
Matthew Hannah
Standing Rock and the Ideology of Oppressors: Conversations with a Morton County Commissioner
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
#NoDAPL Scores Major Victory: No Final Permit For Pipeline
Fran Shor
The End of the Indispensable Nation
Michael Yates
Vietnam: the War That Won’t Go Away
Michael Uhl
Notes on a Trip to Cuba
Robert Hunziker
Huge Antarctica Glacier in Serious Trouble
John Steppling
Screen Life
David Macaray
Trump vs. America’s Labor Unions
Yoav Litvin
Break Free and Lead, or Resign: a Letter to Bernie Sanders
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail