[Oman-l] Understanding the current Israeli-Palestinian fighting
WeAlsoWalk@aol.com
WeAlsoWalk@aol.com
Thu, 2 Nov 2000 18:52:30 EST
Many thanks to BaaboodA for sharing with us Gershon Baskin's ideas in
Negotiating the Settlements The Success of Right-Wing Political Entrapment
Against Peace. This is a very enlightening thesis. He tells us about the
"settlement clusters:"
"The new concept is: settlement clusters. As opposed to “settlement blocs”
concentrated Israeli settlements alongside the Green Line which could be
annexed to the pre-1967 borders, the concept of “settlement clusters”
refers to groups of more isolated settlements in the heart of the Palestinian
territories becoming islands of Israeli sovereignty once annexed by Israel."
I wonder if anyone might agree with me that these clusters might be likened
to a fig tree putting forth its branches. Young tender shoots? Isreal is
often referred to as a fig tree in parable. Yes, yes, I am reading my bible
and looking at eschatalogical themes.
Bill Isakson,
Eugene, Oregon, USA
Lane County
123.100W 44.032N
G-QRP#8589
URL: http://members.aol.com/WeAlsoWalk *** <A
HREF="http://members.aol.com/wealsowalk/">WeAlsoWalk</A>
AC6QV@arrl.net
WeAlsoWalk@AOL.com
In a message dated 11/2/00 9:14:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, BaaboodA@aol.com
writes:
> Subj: [Oman-l] Understanding the current Israeli-Palestinian fighting
> Date: 11/2/00 9:14:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
> From: BaaboodA@aol.com
> Sender: oman-l-admin@oman.org
> Reply-to: oman-l@oman.org
> To: oman-l@oman.org
>
> Here is an excellent article explaining the recent break out of
> hostilities
> in the Middle East. Given the recent interest and exchange on this subject
> on
> the list I thought that the article could throw further light on this
> specific issue from a peace-loving Israeli view point. It's definitely
worth
>
> a read.
>
> Abdulla
>
>
>
> Subj: Negotiating the Settlements The Success of Right-Wing Political
> Entrapment Against Peace
> Date: 01/11/00 23:19:04 GMT Standard Time
> From: peace@netvision.net.il (Gershon Baskin)
>
>
> Negotiating the Settlements The Success of Right-Wing Political Entrapment
> Against Peace
>
> Gershon Baskin, Ph.D.
>
> The Israeli media reported that Ehud Barak made the most “generous
offer”
> the
> Palestinians could ever expect to receive from an Israeli Prime Minster.
> Furthermore, the Israeli hasbara (propaganda) machine blamed Arafat for
> “not
> missing the opportunity to miss another opportunity”. Mr. Barak claimed
that
> the Palestinians didn’t even offer a counter offer or even respond to the
> Israeli offer. A central part of the Israeli “package” of offers
included,
> as
> reported by Zeev Schiff in Haaretz, was 90% of the West Bank the remaining
> 10%
> to be annexed to Israel. Mr. Barak claimed that he would receive the
> support
> of the majority of settlers because 80% would remain where they are and
> would
> be under Israel sovereignty. Only some 40,000 settlers would have to
> relocate
> into the so-called “settlement blocs” that would be annexed. Sounds
almost
> reasonable. Yet the Palestinian rejection was swift and firm and in fact,
> served as one of the primary motivating forces that led to the intensity of
> the
> “al-Aqsa intifida”.
>
> Palestinians who were at Camp David speak about a new concept in the
> Israeli-Palestinian lexicon that was born “up on the hill” with the help
of
> planners and map experts brought in to interpret the positions and problems
> presented by both sides. The new concept is: settlement clusters. As
> opposed
> to “settlement blocs” concentrated Israeli settlements alongside the
Green
> Line which could be annexed to the pre-1967 borders, the concept of
> “settlement
> clusters” refers to groups of more isolated settlements in the heart of the
> Palestinian territories becoming islands of Israeli sovereignty once
> annexed by
> Israel. The Israeli 90% - 10% offer to the Palestinians included a number
> of
> these settlement clusters. This reality also meant that about 40
Palestinian
> villages with about 80,000 Palestinians would also be annexed to Israel.
> The
> Palestinian’s top urban planner was rushed to Camp David by Arafat to
> interpret
> the Israeli offer that the Americans were pressuring the Palestinians to
> accept. The Americans and the Israelis told the Palestinians that this was
> the
> best possible offer and that Barak had done the maximum. Barak, they
> explained, would have to withdraw more than 40 settlements and more than
> 40,000
> settlers. Any additional compromise would bring down his government and
> then
> “Arafat can negotiate with Sharon and Bibi”.
>
> In Palestinian eyes, the Barak offer created not islands of Israeli
> sovereignty but a series of at least three Palestinian “sovereign cages”.
> There
> would be no real Palestinian territorial contiguity. They would not have
> control and sovereignty on main arteries of transportation. The Jordan
> Valley
> would still be controlled by the IDF even if the Palestinians were granted
> some kind of control there. The only part of the Israeli proposal that
> seemed
> acceptable to the Palestinians was their understanding that Barak was
> willing
> to remove all of the settlements from Gaza, including Gush Katif, however,
> it
> was not clear whether Barak was willing to “allow” the Palestinians to
have
> a
> sovereign border crossing with Egypt in Rafah. (After Camp David it became
> less
> clear whether in fact Barak had actually offered to remove all of the Gaza
> settlements where they still control about 30% of the Gaza Strip).
>
> Throughout the negotiations the Palestinians constantly reminded
themselves,
>
> the Americans and the Israelis that according to Oslo the agreement signed
> in
> Washington in September 1995, Israel was supposed to implement further
> redeployment of its forces (and control) to “specified military
locations”.
> The mutual Israeli-Palestinian understanding of this at that time included
> the
> Israeli settlements within the definition of “specified military
locations”.
>
> According to the Palestinians, by the end of the interim period (5 years)
> Israel should have withdrawn from 90% of the West Bank based on a signed
> and
> endorsed agreement. The Palestinians believed that the area of the
> settlements
> included only the built up areas allowing for a perimeter of 50 meters
from
> the last home in each settlement. This together with IDF bases would
> amount to
> about 10% of the West Bank. However, an argument then emerged when
Benyamin
> Netanyahu was Prime Minister. Israel then claimed that the agreement
> referred
> to “security zones” and not “specified military locations” a much
broader
> definition allowing Israel to decide unilaterally that the further
> redeployments would be much less than the Palestinian demands. Netanyahu’s
> office produced a Hebrew version of the Oslo Agreement talking about
“azorim
> bitchoniim” security zones. At the same time, the Israeli Foreign
Ministry
> produced an internal document labeled “Secret Limited Distribution” with
> the
> correct translation of the term “specified military locations” claiming
that
> the Palestinian interpretation was the correct version.
>
> Mr. Barak decided even before being elected that he would “merge” the
third
> further redeployment with the final status agreement and thereby avoid
> making
> unnecessary concessions to the Palestinians. In other words there would
be
> no
> further redeployment that the Palestinians expected to include at least
50%
> of
> the West Bank. Barak believed that after Netanyahu, his “generous” offer
> would
> be viewed by the Palestinians as their version of getting their state “on a
> silver platter”. The Palestinian refusal was incomprehensible how could
> they
> refuse? Who will possibly give them a better deal?
>
> The Palestinians have claimed since Oslo in 1993 that they had made their
> “historic compromise” by giving up 78% of Palestine leaving them with
only
> the
> West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. They believed that Israel would make
> their
> “historic compromise” in the final status negotiations when they withdraw
> from
> 100% of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza allowing for minor border
> rectification and taking into account some of the new realities on the
> ground.
> Taking into account some of the “new realities” led Arafat to offer Barak
> 2% of
> the West Bank “for free” and another 2% in exchange for territory of equal
> size
> and quality inside of Israel. The Palestinians’ position has been based on
> their demand to implement UN Security Council Resolution 242 (according to
> their understanding) meaning a full Israeli withdrawal from all territories
> conquered in 1967. Arafat’s agreement to give up 2% “for free” led to a
> deep
> rift within the Palestinian delegation. Unofficial reports even spoke of a
> “fist fight” that broke out between at least 2 of the delegates from the
> Palestinian team. If this was the height of the intensity of
> dissatisfaction
> within the Palestinian delegation, then it should have been taken for
> granted
> by Israel and the Americans that the Palestinian public would “explode”
at
> the
> notion of having to “take it or leave it” with regard to the Israel
> “generous”
> offer.
>
> In public opinion surveys conducted amongst Palestinian following Camp
> David
> it was found that the highest level of dissatisfaction and anger by the
> Palestinian public was demonstrated with regard to the territorial issue
and
> the settlement issue. The Palestinians have seen the rapid expansion of
> settlements and roads during the past 17 months of the Barak government.
> For
> Palestinians, the reality of settlements means being in perpetual
occupation
>
> the idea of political separation becomes little more than a farce.
>
> The Israeli peace camp always objected to the building of settlements.
> From
> the very beginning of the settlement movement the peace camp in Israel was
> out
> on the streets protesting. I remember tens of those demonstrations the
> most
> dramatic of them for me being the demonstration in Efrat on a cold rainy
> Saturday before the first person had even moved in. The reality of the
> amount
> of money, roads, infrastructure and houses built was impossible to ignore.
> I
> remember saying “we’re carrying signs and they’re building” what a
feeling
> of
> impotence! The Israeli left knew that the settlements were and obstacle to
> peace even the Americans said so. So why then, did the peace camp adopt
the
> line of even “liberals” in the Likud and most center people in Labour
that
> the
> settlements were a reality a fact on the ground that couldn’t be changed.
> How
> is that the peace camp in Israel became the “defense attorney” for the
> settlers
> and settlements vis-a vis the Palestinians?
>
> Throughout the negotiations over the years, most Israelis have accepted
the
> viewpoint regarding the irrelevance of international law expressed so
> eloquently by Ben-Gurion “Um schmoom” meaning “UN nonsense!”. Who
cares
> that building settlements is a blatant breach of international law? Who
> cares
> that the “progressive” Supreme Court of Israel has consistently rejected
the
> notion that it must consider international law its mandate is only within
> the
> framework of Israeli jurisprudence.
>
> It now seems after a total break-down and perhaps permanent collapse of
the
> Oslo Process that the slogan “settlements means no peace” is a reality.
It
> does seem almost possible to imagine any Israeli government willing to
> remove
> more settlements than Barak offered. The Palestinians want to replace the
> Americans who blamed them for the failure of Camp David. The desire to
> demand
> international intervention, protection and even mediation is not tactical
> it
> is strategic. They know that international law is on their side. It seems
> that their strategy also includes a Hizballah type of war of attrition on
> specific isolated Israeli settlements in order to demonstrate their high
> cost
> to Israeli interests. It is not by chance that Netzerim, Kfar Darom,
Psgaot,
> Kadim and Ganim have become targets during this new intifada.
>
> The curse of the settlements will cost Israel and Palestine peace at
least
> for the foreseeable future. The religious and historical attraction of
Jews
> to
> the heart land of the West Bank the cradle of our birth as a nation
should
> not have prevented us from visiting there as welcome tourists in a
> Palestinian
> state. Once again it is being proven that Jewish attraction to stones is
> apparently more sacred than human life and that our historic rights and
> heritage is of a higher value than others and far beyond the importance of
> international law. One day perhaps, it will be written that 180,000 Jewish
> settlers prevented peace for millions of Israelis and Palestinians. How
> tragic.
>
>
>
>
> Gershon Baskin, Ph.D.
> Directors
>
> Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information - IPCRI - is an
> Israeli-Palestinian public policy think-tank working to advance peace
> between
> Israel and Palestine and in the region.
>
> P.O. Box 9321
> Jerusalem, 91092
>
>
> Office Telephone and Fax, Bethlehem - +972-2-277-6054 Fax: +972-2-277-6057
> Mobile: 972-(0)52-381-715
>
> Visit our Web Site: <http://www.ipcri.org/>http://www.ipcri.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oman-l mailing list
> Oman-l@oman.org
> http://oman.org/mailman/listinfo/oman-l
>
>
> ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
> Return-Path: <oman-l-admin@oman.org>
> Received: from rly-yc04.mx.aol.com (rly-yc04.mail.aol.com
[172.18.149.36])
> by air-yc03.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.23) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Nov 2000 12:14:33 -
> 0500
> Received: from beirut.leb.net (ns.leb.net [206.127.55.2]) by rly-yc04.mx.
> aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Nov 2000 12:14:00 -0400
> Received: from beirut.leb.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by beirut.leb.net (8.9.3+3.2W/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14512;
> Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:13:46 GMT
> Received: from imo-r01.mx.aol.com (imo-r01.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1])
> by beirut.leb.net (8.9.3+3.2W/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14488
> for <oman-l@oman.org>; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:13:44 GMT
> From: BaaboodA@aol.com
> Received: from BaaboodA@aol.com
> by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id j.10.454211f (4210)
> for <oman-l@oman.org>; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:12:54 -0500 (EST)
> Message-ID: <10.454211f.2732fa96@aol.com>
> Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:12:54 EST
> To: oman-l@oman.org
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Language: en
> X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 103
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by beirut.leb.net id
> RAA14489
> Subject: [Oman-l] Understanding the current Israeli-Palestinian fighting
> Reply-To: oman-l@oman.org
> Sender: oman-l-admin@oman.org
> Errors-To: oman-l-admin@oman.org
> X-Mailman-Version: 1.1
> Precedence: bulk
> List-Id: About Oman (Sultanate of Oman) <oman-l.oman.org>
> X-BeenThere: oman-l@oman.org
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by beirut.leb.net id
> RAA14512
>
>