Why Reward Israel?!
If what appeared in the media yesterday about Israel's agreement to partially freeze settlements in the occupied territories in exchange for a U.S. pledge to veto any decision taken by the U.N. Security Council contrary to Israel's position and long-term security guarantees — including allowing Israel to obtain the latest American fighter planes — is true, then it is the first time in the history of international diplomacy that the power behind an illegal occupation has been rewarded for taking limited steps to stop what are already illegal actions. By ignoring the fundamental rights of the party subject to the occupation, the U.S. is setting a dangerous precedent that could affect not only the global system and its foundations and principles, but also those of justice and fairness in the international community.
This will lead to a scenario in which the U.S. or the international community — in cases of illegal occupation — will be unable to oppose those occupations because of the precedent set here. Despite calls echoing the U.S. from world leaders saying that there is no reward for occupation, we will find it impossible to demand the immediate withdrawal of an occupation force from occupied lands. Yet, we have precedents in this regard to the contrary with respect to Iraq and its invasion of Kuwait, as well as the war in the former Yugoslavia and other occupations that have been dealt with firmly.
The Arabs and Palestinians announced at the last Arab summit and at the Arab Peace Initiative Committee what has been repeatedly stated by Arab and Palestinian leaders — that complete cessation of settlements is the essential basis for the start of negotiations. Everyone is aware that excluding Jerusalem from the settlement-freeze negotiations means allowing Israel to continue settlement activities on a large scale in the holy city. Yet, these facts are cast aside, and the road map to peace, put in place by the international community, is not followed.
Additionally, the protection of American policies and Israel's legitimacy in the Security Council and the General Assembly mean there will be an imbalance in the role assumed by any honest broker in the peace process. This disorder affects the vision of the international community, just as it affects the rights of the Palestinians and prejudices the rights of states and political entities to go to the Security Council to oppose this practice, which is illegal under international law.
We are all aware of the deception of a partial settlement freeze, which not only excludes occupied Arab Jerusalem but also illegal settlement activities in large parts of the West Bank. The beginning of new construction of settlements and the completion of residential units go on under the guise of settlement construction for general purposes, which is a misleading label aimed at providing legitimacy to such settlement activities.
Therefore, there is a vast difference between the demands of the Arabs and those of the Palestinians regarding the cessation of settlement activity, as well as in regard to the agreement reached between the United States and Israel for a partial settlement freeze. These negotiations do not meet the minimum conditions required for the start of serious negotiations, and so the ball is now in the Arabs’ court. The Arabs first approved indirect negotiations, as well as the subsequent direct negotiations, and now support the Palestinian position to stop negotiations in light of ongoing settlement activity.
If Netanyahu, who is in a position of strength in the negotiations, can specify conditions and be rewarded for a freeze to illegal settlements, which is little more than a placebo, then it is up to the Arab side and the Palestinians to specify conditions from the side of the victims to ensure their security and to assess the responsiveness of the peace efforts. Surely that deserves a greater reward.
This will lead to a scenario in which the U.S. or the international community — in cases of illegal occupation — will be unable to oppose those occupations because of the precedent set here. Despite calls echoing the U.S. from world leaders saying that there is no reward for occupation, we will find it impossible to demand the immediate withdrawal of an occupation force from occupied lands. Yet, we have precedents in this regard to the contrary with respect to Iraq and its invasion of Kuwait, as well as the war in the former Yugoslavia and other occupations that have been dealt with firmly.
The Arabs and Palestinians announced at the last Arab summit and at the Arab Peace Initiative Committee what has been repeatedly stated by Arab and Palestinian leaders — that complete cessation of settlements is the essential basis for the start of negotiations. Everyone is aware that excluding Jerusalem from the settlement-freeze negotiations means allowing Israel to continue settlement activities on a large scale in the holy city. Yet, these facts are cast aside, and the road map to peace, put in place by the international community, is not followed.
Additionally, the protection of American policies and Israel's legitimacy in the Security Council and the General Assembly mean there will be an imbalance in the role assumed by any honest broker in the peace process. This disorder affects the vision of the international community, just as it affects the rights of the Palestinians and prejudices the rights of states and political entities to go to the Security Council to oppose this practice, which is illegal under international law.
We are all aware of the deception of a partial settlement freeze, which not only excludes occupied Arab Jerusalem but also illegal settlement activities in large parts of the West Bank. The beginning of new construction of settlements and the completion of residential units go on under the guise of settlement construction for general purposes, which is a misleading label aimed at providing legitimacy to such settlement activities.
Therefore, there is a vast difference between the demands of the Arabs and those of the Palestinians regarding the cessation of settlement activity, as well as in regard to the agreement reached between the United States and Israel for a partial settlement freeze. These negotiations do not meet the minimum conditions required for the start of serious negotiations, and so the ball is now in the Arabs’ court. The Arabs first approved indirect negotiations, as well as the subsequent direct negotiations, and now support the Palestinian position to stop negotiations in light of ongoing settlement activity.
If Netanyahu, who is in a position of strength in the negotiations, can specify conditions and be rewarded for a freeze to illegal settlements, which is little more than a placebo, then it is up to the Arab side and the Palestinians to specify conditions from the side of the victims to ensure their security and to assess the responsiveness of the peace efforts. Surely that deserves a greater reward.