Democratic Palestine : 14 (ص 22)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 14 (ص 22)
- المحتوى
-
The Israeli Concept of ‘Peace’
The daily news is filled with the ongoing efforts of the US and Israeli governments to find a settlement to
the Middle East conflict, which would cement imperialist-Zionist hegemony. More dangerous, the Pales-
tinian and Arab right are showing willingness to entertain such solutions. We therefore find it highly relev-
ant to focus on what the Zionist leadership means when it speaks of peace. To this end, we print a trans-
lation of a study published in «Al Ard» magazine, vol. 13, no. 5, Nov. 21, 1985.
The Israeli coalition government's idea of the settlement
Before going into the subject of the present Israeli govern-
ment's conditions for negotiations, a few matters must be
Clarified in order to avoid oversimplification. At no time has ‘Is-
rael’ specified clear, direct conditions for negotiations or peace
with any party involved in the Middle East conflict. Nor has it
defined or substantiated its position, or declared what it is
ready to agree upon before sitting down at the negotiation
table. Instead ‘Israel’ makes unspecified statements aimed at
drawing other parties to the negotiating table, and then
accuses them of rejecting peace if they do not accept negotia-
tions under such ambiguous terms.
The established yet undeclared Zionist conditions are: (a)
refusal to withdraw from any part of the occupied Arab land
before beginning direct negotiations; (b) bilateral (separate)
negotiations; and (c) negotiations with the Israelis enjoying
unmatched military superiority. These three points are the fun-
damentals of the Israeli stand on negotiations, in harmony with
how ‘Israel’ understands peace. This particular kind of ‘peace’
is partial and interim. Comprehensive peace remains a prom-
ise on the horizon brandished verbally, but never fulfilled.
Moreover, withdrawal will not preceed normalization of rela-
tions. This means that ‘Israel’ demands special privileges as
compared to the other parties concerned in any settlement. It
reserves the right to veto any measure it considers harmful to
its particular idea of peace.
Any negotiations must be based on prior recognition of
«lsrael’s right to exist within secure borders.» This basically
means that ‘Israel’ claims the right to cultural and material inva-
sion of the Arab country concerned, so as to guarantee both
the normalization process and secure borders. The Israeli idea
of peace, and the meaning of these undefined conditions,
emerged clearly during the Camp David negotiations and later
during the Lebanese-Israeli negotiations which resulted in the
abrogated May 17th agreement. The Israeli idea of peace and
negotiations stems from the nature of the Zionist state which
was established as a colonial project struggling for land, disre-
garding the native inhabitants and using force to impose itself
in the region. These three aspects determine the direction and
activities which proceed from the Israeli understanding of
peace.
The Israeli understanding of peace also stems from (a) the
nature of ‘Israel’ as an instrument of war and aggression for
imperialism, in line with the latter's needs for steering the reg-
ion according to its interests and strategy; (b) the fact that a
just, comprehensive peace basically contradicts Zionist ideol-
ogy which is based on discrimination and looking down on
others, and expansion at the expense of others in order to
achieve «greater israel» supposedly based on «the Jews’ his-
torical rights.»
‘Israel’ brandishes its well-known no’s in the face of any-
one who makes the mistake of heading towards negotiations:
22
(1) no return to the borders of 1967; (2) no redivision of
Jerusalem or relinquishing it as the «eternal capital of the state
of Israel»; (3) no to a Palestinian state, the PLO or any form
which stresses the Palestinian identity; (4) no to comprehen-
sive negotiations where all parties concerned are represented;
(5) no to negotiating within an international framework with
each party directly represented on its own; (‘lsrael’, however,
welcomes verbal support from any international institutions,
and US participation as an observer or assistant in the negoti-
ations); and (6) no to Soviet participation in negotiations.
These conditions are not exclusive to the present coalition
government. They have been the stand of all Israeli govern-
ments since June 1967. Some of these conditions, such as
direct, separate negotiations with each party, have been the
demand of Israeli governments before 1967. ‘Israel’ has
refused a Palestinian state since its founding.
Negotiations with Jordan
The policy of the present Israeli coalition government aims
at dragging Jordan into direct negotiations ‘without precondi-
tions’. Despite all their own preconditions, the Israelis demand
that the other party sets none. The Israeli government, how-
ever, claims that it is ready to negotiate with King Hussein or
any other Jordanian official at any time and place.
Still, the Israeli conditions always come to the fore when
Israeli leaders speak of negotiations. This will become clear
when the position of this government on negotiating with Jor-
dan is elaborated. The tenth clause of the basic document,
which outlines the policy to be followed by the coalition govern-
ment, states the following: «Israel calls on Jordan to carry out
peace discussions. The Israeli government will make propos-
als during these talks and discuss the Jordanian proposals. » '
This clause implies no preconditions, but the preceding clause
states: «The government will continue to pursue the peace
process in accordance with the framework for peace in the
Middle East as agreed upon in Camp David. It will also resume
negotiations towards establishing autonomy». This means
that the Camp David framework is the basic condition for any
negotiations, and that these. will result in nothing more than
«autonomy for the residents.» Thus, any negotiations with Jor-
dan are based on the Israeli government's commitment to the
Camp David accords.
The 12th clause of the government document states: «Is-
rael objects to the establishment of a Palestinian state in Gaza
and the region between Jordan and Israel...» This means that
any discussion of a Palestinian state is out of the question. The
6th clause states: «The whole of Jerusalem is the eternal cap-
ital of Israel. It is one city under Israeli sovereignty and it is
impossible to divide it.» This means that the question of
Jerusalem is not up for discussion. The 13th clause states: «|s-
rael will not negotiate with the PLO» and «Arabs from Judea - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 14
- تاريخ
- مارس ١٩٨٦
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed