‘ROAD MAP’ TO PEACE — OR TO ENDLESS STRIFE?

By Kare Willoch and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

OSLO, Apr 1 2003 (IPS) - The formation of a new Palestinian government complies with one of the conditions imposed by President Bush for presenting his \’\’road map\’\’ for peace in the Middle East envisaging a separate Palestinian state by 2005, writes Kaare Willoch, former Prime Minister of Norway. But even this plan cannot produce lasting results if it breaks earlier promises to the weaker party, the author writes in this article for IPS. There is reason to fear that the \’\’road map\’\’ in the first round will call only for the removal of settlements established after March 2001 and an end to all further expansion within the occupied territories. But keeping the earlier Israeli settlements will make it impossible to establish a Palestinian state within borders that could render it viable. Accommodating Israel on this point is a certain path to lasting conflict. Under such circumstances, demands to make all further advances conditional on a complete cessation of violence will give the extremist groups veto power over peace. The Americans do not seem to realise that such demands represent a flight from reality.

The formation of a new Palestinian government complies with one of the conditions imposed by US President George Bush for presenting his ”road map”, a plan for peace in the Middle East envisaging a separate Palestinian state by 2005.

The Iraq War has seriously hurt the relationship between the West and the Muslim world, long poisoned by the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Even though it has no direct link to the question of Palestine, international terrorism is also stoked by this conflict.

The US has hoped to soothe the Palestinians with new assurances that they will get their own state, much as it did during the earlier war on Iraq. This immediately brought President George W. Bush into conflict with powerful circles within the US that argue against such a solution.

If President Bush nevertheless dares to follow up on his ”road map to a two-state solution”, in cooperation with the European Union, Russia, and the UN, a certain optimism is justified. But even this plan cannot produce lasting results if it breaks earlier promises to the weaker party.

Inasmuch as the UN is expected to back the ”road map”, it is only natural for the UN member states to voice their opinions about it. And their positions must be based on ”the UN track”. A peaceful solution for Israel and the Palestinians must fulfil the binding resolutions that the UN has adopted.

There are, however, strong indications that the ”road map” will not be based on these resolutions, since influential circles in the US will not accept such a solution. One can only hope that this won’t lead governments of other nations to neglect their moral duty of speaking out for the complete implementation of the UN resolutions.

There are, indeed, peaceful means of fulfilling the UN demands. If the US stops financing the military forces violating international law in the Palestinian territories and stops sending them weapons, the possibilities of continued defiance of the UN will be significantly reduced.

Both the 1947 resolution establishing a Jewish state and resolutions adopted at later dates give Israel an incontrovertible right to national security within recognised borders. But the 1947 resolution also has provisions that Israel set aside: the new state must show full respect for the human rights of all those already living in its territory, irrespective of race or religion.

In spite of this, hundreds of thousands of Arabs were compelled to flee the land that became Israel. The means of compulsion included massacres whose systematic cruelty towards men, women, and children was used intentionally to frighten away as many Arabs as possible. This conduct was later acknowledged by the Israelis.

As refugees began to stream out, the UN immediately adopted a new binding resolution stating that they must be allowed to return. Israel responded by adopting a law prohibiting their return.

This violation of the UN demand led to an enormous humanitarian problem, which must be solved if hope for peace is not to be destroyed by an irredeemable bitterness. Probably the only politically realistic solution today is for the refugees and their descendants to be given compensation for their loss, generous enough to be seen as fair.

But the ”road map” raises no credible hope that this might happen. Governments wishing peace in the region ought to emphasise that this must be done.

After the 1967 war, the Security Council called for Israeli withdrawal from the territories it occupied during the conflict, holding that the appropriation of territory by force is unacceptable.

Governments must base their policy on the UN’s legal position, namely that this is an occupation for which there are consequences under international law. States wishing to respect the UN and international order cannot accept any deviation from the demand that Israel withdraw from the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

According to The Economist magazine, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon aims to keep half the occupied territories. There is reason to fear that the ”road map to peace” implies accommodation to his claims and thus lays the ground for new conflicts.

The UN has also called for a stop to the building of settlements for Israeli citizens in the occupied territories, which is considered a war crime under international law. But Israel has not been willing to comply with this demand.

There is also reason to fear that the ”road map” in the first round will call only for the removal of settlements established after March 2001 and an end to all further expansion within the occupied territories. But keeping the earlier Israeli settlements, also built in violation of international law, will make it impossible to establish a Palestinian state within borders that could render it viable. Accommodating Israel on this point is a certain path to lasting conflict.

Under such circumstances, demands to make all further advances conditional on a complete cessation of violence will give the extremist groups veto power over peace. The Americans do not seem to realise that such demands represent a flight from reality. A lasting peace requires full implementation of the relevant UN resolutions. (END\COPYRIGHT IPS)