Boycott of Israel Goods
09/11/2011
What Does Israel Really Want?
Click here for pdf version.
WHAT DOES ISRAEL REALLY WANT?
Proinsias De Rossa MEP
Chair, European Parliament Palestine Delegation
ADDRESS TO INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (IIEA) - IRELAND
30th September 2011
I could just as easily have entitled this talk 'Will the Real Netanyahu Step Forward'. However important as it is to understand where PM Netanyahu is coming from it is equally important to understand what the people of Israel want. Neither is easy to discern. No political survivor like PM Netanyahu is as politically rigid as he pretends, and no electorate is of a single mind. This is particularly true in Israel where at the last election six of the 12 political parties that won seats in the Knesset garnered approximately 4% or less and none of the other six got more than the 22.5% support for Kadima, which won 28 of the 120 seats while Likud gained 21.6%, and 27 seats. Nevertheless if Ireland within the EU is to make a judgement about how we can help to find an agreement we need to try to untangle the puzzle.
I say puzzle because not for the first time Netanyahu has missed an opportunity to win friends. I would have thought that if Netanyahu wanted to go into negotiations at this time he would have won the heart of the world had he said yes to a UN seat for the state of Palestine. He would have made it particularly difficult for Abbas to refuse such an offer. He would also have helped his ally President Obama in his re-election campaign and the US standing in the region; He would have changed the mood towards Israel in Europe and the Arab world. And it would have cost Israel nothing. A win-win all round, as the cliché has it. It is not too late for Israel to switch tack and still make considerable gains politically, domestically and internationally.
PM Netanyahu is the leader of the Likud Party. He has constructed a governing majority whose task is to deliver peace, security and prosperity. How he does that is driven in the first instance by his own politics, and secondly by the coalition partners he has chosen to go into government with. There is no doubt that most of his partners harden his own positions rather than act as a moderating force.
The constitution of the Likud Party states: (available: www.netanyahu.org.il)
'Article 2: General purposes
1. The Likud is a national-liberal party which advocates the ingathering of the exiles, the integrity of the Jewish homeland, human freedom and social justice, and it strives to achieve these goals:
A. Bringing together the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, ingathering its dispersed people, cultivating love of the country in the hearts of the people, and recognizing the shared destiny of all of the Jewish people.
B. Safeguarding the right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel as an eternal, inalienable right, working diligently to settle and develop all parts of the land of Israel, and extending national sovereignty to them.
I should add that it also commits its members to:
E. Maintaining a democratic form of government: guaranteeing the supremacy of law, human and civil rights, freedom of conscience, individual freedoms, equal rights and opportunities of all citizens of the state and preventing discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, ethnic origin, religion, status, or viewpoint.
What is notable about this Likud Party Constitution is that it refers to the sovereignty and settlement of the 'Land of Israel' not the State of Israel, or even the Jewish State.
The Land of Israel not defined in the party constitution, nor is it defined in Israel’s basic laws. It is understood to mean the Biblical Land of Israel. In other words it means Palestine as a whole from the Mediterranean to the Jordan and even further for the more zealous. It also includes Jerusalem as a whole as the Israeli capitol. This goes way beyond the territory allocated to the 'Jewish State' in UN Resolution 181 of November 1947. In other words it includes the land allocated to the 'Arab State' in the same UN Resolution 181. It is worth noting here that the resolution also provided for international management of Jerusalem for a period of ten years and interestingly an economic union between the two states.
In short the Likud party and presumably its leader is committed to a ‘one-state’ solution. This helps explain a number of things about Netanyahu: His ongoing justification for Settlement or Colony building in East Jerusalem and the West Bank; His claim that Israel will have to make 'painful compromises' to allow an independent Palestinian state; His claim that settlers in Gaza which his predecessor Olmert removed were actually living in ‘Israel’; His denial that the IDF is ‘occupying’ the West Bank, and the justification for the annexation of East Jerusalem as part of Israeli territory. His speech to the UN last week confirms this view of him.
Now I am not claiming that one's party constitution, or even ones national constitution precludes a negotiated compromise on the boundaries of a national territory. The Irish constitutional claim (Articles 2 and 3) on the territory of Northern Ireland, which incidentally also ignored the worrisome reality of the presence of a very large indigenous population which didn’t agree, was amended as part of a package of compromises.
And I am not aware of any party in the Republic or Northern Ireland that has changed their constitutional aspirations with regard to a united Ireland or the United Kingdom. Any member of Sinn Fein present can correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge they have not abandoned their aspiration to a United Ireland, nor am I aware that the IRA in any of its manifestations have ever done so. The key to a compromise is a commitment to maintaining a negotiated compromise which has been approved by the people affected, and that any future change will be pursued by force of argument rather than force of arms.
In the Middle East the conflict is primarily around the issue of which Nation, the Israeli-Jewish nation or the Palestinian-Arab nation has a right to the historic territory of Palestine. Many Israelis regard it as theirs, while many Palestinians regard it as theirs. Each produces evidence, religious, historical and archaeological to sustain their claim - in other words a clash of ‘rights’. An ideal solution in an ideal world would be for both nations to live in a single bi-national state or even federal state. But for historical and religious reasons very few believe that would work.
As a result, after many wars, and 40 years after the 1947 partition, the PLO in 1988 made the historic offer to accept a Palestinian state on the territory they were left with after the war in 1948. Their border with Israel and Israel's border with them would be the pre-‘67 Green Line. That is the 1949 Armistice line, which was breached by Israel’s occupation following the 1967 war. This would leave the Palestinians with the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Gaza. This is an extraordinary offer to Israel. It accepts that a Palestinian State would exist on only 22% of what they regard as their historic homeland, while conceding that Israel would have a legitimate right to 78% of what they regard as their historic entitlement. Put another way. Israel concedes 22% while the Palestinians concede 78%.
But PM Netanyahu and most of his coalition partners want more. This is evidenced by his decision to continue the relentless building of homes for Israeli settlers in the West Bank and in Palestinian East Jerusalem; and also to provide subsidies for Settlers, providing Israeli only roads linking them back into Israel, despite the social problems in Israel itself which came to the fore this summer, and the obvious difficulties it creates for the resumption of negotiations. A refusal to stop in the face of repeated pleas by the EU and the USA re-enforces the view that there is a desire at the very least to entrench control of as much Palestinian territory as possible before the inevitable compromises have to be made, if negotiations ever resume; the Netanyahu demand that Israel must have the right to continue to occupy the Jordan valley on security grounds, would squeeze even further the territory of a the Palestinian State. The Jordan Valley is already a militarised zone controlled by the IDF which applies military law under which they deny local Palestinians permits to build homes, schools and places of worship in that area on ‘security grounds’. When they go ahead and build without permits they are then demolished.
Despite all this PM Netanyahu says he favours a ‘viable two state solution’, not mind you a two-viable-states solution. This is an important distinction. Taking the conditions he is creating on the ground as a reflection of his real intentions, his definition of what would constitute a Palestinian State would be nothing more than a series of Palestinian 'reservations' or 'Bantustans' separated from each other by Israeli only roads servicing the settlements, some of which are small cities, with Palestinians dependant on Israel for water and energy supplies, and with no economic independence.
But does what Netanyahu want reflect what Israeli society wants? The answer as always is yes and no. One can assume that a majority of Israelis agreed with Netanyahu at the time of his election in 2009, otherwise they would not give him and his coalition partners a majority. However Electoral results don't necessarily reflect peoples' views on what concessions should be made in peace negotiations.
As we know from our own experience in Ireland people are prepared to make very significant compromises for peace. I often relate to my colleagues in the European Parliament, my experience in the Dail (Ireland's National Parliament) on the question of Articles 2&3 of the Irish Constitution. I recall proposing a Private Members Bill to reform those articles from a territorial claim to a desire for a united Ireland by consent. My proposal was heavily defeated by the other political parties in the Dail at that time. Yet 6 years later when that very reform was included in a broad package of compromises by all sides to the conflict, the people in the Irish Republic voted overwhelmingly for it.
But how can we judge what the electorates in Israel and Palestine will support in a possible referendum on a settlement? One of the tools in modern peace negotiations is the use of what are called ‘Peace Polls’.
Dr. Colin Irwin of the Institute of Irish Studies in Liverpool University has been commissioned to conduct such peace polling on conflicts around the world for many years, including Macedonia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Cyprus, and Kashmir and indeed in Northern Ireland. In 2008 He was commissioned by the One Voice organisation, an NGO which seeks to find a common understanding between Palestinians and Israelis, to do such a poll.
The idea is to identify what the people on each side might accept, and just as importantly reject, which helps negotiators judge what might be acceptable to one's electorate and what would not.
As a politician I am well aware of the use and misuse of polls at election time, and
Dr. Colin Irwin warns about the damage that can be done to a peace process by partisan polling from an Israeli or Palestinian perspective to advance domestic agendas. For Peace Polls to be useful they have to be independent and soundly based.
He published the Peace Poll for One Voice in April 2009 not long after the current Israeli Knesset was elected.
His findings make fascinating reading and are a basis for hope that the conflict can in fact be brought to an end with a sustainable peace, based on the ’67 borders with land swaps, a shared capital of Jerusalem, and a solution to the problem of refugees.
The poll found that over 70% of both Israelis and Palestinians want a negotiated peace.
Over 70% of Palestinians and Israelis want, or will accept, a two state solution. While there is only marginal support on either side for either Historic Palestine or Historic Israel as a Bi- National or Federal state.
One other result from the procedural questionnaire that is encouraging was the suggestion that ‘Israel should freeze settlements as a first step to deal with the settlements’ at only 23% ‘unacceptable’ for Israelis.
Similarly only 23% of Palestinians were opposed to the proposal to ‘Stop firing rockets from Gaza’ as ‘unacceptable’.
After 30 years of ‘The Troubles’ and failed negotiations in Northern Ireland the governments of Britain, Ireland the US and EU moved to internationalize that process and make the people and civil society active partners/stakeholders.
That of course is precisely what President Abbas has done in the past week. His strategy has pushed the conflict to the top of the international agenda. With the USA unable at this time to lead as a neutral the European Union can offer leadership. Cathy Ashton has built a reputation as a fair-minded and tireless High Representative on behalf of the EU. The member States must now unanimously back her in her efforts in the Quartet and outside it to persuade both sides to get round the table. There is a window of opportunity now which won’t stay open for ever.
Finally it’s worth noting that 73% of Palestinians and 52% of Israelis were opposed to the idea that the PLO/ Fatah and Israel should negotiate in secret as ‘unacceptable’. This is how the failed negotiations of the past many years have been conducted and both Palestinians and Israelis want change. The people they say should be kept informed of progress in the negotiations; Targets, timetables and milestones should be set for negotiations.
Proinsias De Rossa MEP
« back