The holes in Israel's road map

Tuesday, Jul 22, 2003

Despite the declaration of a unilateral Palestinian ceasefire with Israel,and the frequent meetings between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, the"road map" for peace is in serious trouble. This is because theBush administration, the plan's chief sponsor, has allowed Israel toreinterpret it so that it is gutted of the elements that offered hope ofprogress.

Two elements distinguish the road map from the failed Oslo process. First, itrequires Israel to freeze all settlement construction in the occupiedterritories at the outset and to remove all colonies established since March2001. Second, the road map spells out explicitly the objective of the peaceprocess: an end to Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory; and twostates, Palestine and Israel, living side by side.

Because Israel depends on the US for the military and diplomatic backing thatallows it to continue its occupation of Arab land indefinitely, the successor failure of the plan lies in Washington's willingness to confront anIsrael that remains committed to the settlements and opposed to a genuinelyindependent Palestinian state.

The first signs that President George W. Bush would not follow through on hisverbal commitment to the stated objectives came in his closing statement atthe June 4 summit in Aqaba, Jordan, to launch the road map. While Mr Bushdemanded that Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian prime minister, concentrate onending any and all Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation, he allowedAriel Sharon, Israel's prime minister, to commit to far less than theplan demands.

Mr Bush welcomed Mr Sharon's "pledge to improve the humanitariansituation in the Palestinian areas and to begin removing unauthorisedoutposts immediately". In this way, Mr Bush conceded to Mr Sharon theright to decide what constitutes an "unauthorised" settlement - adistinction that does not exist in international law, which is clear that allthe settlements are illegal. Israel has made a great display of removing afew outposts, mostly empty trailers and water tanks. In one case, The NewYork Times reported a scuffle between supposedly angry settlers and Israelisoldiers removing an outpost, which was interrupted so that the antagonistscould share refreshments. As these sham efforts went on, Mr Sharon told hiscabinet that the settlers could continue to build but should do so quietly.The result, according to Israel's Peace Now, a pressure group, is anincrease in the number of outposts by at least two since Mr Bush made hisstatement.

More significantly, Israel has continued to carry out substantialconstruction projects in the occupied territories. It has accelerated work ona four-metre-high concrete wall that has in effect annexed large swaths ofthe West Bank to Israel and cut off many Palestinian towns and villages fromthe rest of the occupied territories.

These facts on the ground make a genuine two-state solution increasinglyunattainable in practice. But, politically, the road map has already beenemptied of the content that would make such an outcome possible in the firstplace. By recognising Israel within its 1948 borders, Palestinians havealready conceded 78 per cent of historic Palestine - in which they were theoverwhelming majority until Israel's creation. In exchange, they expectfull independence and sovereignty in the remaining 22 per cent - the whole ofeast Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In this goal, they aresupported by a vast body of international law and United Nations resolutions.

Yet when Mr Sharon stated in Aqaba that "we can also reassure ourPalestinian partners that we understand the importance of territorialcontiguity in the West Bank for a viable Palestinian state", he wasessentially ruling out a full Israeli withdrawal. "Contiguity" isan issue only in the context of a continued Israeli presence on Palestinianland. Mr Sharon is willing to call an arrangement in which Palestinians aregiven limited self-government within a greater Israel where they have nocivil or political rights a "state". Many Palestinians compare itto apartheid.

These developments, along with Mr Bush's oblique endorsement ofIsrael's rejectionist position towards the right of return ofPalestinian refugees, do not add up to what is desperately needed: a seriousand rapid effort to end the occupation completely and restore to Palestiniansthe basic rights they have been denied for so long. Hence there is little tobuild or sustain support for the process among Palestinians.

As the Bush administration does nothing to check Israel - and simultaneouslypiles pressure on the deeply unpopular Mr Abbas, whose appointment asPalestinian prime minister it engineered - it is only a matter of time beforethe situation explodes in a new and sustained round of violence.

Perhaps the only hope of saving the process lies with strong intervention bythe European Union, which nominally co-authored the road map. Hitherto, theEU has acquiesced in US leadership, even when it has disagreed with USpositions. And the US has been willing to ignore Europe on those rareoccasions when it has asserted itself, as the Iraq crisis demonstrated. But,ironically, US difficulties in Iraq may give Europe the leverage to demandreal action towards Palestinian freedom and Middle East peace as aprerequisite for help in extricating the Americans from their own unravellingoccupation of Iraq.

Hasan Abunimah is former ambassador and permanent representative of Jordan atthe UN. Ali Abunimah is co-founder of electronicIntifada.net

By ALI ABUNIMAH and HASAN ABUNIMAH