|
A.B. Yehoshua: What's the alternative?
2003-10-31 07:21:35
Oct. 30, 2003
By A.B. YEHOSHUA (Jerusalem Post)
When I learned that a detailed agreement, with all of its clauses and maps, had been signed in Jordan by Israelis and Palestinians, I was very excited. Here, for the first time, was a document that did not merely state principles and ideas, vague declarations, or wishes and hopes that each side could later interpret its own way, sometimes even reversing their meaning.
On the long and difficult road of discussions with representatives of the PLO, by private and brave Israelis right after the Yom Kippur War, we have had many declarative documents, including, in a sense, the Oslo Accords, which was mostly a document of intentions rather than a document of sealed facts, as was, for instance, the peace accord with Egypt.
But, in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there has never been such a detailed and specific document as this one, where all the details of the final peace agreement between the two peoples are addressed, from recognition of the essence of the identity of the Jewish state, to a detailed description of the handling of the Right of Return, and most importantly - a detailed map, down to the last meter, of the border that will run between the two peoples and divide sovereignty, while taking the current conditions on the ground into consideration.
True, it is just a private document that binds neither the Israeli government nor the Palestinian Authority, and therefore it is only a model for the future and not valid in any sense.
However, those who have signed it from either side, and especially those who are yet to sign it, are significant people on both sides of the divide, people from the mainstream of Israeli and Palestinian society and not their margins. They are incumbent and former ministers from the Palestinian Authority, commanders of the Tanzim and Fatah guerrilla forces; and from the Israeli side, a former IDF chief of General Staff, very senior officers in the reserves, members of Knesset, former senior officials in the government establishment and intellectuals. And that is only the beginning.
The personal signing of the document, an event which drew the ire of some of its critics, was absolutely justified, because history shows that such documents, even when they are detailed, tend to later acquire different interpretations, and therefore, will serve to strengthen the commitment of those who have agreed and will do so in the future.
Moreover, since they are likely to be exposed to overt pressures from detractors, a clear and personal signature is needed. This is absolutely morally correct and politically necessary.
THE PATH towards thinking of committing through a personal signature was paved by Sari Nusseibeh and Ami Ayalon with the general document of understandings they formulated together, and through the campaign for personal signatures they led within both the Israeli and the Palestinian publics.
In a certain sense, the document of understanding just signed in Jordan is a detailed completion of the welcome campaign, "Signing for Peace," which has been going on for several months among both peoples and has so far collected tens of thousands of signatures on both sides.
This new document of understanding is actually the natural summary of the Six Day War, as confirmed by the international community with Security Council Resolution 242. Resolution 242 appears both in the peace accords with Egypt and with Jordan, in the disengagement agreement with Syria and even in the Oslo Accords.
In other words, the Geneva understandings are the practical expression of the Security Council resolution that was unanimously adopted both by the West and by the Communist eastern bloc right after the Six Day War, and is a resolution backed by most of the world's nations, including many Arab countries.
Had both sides agreed to such a document of understandings 37 years ago, it would have been easy to implement, and would not require the dismantling of the Israeli settlements built later. There would not have been the need to have land swaps and, of course, so much blood would not have been spilt.
But for years the Palestinians refused to negotiate with Israel and recognize its existence, and later the Israelis began a de facto creeping annexation of the Palestinian territories. The whole monstrous merging of the life systems of the two peoples led to killing and destruction and would have been avoided had the two sides arrived at this document of understandings many years ago.
WHAT IS the practical value of the Geneva Initiative?
Even though the spontaneous reaction of dovish public opinion in Israel was sympathetic beyond expectations, and 40 percent voiced support for the document in the first survey, I do not delude myself that implementation is near. There is no real political force in Israel today that even comes close to a verbal acceptance of such a broad scope of concessions.
After the outbreak of the Intifada, large parts of the Israeli public lost their faith in the Palestinians' sanity and in the PA's ability to guarantee a cessation of the violence and terrorism. Even if this document could have been ratified by a narrow Israeli referendum, still, implementing the uprooting of 100,000 settlers would be very difficult, and I do not see on the horizon any government of peace that can actually lead such a difficult measure, without massive support from the center and the moderate Right.
The shattered trust between the two peoples has to be slowly and thoroughly restored so that we can move towards ending the conflict.
Therefore, the value of this document is that it is a beam from a lighthouse on the distant horizon, signaling a very distant but possible destination. The real peace agreement, the one that will be signed between the governments, and be backed by extensive international guarantees, will be different from this document in several important clauses. But it will serve as a model for a future agreement.
Therefore, this document of understandings, despite its immediate impracticality, provides an azimuth for any interim measure undertaken on the way. This could be through the consent of both sides, or under international sponsorship, or as a unilateral move by Israel to dismantle some of the settlements, creating a border in certain areas. This would change the rules of war from a useless police confrontation with the terrorists of the extreme Islamic groups, to a frontal military confrontation, if necessary, with the entire Palestinian population.
For it is they upon whom depends the ability to stop the terrorism and the hostilities. They will indeed act that way when they have the political and moral motivation following the dismantlement of the settlements and the ending of the occupation - and have the hope of a settlement provided by the Geneva Initiative.
Therefore, it is not merely a na ve document by well-meaning dreamers. It was signed by experienced military men from both sides who led tough and bitter battles. But it is precisely the people who have used military force in all its forms who know better than civilians its limits when it is not backed by a reasonable political plan that can be morally justified by both sides and by the whole world.
WHAT CAN be done in the meantime?
I believe only a partial unilateral withdrawal (without dividing Jerusalem and without dismantling the large settlement blocs) and building a clear, defensible border can serve as good catalysts for restoring trust and a substantial reduction of the intensity of the violence.
But even these measures, unilateral though they may be - and without the presumption of ending the conflict - should direct them towards that lighthouse beam.
Meanwhile, many people should sign this document, even if many of them may not live to see it implemented. The principle that has paralyzed our lives - "there is nobody to talk to and nothing to talk about" - has now been clearly replaced.
Yes, there is somebody to talk to, and we can reach full agreement over the principle that guides the aspirations of every nation in the world, which is: full sovereignty within the borders of your identity.
In the meantime, all the people in the world who fear chaos and death, too should sign this document.
I understand that governments cannot sign private documents. But members of parliament in many countries are also being called upon to sign this document of understandings, and to strengthen it in the arena of Israeli and Palestinian public opinion, as if to say: if you do succeed in achieving peace in the spirit of this document, we will, for our part, give it full sponsorship and aid.
I have often expressed my doubts over the desire and ability of the US to bring the two sides even to partial agreements, because of its complex emotional-religious attitude towards Israel. Therefore I turn to the Europeans.
Give your support to this agreement. And if you would promise both sides that their reward for its ratification would be the admission - with special status - of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine into the European Union, that would be a huge contribution towards strengthening the small beam from the lighthouse that was lit two weeks ago, near the Dead Sea, the lowest place on the face of the earth.
The writer, one of Israel's foremost novelists, scholars and political essayists, is author, among many other works, of The Lover, Open Heart, and Mr. Mani.
See full text of the original article
|
