Israel's security, Palestine's freedom: A false dichotomy


Ever since the Oslo Agreement was made public in 1993, peace has been an elusive goal. The Oslo Agreement - symbolized by the infamous handshake between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn - was hailed as a major achievement, but the sense of triumph did not last long. Oslo's fundamental flaw was its failure to recognize the Palestinian right to selfdetermination.It also failed to ensure the implementation of the 1967 U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which called for the complete Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian territories occupied during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.In essence, the Oslo process created a false dichotomy between Israel's security concerns and the Palestinian aspirations for freedom and dignity. Every time the Palestinians and the international community talk about the right to self-determination, the Israelis raise the issue of security. Every time Israel's security is at stake, the Palestinian demand for freedom and dignity is compromised. How to get out of this conundrum?The question of the 1967 borders remains the key issue to any lasting peace deal. The current talks, relaunched by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in July 2013, are on the verge of being stalled for the same reason. Israel refuses to withdraw to the 1967 borders, avoids the refugee issue, wants to give practically no sovereignty to Palestinians over Jerusalem and subvert the future Palestinian state. Instead of implementing the U.N. Resolution 242, Israel has been engaged in what it calls "creating facts on the ground," or expanding illegal settlements, enforcing unjust and harsh laws on the Palestinians and deepening the occupation through the military, politics and economics. This is de facto the death certificate of the two-state solution.The government of Benjamin Netanyahu is now doing the same thing regarding the new process of Palestinian reconciliation.Fatah and Hamas announced last week they will form a technocratic government and have elections in six months. They also agreed on restructuring the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) to serve the needs of all Palestinians under the current circumstances. This is a major step not only for Palestinian unity but also for the peace process.But instead of supporting the reconciliation efforts, the Netanyahu government is seeking to undermine them. President Bill Clinton was right when he said in September 2011 that every time the Israeli governments ask for a peace partner on the Palestinian side (as they had many in the past), they miss no opportunity to destroy it. They keep complaining about the weakness of Palestinian leadership but when there is one, they dismiss it as irrelevant.On the Palestinian side, a lack of unity, internecine fighting and the state of lethargy in Arab politics hampered efforts to make Palestinian lives better. The occupation erected an all-encompassing Berlin Wall around the Palestinians and weakened them to mobilize their social and economic resources within and without the occupied territories.The political differences between Fatah and Hamas, easily manipulated by outsiders, have not helped the Palestinian cause. Palestinian unity is key to Palestinian freedom.The politics of implicit and explicit occupation is a non-starter for any peace effort.Steps taken by Rabin and other Israeli leaders failed in the past because they were not followed by policies that recognize Palestinians as equals. Instead, the Palestinians were oppressed in their homes and vilified in the West to justify the occupation.Everybody opposes the settlements because they are an obstacle to peace. Most recently, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said at a press conference with Netanyahu on Feb. 25 that the two-state solution requires "territorial integrity for individual entities" and Germany regards the "settlements question with concern." This is a mild way of saying to Netanyahu, "Stop the settlements!"This is underlined by the simple fact that it is morally and politically wrong to pressure the Palestinians to accept territorial expansionism, economic deprivation and military oppression and label them belligerent and unworthy when they defend their rights to a homeland with freedom and dignity.This is what Netanyahu wants to send as a message to the West when he says, "Any unilateral moves they [the Palestinians] take will be answered by unilateral moves at our end," in response to the Palestinian leadership's decision to apply to 15 international agreements, agreements that will bring Palestine closer to reaching statehood. After the U.N. vote last year, this is a legitimate right of Palestinians. The problem with Netanyahu's position is that Israel always acts unilaterally when it comes to the basic rights and security of Palestinians.A key question for Israel, then, is whether the security of Israel should come at the expense of Palestinian freedom and sovereignty.The answer is no. As Richard Falk stated in a recent essay on the Palestinian struggle, "One dispossession could never justify a second dispossession." ('Edward Said's Legacy and the Palestinian Struggle', www.turkeyagenda.com). Israel does not have to occupy Palestinian lands to ensure its security. It is the occupation that is posing the real security threat to Israeli citizens.

Contrary to what some claim, this is not an attempt to delegitimize Israel. Criticizing the unlawful policies of Israel is not anti-Semitism.The Israeli concern for security, when not used as a tool of propaganda, should be addressed and the Muslim world should make a clear distinction between anti-Semitism on the one hand and the legitimate criticism of the policies of the state of Israel on the other.Just as Orientalist assumptions of cultural inferiority vis-à-vis Arabs and Muslims are wrong, religious-culturalist attacks on Jews and Jewish identity are equally wrong and misguided. What we need is honest criticism based on facts on the ground.The new initiative for Palestinian unity is key to the success of the peace process. Despite Netanyahu and the anti-peace camp, Americans, Europeans and Arabs should support it.