rethinking the politics of israel palestine. partition and its alternatives

Rethinkingthe Politicsof Israel/Palestine

Partition and its Alternatives

Editors

Bashir Bashir and

Azar Dakwar

Group of the Progressive Alliance of

Socialists &Democratsin the European Parliament

Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue

RethinkingthePoliticsofIsrael/Palestine PartitionanditsAlternatives

Rethinking thePoliticsofIsrael/Palestine PartitionanditsAlternatives

Editors

BashirBashir

and

AzarDakwar

Thisvolumewaspublishedby

Withthesupportof

TheDirectorateforSecurityPolicy

AustrianFederalMinistryofDefenseandSports

AllRightsreserved.

ISBN:978-3-950-0-5

©2014BrunoKreiskyForumforInternationalDialogue,Vienna

www.kreisky-forum.org|GertraudAuerBoread’Olmo

GroupoftheProgressiveAllianceofSocialists&Democrats

intheEuropeanParliament|JavierMorenoSanchez

PrintedinAustria

Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedinanymannerwhatsoever

withoutwrittenpermissionexceptinthecaseofbriefquotationsembodies

incriticalarticlesandreviews.

Editors:BashirBashirandAzarDakwar

Linguisticlector:YasmineHaj

Design:Fineline,Vienna

Typeface:Allegrabyabclitera

Photosby:S&DGroup

PrintedinAustriaby:GuglerGmbH,Melk

Contents

About the Contributors vi

Preface —GertraudAuerBoread’Olmo 1

Foreword:TheCommitmentoftheEuropeanSocialDemocratsforPeace —GianniPittella 3

WhereNowforIsrael/Palestine?IntroductionandFraming —BashirBashir 6

AfterWeaponsSpoke,HumanRightsMustPrevail —HannesSwoboda 12

“TwoStates”asApology —RaefZreik 17

NewPhaseofPalestinianNationalism —BashirBashir 21

TheAspirationtoNormalisation:RethinkingContemporaryZionistPolitics —DimitryShumsky 25

EngagingwithSovereigntyinIsrael/Palestine —AzarDakwar 29

NewHorizons —InbalArnon 34

NewParadigmforIsrael/Palestine —LeilaFarsakh 37

ThereisHopebeyondDespairandPartition —AvrahamBurg 40

DrawingPalestine,DrawingIsrael:GoingBeyondSeparation —YonatanMendel 45

IfKerryFails,WhatThen? —SamBahourandTonyKlug 50

TheRisingCostsoftheStatusQuoinIsrael/Palestine —NoamSheizaf 54

IsraelandPalestine:OldWaysWon’tGetUsThere —SalamFayyad 58

S&DGroupConferenceontheMiddleEastPeaceProcess:DebateaboutNewParadigmsforIsrael&Palestine,Brussels.November2013 63

ReflectionsonNewParadigmsforIsrael/Palestine,Jerusalem,March2014 125

“AlternativestoPartition”–ABrunoKreiskyForumInitiative:PrinciplesofIsraeliJewish-PalestinianPartnership 131

AbouttheContributors

InbalArnon isanassociateprofessorinthePsychologyDepartmentatHebrew

UniversityofJerusalem,workingonlanguageacquisitionandcognitivedevelopment.

Shehasbeenactiveinvariousprojectsaimedatendingtheoccupationandachieving

socialjustice.

GertraudAuerBoread’Olmo issecretarygeneraloftheBrunoKreiskyForumfor

InternationalDialogue.Priortothisrole,assumedin2005,sheworkedasprojects

managerattheBrunoKreiskyForum;asstaffmemberandinternationalandcultural

affairs’adviserattheFederalMinisterforEducationandtheArtsinAustria;and

afree-lanceprofessional.

SamBahour isaPalestinian-AmericanbusinessconsultantinRamallahandserves

asapolicyadvisortoAl-Shabaka,thePalestinianPolicyNetwork.

BashirBashir isaresearchfellowattheVanLeerJerusalemInstituteandteaches

politicalphilosophyintheDepartmentofPoliticalScienceattheHebrewUniversity

ofJerusalem.Hisprimaryresearchinterestsarecitizenshipandnationalismstudies,

multiculturalism,andthepoliticsofreconciliation.

AvrahamBurg isanIsraeliauthorandpeaceactivist,formerspeakeroftheParliament,

andformerchairmanoftheJewishAgencyandtheWorldZionistOrganisation.

AzarDakwar isanindependentresearchassistant,projectdeveloperandteaching

associatewithvariousorganisationsanduniversities.Healsoservesastheco-director

of“SharedPublicSpace”projectatSikkuy–theAssociationfortheAdvancementof

CivicEquality.

LeilaFarsakh isanassociateprofessorofPoliticalScienceatUniversityofMassa-

chusettsinBostonandvisitingfellowatBirzeitUniversity.Shehaspublishedwidely

onquestionsrelatingtothepoliticaleconomyoftheIsraeli-Palestinianconflict,the

Oslopeaceprocess,andtheone-stateidea.In2001,shewastherecipientofthe

CambridgePeaceCommissionPeaceandJusticeAward.

SalamFayyad isaformerPalestinianPrimeMinisterandcurrentlyservesasAtlantic

CouncilDistinguishedStatesman.

YasmineHaj isaToronto-basedwriterwithafocusonthecultureandpoliticsof

PalestineandtheMiddleEast.SheisamonthlycontributortoAssafirNewspaper

(thePalestinesupplement)andtheCanadianArabInstitute(aCanadian-Arabpolicy

andcommunitydevelopmentthink-tank).

TonyKlug isaveteranMiddleEastanalystandaspecialadvisortotheOxfordResearch

Group.

YonatanMendel isaresearchassociateattheCentreofIslamicStudiesattheUniver-

sityofCambridge,apost-doctoralresearcherattheHebrewUniversityofJerusalem,and

thedirectorofprojectsoftheMediterraneanUnitattheVanLeerJerusalemInstitute.

GianniPittella isthepresidentoftheS&DGroupintheEuropeanParliament(EP).

HehasbeenmemberoftheEPsince1999.HewasactingpresidentoftheEPinJune2014,

firstvice-presidentoftheEPbetween2009and2014andhasbeenheadoftheItalian

delegationintheS&DGroupsince2006.Besideshispoliticalwork,heistheauthorof

severalbooksonthefutureandchallengesofEuropeanintegration.

NoamSheizaf isaTelAviv-basedjournalistandthefounderandmanageroftheweb

magazine+972(972mag.com).Previously,heworkedforleadingIsraelimediaoutlets,

includingHa-ir,YnetNews,andMaariv.HecoverstheIsraelipoliticalsystemandthe

Israeli-Palestinianconflict;hisworkhasbeenpublishedinForeignAffairs,Foreign

Policy,TheNation,Haaretzandotherpublications.

DimitryShumsky isaseniorlecturerinIsraelStudiesandthehistoryofmodernEastern

EuropeattheDepartmentoftheHistoryofJewishPeopleandContemporaryJewryatthe

HebrewUniversityofJerusalem,andthedirectorofitsCherrickCenterforthestudyof

Zionism,theYishuvandtheStateofIsrael.

HannesSwoboda wasmemberoftheEuropeanParliamentfrom1996to2014,where

hewasvice-president(1997–2012)andthenpresidentoftheS&DGroupbetween2012

and2014.Atpresent,heisboardmemberoftheBrunoKreiskyForumforInternational

DialogueandseniorfellowofdifferentfoundationsincludingtheEuropeanCouncilfor

ForeignRelations.

RaefZreik isco-directoroftheMinervaCentrefortheHumanitiesatTelAvivUniversity

andlecturerattheCarmelAcademicCentreinHaifa.Hisprimaryresearchinterestsre-

volvearoundlegalandpoliticalphilosophy,citizenshiptheory,andmulticulturalismand

identity.

Preface

Gertraud Auer Borea d’Olmo

TheBrunoKreiskyForumforInternationalDialoguehasalong-standinghistory,

publicandconfidential,inactivelyengagingwithattemptstosettlingthePales-

tinian-Israeliconflictandpromotingpeaceintheregion.

In 2010, I enthusiastically accepted the invitation of Dr. Bashir Bashir, a re-

searchfellowattheVanLeer JerusalemInstitute,toengagewithandhostthe

“AlternativestoPartition”Projectanddevelop,togetherwithacademics,political

activists, politicians, and other professionals from the region, a new approach

forIsraeliJewish/Palestinianpeaceandreconciliation.Inlightofthecontinuous

impassesintheMiddleEastPeaceProcessandthedemiseofthetwo-statesolu-

tion,theprojectsoughttoexpandthevocabulariesofthedebatesontheIsraeli-

Palestinian conflict and to critically examine and explore feasible and just nor-

mativeandinstitutionalalternativestopartitionthatwouldsecurenationaland

individualrights,claims,andidentitiesofArabsandJewsalike.

Forthedurationofthethreeyears,themembersoftheAlternativestoParti-

tiongroupheldextensiveconfidentialdebatesanddiscussionsattheBKFinVi-

ennaaswellasatlocalvenuesinIsrael/Palestine.Thegroupconcludedthefirst

phaseoftheprojectbyjointlyarticulating“GuidingPrinciplesforIsraeliJewish/

PalestinianPartnership”.Theyear2013witnessedanimportantdevelopmentin

the life of the project. It became evident that what started mainly as an intel-

lectualandacademicexercisehasanoutstandingpoliticalrelevanceandappeal.

Seniorpoliticians,policymakers,anddiplomatsexpressedgreatinterestinlearn-

ingmoreabouttheBKFprojectanditsguidingprinciples.Consequently,several

meetingswereheldtopresentanddiscusstheprojectinEurope,intheUSand

intheregion.

TheBKFprojectofAlternativestoPartitionoffersasetofguidingprinciples

thataimstosecurethe individualandcollectiverights(includingnationalself-

determination), interests, and identities of Israeli-Jews and Palestinians alike

in Palestine/Israel.This initiative goes beyond the binary predicament of “one

state/two states” and instead adopts a binational rights-based approach.This

approachidentifiesasetoffundamentalprinciplesthatareindispensableinthe

GertraudAuerBoread’Olmo 2

designandimplementationofanyviablesolution.Ofprimeimportance,these

principles can be accommodated and realised in various constitutional and/or

institutional arrangements (including a two nation-state arrangement). The

BKF initiative departs from the current hegemonic paradigm in several ways:

byaddressingthefundamentalissuesoftheconflictfromthestart(ratherthan

atalaterstage),bygoingfromprinciplestoimplementationandnotviceversa,

andbyrejectingthelogicofstrictseparationandpartition.

Thenewlyintroduceddiscourse,whichisbasedonrightsandvaluesinstead

ofpowerandinterests,issurelygainingmomentuminthediscussions.Articles

inleadingnewspapers,interviewsandpoliticaldiscoursehavestartedtocallfor

and develop new political and moral grammar for Israel/Palestine.The discus-

sions reflect the sense of urgency and the need to explore new paradigms giv-

enthedismalrealityonthegroundtwentyyearsaftertheOsloAccords,andthe

failureofpreviousandcurrentroundsofnegotiationstoreachlastingpeace.

This volume is a further expression of the BKF’s commitment to think “out

of the box” and in a creative and ethical fashion on the question of Israel/Pal-

estine.Thevolumepresentsandexploresalternativeapproachesandproposesa

setofnewparadigmsfortheEuropeanpoliticaldiscourse.Itcontainsthecontri-

butionsmadeattheConferenceoftheS&DGroupintheEuropeanParliament

inBrusselsinNovember2013andtheRoundtableinJerusaleminMarch2014as

well as a number of original essays.These essays propose alternative thinking

premisedonrightsasopposedtothelanguageofsegregation,violenceandde-

spair.

Throughoutthe lastthreeyears,theBureauforSecurityPoliciesoftheAus-

trianFederalMinistryofDefenceandtheEuropeanParliamentweresupporting

thisprogram,intellectuallyandfinancially.

Iwouldliketothankmypartnersandcontributors,Dr.BashirBashirandAzar

DakwartheeditorsandYasmineHajthelinguisticlectorfortheirremarkableef-

fortstoputtogetherthisvolume.

IwouldalsoliketoextendmygratitudetothePresidentoftheEuropeanPar-

liamentMartinSchulz,tothePresidentoftheS&DGroupGianniPittella,andto

theformerS&DGroupPresidentHannesSwoboda,toJavierMorenoSanchez,

SecretaryGeneraloftheGlobalProgressiveForumandtoZoltanSimonandhis

team for their interest in the project and their strong commitment to pursue

peaceandhistoricalreconciliationinIsrael/Palestine.

Foreword:TheCommitmentoftheEuropeanSocialDemocratsforPeace

Gianni Pittella

AsPresidentoftheSocialistsandDemocratsGroupintheEuropeanParliament,

IamwritingthistextinSeptember2014,atatimeofcease-fireinterim,follow-

ingabloodysummer,andduringthesameweekinwhichtheEuropeanParlia-

mentapprovesaresolutionreiterating“itsstrongsupportforthetwo-stateso-

lutiononthebasisofthe1967borders,withJerusalemascapitalofbothstates,

withtheStateofIsraelandanindependent,contiguousandviablestateofPal-

estinelivingsidebysideinpeaceandsecurity”.Itisalsothesamedayinwhich

PresidentAbbastravelstotheUNGeneralAssemblytorepeat,andrepeatagain

yearafteryear,theurgencyforPalestinianindependenceandstatehood.

The two-state solution, upon which there is an international consensus, is

a peace project, which has thus far proved to be a failed one.The idea of two

statesaswayofpeacecanonlybebasedonthemutualtrustbetweentwosov-

ereign states with plausible borders, security guarantees and agreed upon ter-

ritorialconfines,acceptanceofphysicalunityofJerusalemascapitalofthetwo

states,andanagreementonthequestionoftherightofPalestinianrefugeesto

return.Allofthisshouldtakeplaceinaframeworkofdemocracyandrespectof

citizens’rightsandfreedomsinbothstates.

Thisveryidea,then,cannotworkifbasedonthenationalistaimtobuildeth-

nic or religious exclusive states, in which minorities are discriminated against

(Palestinian Arabs in Israel constitute 20% of the population), fear is sown

amongthecommunities,democracyisdegraded,anditspeoplearebecoming

progressively radicalised. Additionally, and more importantly, and as has been

highlightedbyseveralcontributorsinthisvolume,theasymmetrybetweenboth

entities,onearealstate,theotheranentityfightingforstatehood,isincompat-

iblewiththeaimofachievingpeaceinadignifiedmanner.Thismodel,premised

on territorial partition, asymmetry, and ethno-nationalism, has failed for de-

cadesinIsrael/Palestine,asithasfailedinotherconflictswhensimilarcriteriaof

conceptionofastate,asanexclusivereligious/ethnicentity,wereapplied.Hav-

ing oversteppedthe limitsofdestruction,sufferingand death, theoneor two

GianniPittella 4

statesdiscussionhasbeenexhausted–justasexhaustedasthePalestinianand

Israelipeoplesare.

We,theSocialistsandDemocratsattheEuropeanParliament,advocateplu-

ral states based on equal citizenship rights and encourage the initiative of the

Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue of facilitating the discussions

ofvisionaryPalestinianandIsraeliintellectualsandactivistswhorejectpartition

asaninevitable,bindingdeparturepointforIsrael/Palestine.Thenoveltyofthe

BrunoKreiskyForum’sprojectandinitiativelies,amongotherthings, ingoing

beyondtheinstitutionalistdebateofone/twostatesolutions.Itproposesadif-

ferentandrefreshingstartingpoint,onebasedonbinationalvaluesandpolitics

ofequalrightsandfreedoms.

This is indeedatimelydebate. Itcalls foropeningnewhorizonsandven-

ues during times of impasse and failure of hegemonic paradigms. Support-

ing evidence to this direction of thinking is developing. Recent polling con-

ductedbythePalestinianCentreforPolicyandSurveyResearchindicatesthat

there remains substantial support amongst both Israelis and Palestinians to

maintain a unitary state, albeit one with different national characteristics.

Furthermore,ProfessorRashidKhalidiarguesthetwo-statesolutionwasbut

a “way station” that would not mean end-of-conflict and would still neces-

sitate agreement on Palestinian refugees and on Israel’s “Palestinian minor-

ity”beforeacomprehensivesettlementcouldbeachieved.A“one-statesolu-

tionalreadyexists”,because“thereisonlyonestatebetweentheJordanRiver

andtheMediterranean,inwhichtherearetwoorthreelevelsofcitizenshipor

non-citizenship”. 1Nonetheless,byencouraging“outoftheboxthinking”on

theIsraeli-Palestinianconflict,we,theSocialistsandDemocratsGroupinthe

EuropeanParliament,donotgiveupoursupportofthePalestinians’rightto

statehoodandself-determination,aswellasofIsrael’slegitimaterighttose-

curity.

Asapoliticalgroupaimingtocontributetolastingpeace,wehavebeensup-

porting the Road Map for Middle East Peace, which practically means Israel’s

readinesstoofferthePalestiniansaguaranteedandenforceableroadtoatwo-

state solution, to be implemented in parallel with Gaza’s demilitarisation. As

Henry Siegman points out in his article “Gaza and the Palestinian struggle for

statehood”inOpenDemocracy,“If[Israeliauthorities]cannot,orwillnotagree

tothat,thereisnobasiswhateverfortheirdemandforGaza’sdemilitarisation,

Foreword:TheCommitmentoftheEuropeanSocialDemocratsforPeace 5

for Israel has no right to expect Palestinians to acquiesce to the status quo as

theirpermanentdestinyasanoccupiedpeople”.

Itistimeforpeace.ThethreatoftheIslamicStateandJihadistterrorismhas

helped form alliances among former irreconcilable enemies; and should also

bringtoanagreementbetweenIsraelandthePalestinianAuthority.Thereisno

otheralternativebutthatofchaos,radicalisation,terror,andanincreasing,dis-

proportionateuseofforceand,consequently,theprogressiveisolationofIsrael.

Inthissense,theleaderofIsraelLabourParty,IsaacHerzogsaidinthesidesof

UNGeneralAssemblythatinlightofthenewregionalalliances“Netanyahuand

Abbasmustnotmissahistoricalopportunitythatisdoubtfultoreturn”.

And what about Europe? Europe’s role is very critical. Jihadists in Syria and

Iraq,chaosinLibya,theconflictinIsrael/Palestinebecomingfierce,andthecri-

sisofrefugeesanddisplacedpeopleallposeoutstandingchallengestoEurope.

Tofacethatandreallydeveloparoleasglobalactorandpower,Europeneedsa

freshandactiveapproach,onevoice(orseveralvoiceswithonemessage)and

sufficientresourcestopromoteandsecureits interests, involvements,andam-

bitions.Weneednotonlytofinancethepeaceprocess,butalsotoplaythegame

ofpeacewithdecisiveness.Inthisspirit,wecallforacomprehensiveEuropean

peace initiativeandplantowardstheIsraeli-Palestinianconflict,aswellasthe

Arab-Israeli conflict, which could be presented and discussed in an EU-spon-

sored internationalconferencewiththeparticipationofbothsidesandallkey

globalandregionalactors.TheSocialistsandDemocratsintheEuropeanParlia-

mentwillbetheretohelpandsupport.

1 Rashid Khalidi, “Collective punishment in Gaza”, The New Yorker – 29 July 2014. Available at:

www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/collective-punishment-gaza (accessed 09. 28. 14).

WhereNowforIsrael/Palestine?Introduction&Framing

Bashir Bashir

ThisvolumebringstogetherthevoicesandviewsofleadingPalestinian,Israeli-

Jewish,andEuropeanintellectuals,politicians,andactivistswhoproposealter-

nativeapproachesand“outofthebox”thinkingontheIsraeli-Palestiniancon-

flict.Morespecifically, thisuniquevolumeaimstocontributetotheemerging

effortsofre-examiningthecurrentstrategiesandparadigmsthroughproposing

and exploring new perspectives, visionary discourses, and alternatives to parti-

tioninthecaseoftheIsraeli-Palestinianconflict.Putdifferently, itseekstoen-

rich European public discourse with original and refreshing views and alterna-

tiveparadigmstosettlingthislingeringconflict.

More than a twenty-year long peace process has not achieved the awaited

peace in Israel/Palestine.This fairly long process has led to important achieve-

ments,butalsoremarkablefailuresofreachingalastingpeace.Theprocesshas

oftenwitnessedcriticalcrisesanddeadlocks,leadingseveraladvocates,observ-

ers,andcriticstoclaimthattheresulthasbeenpredominatelyaboutmanaging

the conflict rather than settling or solving it. Others have even suggested that

the“peaceprocess”hasbeenmoreabouttheprocessthanaboutpeace!Provid-

inganexhaustivehistoryofthe“peaceprocess”inIsrael/Palestineisbeyondthe

scope of our focus and interest here. However, during times of crises and im-

passes,severalkeyplayers(e.g.US;EU;UN;Quartet;ArabLeague)resortedto

a wide range of initiatives and ideas to get out of the impasse and revive and

foster the “peace process”. Some have claimed that a qualifying condition for

peace is a Palestinian state-building project, wherein the Palestinians have

to demonstrate “maturity” in order to gain/deserve an independent state and,

thus,laystrongfoundationsforindependentsovereignpolity(regardlessofthe

persistingmilitaryoccupationandcolonisation).Toaugmenttheseefforts,aso-

phisticated “aid industry” network was set to advance economic development

andgrowthaseffectivetoolstoevadetheimpasseandreachpeace.

More critical and daring voices have called for exerting more political pres-

sure, mainly on Israel, through applying further restrictions and sanctions on

WhereNowforIsrael/Palestine?Introduction&Framing 7

settlement policies and effectively using American leverage with Israel. But

lately, in lightoftherepeatedAmericanfailuretoreachabreakthroughinthe

“peaceprocess”,policymakersandadvisorshaveinsteadcalledforbreakingthe

UShegemonyandbrokershipoverthe“peaceprocess”,infavourofamoreneu-

tral and pluralistic/multilateral international mediation. Nevertheless, none of

theseattemptshavereallysoughttoofferstrategicand/orparadigmaticshifts

thateitherrethinkorchallengetheunderlyingparametersanddouble-standard

principlesthatgovernthe“peaceprocess”.Theseparametersandprinciples,as

itturnsout,havebeencontributingtoreproducingasymmetricalcolonialreali-

tiesofoppressionandoccupation,andmanagingtheconflictratherthantrans-

forming and settling it.Through placing an excessive focus on state-building,

good governance, constitutional reforms, restructuring security apparatuses,

and economic development, most of these attempts have been largely “insti-

tutionalist”and“developmental”intheircharacterandorientation.Thatis,they

have concentrated on institutions and service policies (e.g. economic growth)

ratherthanoncorepoliticalrights(e.g.rightofreturn,self-determinationetc.).

Eventually, this has led to deep de-politicisation of the “peace process” and

obliterateditsabilitytomeetthepurposesthatsupposedlybroughtittobeing.

Furthermore,noneoftheseattemptssoughttoreflect,revise,orchallengeterri-

torialpartitionastheonlyparadigmwithinwhichalloftheseprescriptionsand

devicesarearticulatedandexercised.

Partitionplanshavebeenproposed,bytheUNandotherinternationalplay-

ers, as an effective, and even sometimes preferred, solution for settling intrac-

table ethnic, religious, national, and inter-communal conflicts. To seemingly

satisfy the demands and interests of the conflicting parties and their regional

and international sponsors, then, partition – in the form of walls, fences, bor-

ders and separation – has been suggested.The underlying assumption of this

partitionlogicisthatanexclusiveandindependentnation-stateistheultimate

means to securing and safely exercising the rights, claims, and national identi-

tiesoftheconflictinggroups.This isexactlywhathasbeenatstake inthepro-

tracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict – ethno-nationalism, separation, and state-

hood all combined as the governing prerogative of the political attempts to

achievepeace.Anditispreciselythislogicthathasbeendominatingthediplo-

macy and politics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for several decades.Today,

the hopes that emerged during the late 1980s and early 1990s of settling the

BashirBashir 8

Israeli-Palestinianconflictaregraduallybeingeroded.Eventhemostoutspoken

advocatesofthetwo-statesolutionacknowledgetheincreasingdifficultiesfac-

ingitsrealisation.However,despitetheimpasseinthe“peaceprocess”andthe

profound and continuous factual developments and obstacles on the ground,

thediscourseofstatehoodandpartitionremainshegemonic.

Theprofoundtransformationsinthefunctionsandrolesofthemodernna-

tion-state; and the multi-dimensional processes of globalisation and regional

integrationareexamplesofrecentchallengesthathaveconsiderablyinfluenced

thesettlementofintractableethnicandnationalconflicts.Thesechallengesse-

riouslyunderminetheeffectivenessandcentralityofterritorialpartitionasthe

maintoolofsettlingthesetypesofconflicts.InIsrael/Palestine,however,itwas

the Israeli colonial settlements in the West Bank that played an outstanding-

ly decisive role. According to B’Tselem, as of the end of 2012, there are an esti-

mated515,000settlersintheWestBank(includingEastJerusalemandHebron)

livinginmorethan130government-sanctionedsettlementsandapproximately

100 “settlement outposts”.These settlements are connected through an exten-

sivenetof“bypassroads”(morethan800kilometers)thatcriss-crosstheentire

WestBank.Thesestrikingrealities,andseveralothers,suchasdependingonthe

samewaterresources(withoutequallysharingthem)havecreatedwretchedbi-

national territorial, socioeconomic, and demographic conditions for Palestin-

ians and Israelis, which undermine partition. Lack of territorial contiguity and

demographichomogeneityseriouslychallengethepartitionplan,thestubborn

commitment to which, under these conditions of intertwinements, furthers

settler-colonialism,militaryoccupation,racismandsegregation.Itcanyieldand

licencetransfer,exchangeofpopulations,unilateraldrawingofborders,ethnic

cleansing,andgenocide.Theseoptions,andseveralothers,suchasPalestinian

“autonomy”inaJewishstateorthe“Jordanianoption”,arepoliticallyandmor-

ally unacceptable (as they are premised on domination, oppression, and deni-

al),andarethereforelikelytoescalatetheconflictratherthanmitigateorsettle

it.Rethinkingtheexistingparadigms,then,andexploringnewegalitarianand

inclusiveonesthathelprealiseandrespectbasicindividualandcollectiverights

shouldthereforetakepriorityoverinstitutionalarrangementsandsolutions.

Exploring and supporting new and inclusive horizons in Israel/Palestine

should not only be a European interest, but first and foremost a European

responsibilityandobligation.ZionismisaEuropeanphenomenonthatmainly


developedinresponsetoEuropeanracismandanti-Semitism,theconsequenc-

esofwhichthePalestinianshavebeenenduring.Therefore,theIsraeli-Palestin-

ian conflict and its roots are both a European question and responsibility.The

languageofinterests,terror,andsecurityshouldnotbetheonlymotivationfor

Europeanengagementwithit;Europeanshavehistoricalresponsibilityandeth-

ical commitment to promote what they supposedly stand for today – demo-

craticprinciples,equality,integration,andhistoricaljustice–inIsrael/Palestine.

Itisourcontentionandhopethattherefreshingandsharpcritiquesandcre-

ative ideas offered in this volume will help identify and explore new paths for

peaceinIsrael/Palestine.Inhisessay,HannesSwobodareflectsonthefailedat-

temptstosettletheIsraeli-Palestinianconflictandproposesanalternativeegal-

itarian approach to the conflict, which would emphasise the rights of people

andcitizensratherthanofferinstitutionalsolutionsandincommensurablena-

tionalandreligiousideologies.RaefZreikarguesthatthe“twostates”talkhas

longbecomeanapologeticdiscursivepractice–asmokescreen,whichavoids

discussingthecoreandburningissuesoftheconflict.Hecallsforanalternative

approach/discourse that contextualises the conflict within 1948. Bashir Bashir

argues that Palestinian nationalism is undergoing a redefinition and entering

anewphase.Oneof thecentral trendsof thisnewphase ispolitically redefin-

ing who a Palestinian is.This nascent phase of Palestinian nationalism, he ar-

gues, requires a new political and moral grammar for Israel/Palestine. Dmitry

ShumskyarguesthatZionismhasfailedtofulfiloneofitsmostconstitutiveas-

pirations, namely normalising the existence of the Jewish people in Israel/Pal-

estineandturningtheJewsintoanationlikeallothermodernnations.Inorder

toovercomethisfailure,hesuggeststoshiftfromthecontemporarydominant

interpretation of Zionism, which has been premised on ethnic separation, ex-

clusive Jewish sovereignty and ownership, and the denial of Palestinian iden-

tity and rights to a pre-1948 Zionism, which favours “binationalism” (or, rath-

er,themultinationaldemocracy)astheconstitutionalpatternuponwhichthe

Jewish State is to be built, and promotes joint ownership, integration, and co-

existence.AzarDakwarinvitesustoreflectcriticallyonthehegemonicdiscourse

and wretched reality of sovereignty in Israel/Palestine. He argues that the

present reality and historical moment beg for a path departure from the stat-

ist logicofsovereigntythathasbeendominatingthepeace-makingdiscourse

inIsrael/Palestine.Thus,hesuggestsarights-drivengroundingofthenotionof

BashirBashir 10

sovereignty in Israel/Palestine – along norms of reciprocity, respect, bination-

alism and egalitarian democracy. After several years of political and civic activ-

isminIsrael/Palestine,InbalArnonconcludesthataparadigmshiftisverymuch

neededandrequiresapoliticalframeworkwhosestartingpointisnotapartic-

ularimplementation,butasetofprinciplesthatguaranteestheindividualand

collectiverights,interests,andidentitiesofthetwopeoplebetweentheJordan

RiverandMediterraneanSea.LeilaFarsakhclaimsthatthinkingofalternatives

topartitioninIsrael/Palestinehasneverbeenasurgentasitistoday.Itisneces-

sary, she insists, because the two-state solution has been destroyed under the

weight of an unequal and discriminatory one-state reality. Her essay critically

explores the advantages of alternatives to partition, mostly from a Palestinian

perspective.

Avraham Burg argues that one of the main reasons for the failed attempts

toreachfairandfinalpeaceinIsrael/Palestineliesatthecoreofthedominant

Israeli strategy.This strategy is excessively self-centred, focused on solving the

problemsoftheJewishpeople,anditsrelationwiththePalestiniansisbuilton

obliviousness, separation and false symmetry. He concludes with the urgent

need to adopt a paradigm with a different internal logic, one based on inclu-

sionandpartnership.Throughimagininganddrawingthemapsof“Israelwith-

out Palestine” and “Palestine without Israel”, Yonatan Mendel demonstrates

theimprobabilityofseparationintotwostatesandthecurrentimpossibilityof

genuine unification into one state.This, he concludes, renders reasonable and

possibleasetof“outofthebox”solutionsthathasbeenentertainedinthelast

decadeorso.InajointpiecepublishedinLe Monde diplomatiqueinApril2014,

SamBahourandTonyKlugcalltobreakfreeofthedivisiveandincreasinglysti-

fling one-state vs. two-states straightjacket and offer a proposal that prioritis-

estheneedtoresolvetwocrucialambiguitiesregardingIsrael’scontrolofthe

WestBankandGaza: itsruleoverthePalestiniansanditscolonisationoftheir

land. Noam Sheizaf claims that Netanyahu’s strategy is the ever-lasting “con-

flictmanagement”,whichviewstheconflictwiththePalestiniansasunsolvable

andconsidersthecurrentstatusquoastheleast-worstoptionforIsrael.Sheizaf

concludesthatinordertochallengethestatusquostrategy,anyproductiveef-

fortsbyEUorotherpartiesshouldattachapricetotheentirestatusquo,thus

changing the Israeli cost/benefit calculation. Salam Fayyad argues that the

“peaceprocess”willcontinuetofailintheabsenceoffundamentaladjustments


totheexistingparadigmofpeace-making.Theadjustmentsheproposesmainly

fall in two areas.The first relates to the question of whether Palestinian repre-

sentationinthecontextoftherequirementsofboththe“peaceprocess”,aswell

asnationalgovernance,remainsadequate,whilethesecondrelatestotheques-

tionofcontinuedvalidityoftheOsloframework,especiallygiventhattheendof

thetimelineonthebasisofwhichitwasdesignedhaslongpassed.

The volume concludes with summaries of the discussions held at two ma-

jor events that were co-organised by the S&D Group in the European Parlia-

mentandtheBrunoKreiskyForumforInternationalDialogue,whichwereheld

inBrusselsinNovember2013andinJerusaleminMarch2014,respectively,and

sought to discuss new horizons and paradigms for Israel/Palestine.The two-

day conference in the European Parliament in Brussels was attended by more

than 150 participants, including EU MEPs, diplomats, and several senior politi-

ciansrepresentingahostofpartiesintheEU,Israel,andPalestine;andtheone-

dayclosedroundtable in Jerusalem,heldunderChathamHouseRules,wasat-

tendedbyover60seniorPalestinian,Israeli,European,andAmericanpoliticians,

scholars,policyadvisors,andcivilsocietyactivists.

AfterWeaponsSpoke,HumanRightsMustPrevail

Hannes Swoboda

Toreflectuponaconferenceonalternativevenuestopeace in Israel/Palestine

inAugust2014 isverydifficult–nearly impossible.Theconferences,co-organ-

isedbytheS&DGroupandtheBrunoKreiskyForumforInternationalDialogue

inBrusselsinNovember2013andinJerusaleminMarch2014,wereheldduring

timesofrelativepeaceanddetente.Butafterthehorriblekillings inIsrael/Pal-

estinethissummer,peaceseemsfaraway.Oncemore,thosewhomadeitclear

thattheone-sided,unilateralwithdrawalfromGazain2005wasnothingmore

thanagimmick(settofreeIsraelfromitslegally-bindingresponsibilitiesthere),

areprovenright.

Duringourdiscussions,manyofusforesawtheKerryinitiativefailing.Clear-

ly, Prime Minister Netanyahu was unwilling to reach a compromise based on

thelong-heldOsloAccordsparameters.ItwasequallyobviousthattheUSgov-

ernment was not ready to further pressure him and his odd and eclectic coali-

tiongovernment.And,asneithertheIsraelinortheAmericansidemadeanac-

ceptable offer, the Palestinians could not even be put to test.Thus, politicians

andjournalistsspoke,oncemore,of“impossible”peacebetweenIsraelandthe

Palestinians,onethatisextremelynecessary,regardlessofitsimpossibility.

Thus far, analysts and politicians have mainly focused on the institutional

aspectsofthetwopeoples’future.Whilesomeseeatwo-statesolutionasthe

only option, the increasing number of settlements in the West Bank and East

Jerusalem unfortunately renders it less feasible. And while others have pro-

motedaone-statesolution–howwouldonebuild,construct,andpreservea

state whose two peoples lack trust for each other? On the other end, a popu-

lar,extremistpoliticalcurrentinIsraelwantsastrong,expansionistJewishstate

incontrolofPalestinianBantustans,justassomePalestinianextremistsdream

aboutextinguishingIsraelanditsJewishpopulation.

Mostmoderateinstitutionalistsandnationalisticandreligiousextremistsfail

tofocusonthepeople,theirsafety,orrights,andadvancetheirpoliticalagendas

andideologicalaims instead.Additionally,all thetheoreticalandconventional

constructions of the future two-states/one-state will not give the Palestinians

AfterWeaponsSpoke,HumanRightsMustPrevail 13

the equal opportunities that they desperately seek. And, despite the walls and

their professional army, Israel’s (Jewish) citizens will not live in peace and se-

curity unless ordinary Palestinians have a future similar to that of their Jewish

neighbours.ItispreciselybecauseofthisbriefandsimpleanalysisthatIsuggest

analternative,egalitarianapproachtotheIsraeli-Palestinianconflict,whichpri-

oritises human and civil rights over institutional solutions and incommensura-

blenationalandreligiousideologies.

However,beforeIbrieflypresentandexplorethisalternativeapproach,one

oughttopayattentiontoanadditionalnascentdifficulty infindingasolution.

Thisdifficultyrelatestoglobal,regional,geostrategic,andpoliticalchangesand

developments;namely,thedecreasinginterestoftheglobalpowersinthecon-

flictontheonehand,andtheincreasinginfightingamongthenational,sectar-

ian,andtribalforcesoftheregionontheother.

Much discussion inside and outside the US has been held about the new

geopoliticalorientationoftheUSgovernment.ThepresidentoftheUSCouncil

ofForeignRelations,RichardN.Haasshasexpressedarisingsentimentamong

USpoliticalcircles inhisfollowinganalysisofObama’sforeignpolicy:“Theex-

traordinarycommitmentbeingmadetoresolvingtheIsraeli-Palestinianconflict

is … difficult to justify …The emergence of a separate Palestinian state would

notaffectthedynamicsofwhatistakingplaceinSyria,Egypt,orIraq.Itwould

beimportantanddesirableforbothIsraelisandPalestinians,butithasbecome

morealocalthanaregionaldispute”.HisadvicetotheUSgovernment,which

resonates with many, is to “decrease its emphasis on the Middles East and in-

steadfocusmoreonAsia”.

Such re-orientation towards Asia is supported by China’s new leadership’s

growing political, economic, and military activity, as well as Russia’s similar re-

orientation towards this region, as part of its competition and/or cooperation

withChina.Moreover,Kerry’sfailure–whichdidnotsurpriseEuropeanobserv-

ers – has further diverted attention from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Simi-

larly,AlainFrachonrecentlyarguedthat“TheIsraeli-Palestinianconflicthaslost

muchofitsstrategicimportance”;neithertoday’sRussia,norChina,norregion-

alpowers(suchasEgypt)havemuchinterest inhelpingthePalestinians,espe-

cially the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.The same applies to Turkey and Iran –

though they follow different strategies; both are not powerful enough and

probablyhaveotherstrategicprioritiesandpressingconcerns.

HannesSwoboda 14

Justifiedornot–andIwouldoptforthelatter–the“world’s”prioritisation

of other urgent problems with critical and pressing consequences will further

divertattentionfromthisseeminglyunsolvableproblem.Hence,it isprobably

Europe–thoughnotcompletelyunitedinitsapproach–thatremainsmostin-

terestedintheIsraeli-Palestinianconflict.Europeanditsinstitutionscannotaf-

fordtooverlookthePalestinian-Israeliconflict;failingtoactivelyengageinset-

tlingitwouldbestrategicallyandmorallyunwise.

Asproposedearlier, in lightofthesetremendouschallenges,anewalterna-

tiveapproachisrequired.Accordingly,respectforbasichumanrightsshouldbe

introducedintoalldiscussionsoftheMiddleEasttohelpraisepublicawareness

ofthePalestiniancause:itisaboutthecitizensandtheyoungerPalestiniangen-

erationwithnoopportunities.ThefateofordinaryPalestiniansisunfortunately

atthemercyoftheIsraelioccupationandsomePalestinianpoliticalforces,such

as Hamas, which plays directly into the hands of extremists in Israel. Indeed,

HamasandIsrael’sgovernmentsarehappytoseeMahmoudAbbasweakened,

astheyweretoseeYasserArafatweakened.Furthermore,severalobserversand

scholars have noted that, due to the severe weakening of the Palestinian Au-

thority(PA)anditsleadership,manyPalestiniansnowviewthePAasasubcon-

tractorofIsraelioccupation.

Additionally,Europeansshouldnottoleratethestrikinginequalitiesthatper-

sist in our neighbours’ daily lives. Rather than trying to find the right institu-

tionalconstructions(two-state/one-statesolution),weshouldloudlycondemn

thebasicinequalitiesthepeopleofIsrael/Palestineexperience.Thisisnotonly

aboutthegap in incomeandwealth. It isabouttheabilitytomovefreelyand

withouthumiliation.Itisaboutthepossibilitytolearn,study,andpractiseapro-

fessiononelikes.Itisaboutbasicrights,whicharetakenforgrantedinEurope

andIsrael–butnotsoforthePalestinians.Whileinsistingonthestrikingasym-

metriesbetweentheoccupiedandtheoccupier,we,Europeans,shouldmakeIs-

raeli and Palestinian politicians responsible for changing these wretched reali-

tiesandconditionsandholdthembothaccountablefor improvingthefateof

thepeopleofPalestine.

Itisonlywithinthisegalitarianframeworkofbasicsocial,civil,andpolitical

rightsthatwecouldandshouldproceedtoconsiderinstitutionalsolutions.One

suchsolutioncouldbeatwo-statefederationwithsomecommoninstitutions:

from elements of security, water supply, and, especially, a joint Human Rights

AfterWeaponsSpoke,HumanRightsMustPrevail 15

Courtthatguaranteesbasicrightstoallcitizens.Ajointcourtcomprisingjudg-

esfromIsrael/Palestineand,initially,externalthirdpartyresourcescouldslowly

helptoindiscriminatelyimplementbasicrightsforallaswellasstrengthenthe

civilsocietyonbothsides.

Those common institutions could also undo and minimise the widening

gapbetweenIsraelisandPalestinians,whohavegrowntoknoweachotheras

enemiesand threats.The wall, the increasingsubstitutionofPalestinianwork-

ers inIsrael,andideologicalfactorsonbothsidesareresponsiblefor incurring

less,insteadofmore,contact.Thisseparationcomplicatesmattersforbothpeo-

ples–condemnedtolivetogether!Thus,anyproposedsolutionshouldinclude

jointprojectsandinstitutionsthatarepremisedonanewethicalbasisforpeace,

namelybasicrightsandmutualrecognition.

And,asbothsidesareresponsibleforthecurrentmess,bothshouldsuggest

newideasandinitiatives,irrespectiveoftheweightofthatresponsibility.TheIs-

raeliscannotputtheburdenonlyupontheshouldersofthePalestiniangovern-

ment;theformerarenothelpingthelattergainitsownpeople’sconfidenceand

support.ThehumiliationthePalestinianleadershipexperiencedfromdifferent

Israeli governments made it impossible for them to ask for restraint and pa-

tience.Similarly,thePalestinianscannotputtheburdenonlyupontheshoulders

oftheIsraeligovernments.Theinternalquarrels,corruption,andlackofrealism

andfranknesswereoftendetrimentalnotonlytothenegotiations’successbut

alsotoreceivingexternalsupport,includingEurope’s.

AnewstartisnecessaryandEuropeshouldtakethelead.Otherwise,thecon-

flict in the Middle East will provoke rising conflicts inside our own countries,

suchasthoseseenduringthelastwarinGaza–where,alongsidethepeaceful

andhonestdemonstrationsprotestingtheIsraeligovernment’sactions,wesaw

very nasty and unacceptable reactions against Jews. Indeed, misusing the free-

domofexpressioninEuropeancountriesandconfusingcriticismofIsraelwith

anti-Semitismisnotonlymorallyunacceptablebutalsoabigdisservicetothe

Palestinians.

Promotingpeace,equality,integration,andpartnership;transcendingstate

and community borderlines and boundaries; and combating inequalities, seg-

regation,racismandseparationareatthecoreoftheEuropeanUnionandits

drivingmorality.Europeshouldthereforeenhancethesesamevaluesandprin-

ciplesinthecaseoftheIsraeli-Palestinianconflict.Asmentioned,analternative

HannesSwoboda 16

approachpremisedonsuchvaluesoffersrefreshingandmorehopefulvenues

tosettlethisintractableconflictofIsrael/Palestine.AtourconferencesinBrus-

sels and Jerusalem, people from both sides agreed on many points, especially

ones pertaining to an indiscriminate application of human rights. Also, some

of our participants met their vis-à-vis there for the first time (such as the am-

bassadorsofIsraelandPalestinetotheEU).Andso,Europeshouldcontinueto

createandenhancesuchencountersandopportunities.Wemustnotmissthis

chanceandfailagain.Itwouldbeverycostly.

“TwoStates”asApology

Raef Zreik

The“twostates”hasbecomeadiscursivepracticethatallowsmovesandcoun-

ter-moves,argumentsandcounter-arguments,evasivestrategies,andpattern-

edmodesofdealingwiththePalestinianQuestion.Assuch,ratherthantalking

aboutthe“twostates”asanontologicalrealityorasolution, Isuggest talking

aboutthetalkitself:whatdoesthetalkdo?Whoaretheagentsthatuse,orrath-

erabuse,it?Forwhatpurposesisitbeingdeployed,andwhatcouldorcouldnot

beachievedthroughthiskindofvocabulary?

The“twostates”conversationhasbeenkidnappedawhileagobytheIsraeli

centre-rightafterevisceratingtheconceptofstatehoodofanyofitscommonly

associatedconnotationsandimplications.The“twostates”talkhasemergedas

an effective way to bypass the discussion of more concrete, vexing, and burn-

ing issues like settlements, borders, territory, freedom of movement, water re-

sources,andotherissuesthatmatter.Thatis,asifonecouldstilltalkabout“two

states” while constructing settlements, keeping Israeli presence along the Jor-

dan River, retaining the Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza entranc-

es,allthewhileposingthe“twostates”asanadequatereasontoavoidtalking

abouttherefugeesquestion,orevenasagoodjustificationforubiquitousdis-

crimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel. If, after all, there “will” be a

PalestinianstatethatcanmaterialisethePalestinians’righttonationalself-de-

terminationwithinanation-state,thePalestiniancitizensofIsraelareexpected

toacceptIsrael’sself-perceptionasaJewishstate“hereandnow”,whichwould

supposedlylegitimisetheirinferiorityandmakethempay“now”thepriceofa

presumed Palestinian state that might, or, more reasonably, might not, be es-

tablishedtomorrow.Hence,ifyouweretotalkaboutthe“twostates”,allthese

wouldsimplybeminorissues.I,forone,however,wouldrathertalkaboutthose

“minor”issuesmentionedaboveandleavethe“state”terminologyout.

The“twostates”talkbecamepervasivewithinIsraelonlywhenIsraelmade

surethatthiskindofsolutionisinfactawkwardandimpracticable(duetothe

expansionofthesettlementsandtheirextensions–roads,schools,universities,

industries, land confiscation etc., and ultimately political power). The “two

RaefZreik 18

states” has long become a mere apology, rather than a political program; a

smoke screen that aims to achieve its opposite. The expansion of the settle-

mentswenthandinhandwiththe“twostates”talkandhasevenbecomestruc-

turaltoIsrael’spoliciesandpolitics,wherebytheconversationitselfimbuesthe

Israelipoliticswithcertainimmunity,sotospeak.

The “two states” belongs to the “family of solutions” – a kind of a future

vision. However, the device it has transfigured onto avoids and evades talking

about the past – namely, excruciating history and past injustices. As such, the

“two states” talk has become a machine for silencing the Palestinian narrative

and denying it the possibility to air its own version of the story, along with its

understandingoftherootoftheconflict.Whoneedsthe“past”ifwearehead-

ingtowardthe“future”?Whytalkabout“problems”whenwealreadyhave“so-

lutions”?The“twostates”conversationhasturnedtheimageofthePalestinian

intoastubborn,compulsivenegotiatorwhoisstuckinthepast.Theproblemis,

however,thatthe“twostates”isnotasolution–itisratheranillusion;itprom-

isesnofuture–butrathertheperpetuationofthecurrentrealityad infinitum.

The average Israeli politician feels comfortable to build settlements, attack

Gazaanditspeople,andconfiscatelandsforthesimplereasonthathe/shewas

oriswillingtomentiontheterm“twostates”–asifsayingthetermitselfelimi-

natestheoccupationanddismantlesthesettlements.Followingthislogic,any

PalestinianwhoisnotreadytocelebratethisIsraelireadinesstouttertheword

“state”, deserves to be fought, arrested, have his house demolished, his cities

sieged, his economy strangled, and not to mention massacred, as was the re-

centcaseinGaza.Andsothemerereadinesstoutterthe“twostates”phrasebe-

comesanexcuseforfurtheraggression.

Theelusive“twostates”talkdeceivinglyassumestheexistenceoftwostates.

Underthisfallaciousparitydiscourse,Israelnolongerappearsasanoccupying

forceandthePalestiniansareperceivedashavingalreadyastateoftheirown.

Indeed,theexistenceofthePalestinianAuthority(PA)withitspresident,minis-

ters,embassies,andstampsonlycontributestothereproductionofthisphan-

tasmic, “symmetrical” relationship. The statehood image that is being nour-

ishedbythe“twostates”conversationgivesIsraelagoodjustificationtowage

a war against the Palestinian population as if it were a state, though it is not.

Since the emergence of the “two states” talk (i. e., since the Oslo Accords and

theestablishmentofthePA),Israelhasbeenallowingitselfafarhigherlevelof

“TwoStates”asApology 19

violence deployment (like using air force or heavy bombardments against the

civilianpopulation),whichwouldhavebeenunthinkableduringthe1970sand

the1980s.The“twostates”conversationcreatestheimageoffullseparateness

between two entities while there is no more than one single, real, and sover-

eign entity on the ground – Israel; it controls the entire airspace, water, and

land betweentheseaandtheriver.ThePalestiniansarenotpartof the Israeli

polity–theyarenotfullcitizensandbearnofreedomofmovementoranyof

therightsgrantedtoIsraelicitizens;andso,theyareneitherlivingwithintheir

own independentstate,nor fullyconceivedorviewedassubjects livingunder

anoccupation.

The“twostates”conversationaimstogivehopeinahopelesssituationand

topointatthehorizonwhentheskyisfallingdownlikeheavysteel,orcastlead,

on the heads of the Palestinians. It is a coin that aims to convince them that

whatisinfactpermanent–thecurrentreality–isonlytemporaneous.ThePal-

estiniansareaskedtowaitandhopeasiftimeis“pregnant”whileweallknow

thattimecannotbearany“children”.ItistimethePalestiniansadoptedachild;

achild notfit fora“twostates” baptism, but a child thatbreakswiththecon-

ventionalgrammarofthe“twostates”fetish,afetishthatevadesandbypasses

problemsratherthansolvesthem.

Weneedanalternativeapproachandattitudethatsituatesthe recognition

oftheNakba–therootoftheconflictthatshouldbeaddressed–attheheart

ofthematterontheonehand,andaccommodatestheneedoftheJewishpeo-

ple inPalestineto live inpeaceontheother.This isnotasolution,butanatti-

tudethatisbasedonvaluesofindividualandcollectiveequalityinallofhistoric

Palestine. It also universalises alternative morality and politics for understand-

ingandinterveninginthebinationalrealityof Israel/Palestine.Thischildshall

breakupwithmereslogansandmovetothevaluesrequiredtoguideandjus-

tifythesolution.Concretely,thisadoptedchildshallshedthehegemonicchains

ofthe“twostates”conversation,speakadifferentlanguage,usealternativevo-

cabularies,andpositiontheconflictwithin itsmostconstitutivehistoricalcon-

text,namelythePalestinianNakbaof1948.Puttogether, theseelementspave

thewayforadifferentapproachonthequestionofPalestine.Throughinsisting

onframingthequestionofPalestinewithinthehistoricalcontextof1948,rath-

erthan1967,andbymovingfromanossifiedsolutiontoanapproachbasedon

values,principles,needs,andrights,thischildwillidentify,articulate,andfocus

RaefZreik 20

onthemostconstitutivequestions,roots,andthemesofthePalestinian-Israeli

conflict.Itdoesnotplacetheemphasisonthediscourseof“solutions”(Palestin-

iansmaywellachievetheirbasicnationalrightswithintheframeofeitherthe

twooronestatesolution),butratheronadiscoursethatreframesthequestions

and open-mindedly approaches the solutions, guided by principles and values

that are based on bi-nationalism, equality, and freedom. Ultimately, this alter-

nativeconversationwillbearsolutions–itwillbeaconversationthatopensit-

selfuptothepastwithoutlivinginit.

NewPhaseofPalestinianNationalism

Bashir Bashir

Palestiniannationalismisundergoingaredefinitionandenteringanewphase.

Oneofthecentralcomponentsofthisnewphase ispoliticallyredefiningwho

aPalestinianis.ThenascentphaseofPalestiniannationalismthereforerequires,

amongotherthings,anewpoliticalandmoralgrammar.Accordingly,manyof

thedominantpoliticalvocabulariesandconceptionsincreasinglyfailtocapture

the profound political and demographic developments and changes in Israel/

Palestine,andtherebyrequirenewtermsandperspectives.

Politicians and scholars have argued that Post-Nakba Palestinian national-

ism transitioned through three main phases, namely pan-Arabism (dominant

in the 1950s), Palestinianism (dominant in the 1970s and 1980s), and Palestin-

ianpoliticalIslam(dominantinthe1990sand2000s).Pan-ArabismviewedArab

unity as a guarantee and precondition to the liberation of Palestine. It sought

totranscendtheseparateArabnation-states,whichwereviewedasimperialin-

ventions,andcreateasingleArabstate.PalestinianismplacedPalestinianiden-

tity, independence, interests, and rights at the centre of its politics and gave

them precedence over other considerations. Palestinian political Islam largely

adoptedthenationalisticdiscourseofPalestinianismandheavilymixeditwith

religiousIslamiccontentandtone.

However, and regardless of the possible critiques of this typology of Pales-

tiniannationalism,itisthelegacyofPalestinianismthathasremarkablyshaped

and influenced Palestinian nationalism. More specifically, during the peak of

this phase, we witnessed a critical strategic shift (e.g. the 1974 Ten Point Pro-

gram), which marked the gradual development of Palestinian nationalism to-

wardscomingtotermswiththeterritorialpartitionofPalestineandpursuinga

“statist” enterprise. According to the statist enterprise, a Palestinian state with-

inthe1967borders isperceivedasafeasibleand“realistic”frameworktoactu-

alise the Palestinians’ most fundamental rights and national aspirations.The

TenPointProgram(particularlypoint2),whichacceptedtheestablishmentofa

PalestiniancombatantnationalauthorityonanyliberatedpartofPalestine, in-

dicatedthebeginningofcomingtotermswithpartition,andtherise,and,later,

BashirBashir 22

even the hegemony and tyranny, of the statist logic.Today, this logic remains

dominant,thoughitisrecentlydecliningandfailing.

Thestatistenterprisehasbecomehegemonicandtyrannicalasithas,among

otherthings,dictatedandprivilegedcertainborders(1967’sborders),terms,and

vocabularies(partitionandstatehood)torefertoandarticulatethePalestinian

national cause, thus determining what is permissible, imaginable, and “prag-

matic” as opposed to what is not.The statist enterprise of territorial partition

assumesthatthetwopeoplesareseparableand ignoresthe increasingly inter-

twinedandwretcheddemographicandpoliticalrealitiesofpre-andpost-1967.

Ironically,thesearemostlyIsrael’scolonialandexpansionistsettlementprojects

intheWestBankanditsrecentdemandtoberecognisedasaJewishStateora

nation-stateoftheJewishpeoplethathaveimmenselycontributedtorevisiting

andredefiningthepoliticaldiscourse,itstermsandvocabularies,andpavingthe

wayforanewstageofPalestiniannationalism.

Iwillbrieflyexploresomeoftheessentialelementsofthenewnascentstage

ofPalestiniannationalism,alongwithitspotentialpoliticalandmoralgrammar.

First, politically speaking, the “self” in the right to Palestinian national self-de-

termination is being redefined.The “self” refers to those who deserve and are

entitledtothebenefitsandrightsofself-determination.Thusfar,whenself-de-

terminationisinvoked,thefocus/entitlementhasbeenlimitedtoPalestiniansof

theWestBankandGaza. Israel’scolonialpolicesand itsnew,aforementioned,

demandsprovideanopportunitytoreintroducetheNakbaof1948through,at

least, two core issues that were either eliminated or deferred by the Oslo Ac-

cords – the Palestinian minority in Israel and Palestinian refugees. Under this

newpoliticalandmoralgrammar,the“self” intherighttonationalself-deter-

mination politically encompasses not only the Palestinians in the WBGS (West

Bank and Gaza Strip), but also the Palestinian refugees and those within the

1948borders.

Second, within the frame of this nascent stage of Palestinian nationalism,

there is a gradual shift from an exclusively state-oriented politics to a rights-

based politics. It focuses on realising the inalienable and basic, individual and

national rights as well as the aspirations of the Palestinian people, regardless

of the exact institutional frame (i. e. one state, federation, confederation etc.)

within which these rights and aspirations would be realised. Indeed, this al-

lows reemphasising the right of return and re-envisioning Palestine politically,

NewPhaseofPalestinianNationalism 23

culturally,andhistoricallyasthelandfromtheMediterraneanSeatotheJordan

River,ratherthanthelandoftheWBGS.Thisgradualshiftfromstate-basedto

rights-oriented politics recognises and capitalises on the great, accumulated

achievementsofthePalestiniannationalmovementaftertheNakba.Putdiffer-

ently,unlikethosewhoviewthisshiftas“suicidal”and/orescapist,theproposed

new approach/strategy is gradual and places at its core the Palestinian nation-

alrights,mostchieflytherighttonationalself-determinationandtherightof

return.Thus, rewriting the Palestinians into history as a nation deserving self-

determination,animportantPalestiniannationalachievement,afterdecadesof

denialandnegation,isatthecoreofthisnewpoliticalandmoralgrammar.

Third,thisnewvisioncomeswithaninescapablereality.Thepresenceofthe

Israeli Jews in Palestine, their social and cultural realities, identities and rights

will become an internal Palestinian issue and challenge. According to the Pal-

estinenationalchartersof1964(article7)and1968(article6),thedefinitionof

the Palestinian identity included Palestinian Jews; however, following the stat-

istandpartitionlogic(e.g.theTenPointsProgram),thePalestinianidentitywas

redefinedandtherebyexternalisedtheJews–partitionmeantseparationrath-

erthanintegration.However,undertheemergingnewstageofPalestinianna-

tionalism,whichre-examinesthedefacto,wretched,andcolonialbinationalre-

alitiesinIsrael/Palestine,goesbeyondpartition,andtreatshistoricPalestineas

onepoliticalunit,theIsraeliJews,theiridentities,andtheirrights(bothindivid-

ualandcollectivenationalrights)arelikelytobecomeaninternalpressingchal-

lengetoPalestinianidentityandnationalism.

Surely, one of the core challenges of undergoing a redefinition of Palestin-

ian nationalism and its national project is maintaining a serious engagement

with the Israeli Jews and their rights while struggling to dismantle Israeli Zi-

onistandcolonialprivilegesinallofPalestine.FollowingEdwardSaid,whoin-

sistedthatweshouldcapturenotonlythe imaginationofourpeoplebutalso

those of our oppressors, offering new Palestinian visions should be inclusive,

egalitarian,andemancipatoryforthePalestiniansaswellasfortheIsraeliJews.

Undoubtedly, these inclusive and egalitarian new visions do not equate the

colonised Palestinians with the Israeli colonisers, but rather acknowledge the

strikingasymmetrybetweenthem;theyconditionthestruggletotransformco-

lonial realities and achieve more inclusive and egalitarian arrangements with-

in a process of historical reconciliation.This process places at its core (besides

BashirBashir 24

acknowledgement,assumingresponsibility,andofferinganapologytothePal-

estinians) coming to terms with the present and past injustices brought upon

thePalestiniansbytheZionistmovementandtheStateofIsraelsincetheNak-

ba;respectingandrealisingtherightsofPalestinianrefugeestoreturnandtheir

right to self-determination; structurally dismantling Israeli Jewish privileges;

andredistributingresourcesbasedonrestorativeandreparativejustice.

The current conditions and predicament of Palestinians introduce a new,

highlychallengingera,butalsoonethatoffersaremarkableopportunitytore-

constitutethePalestinianDemos, andredefinethecharacteristicsofitsnewpol-

itics.Indeed,redefiningandrethinkingPalestinianpoliticsisnotamatterofse-

mantics,utopianintellectualgymnastics,orapurelydiscursivematter;itisavery

practical,pressing,andpragmaticproject,broughtaboutbythesheerwretched

andcolonialbinationalmaterialrealities.Itdoesnot,however,replacethemost

pressingneedofdesigningshortandmid-termpoliciesandstrategiesthatma-

terialisticallyandemotionallysupportthePalestinianpeopleontheground,as

wellasstrengthentheirresilienceandstruggleagainstIsrael’soppressive,colo-

nial,andeliminatorypoliciesandpractices.

TheAspirationtoNormalisation:RethinkingContemporaryZionistPolitics

Dimitry Shumsky

When Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, cited the socio-econo-

mic and political failure of Europe’s Jews to integrate into its non-Jewish na-

tionalcollectivitiesasthecauseofmodernanti-Semitism,therewereJewsand

non-Jews who believed that he was playing into the anti-Semites’ hands, and

thatheprobablyaccordedtacitlytheirassertions.Theywere,however,wrong–

Herzl never identified with anti-Semitism. Instead, he saw it as the outcome

ofaweightypoliticalproblem(“theJewishQuestion”inEurope),andsaidthat

theJewshadtheclouttoworktowardsolvingitbywayofestablishingaJewish

state.

Alongside Israelis’ populist, self-pitying cries at the waves of anti-Israel

protests that have beensweeping an increasingnumberofspots in theworld,

onehopesthattherestofusIsraeliswillalsotrytoexaminethephenomenon

of anti-Israel sentiment, as Herzl, in his own time, examined the complaints

of modern anti-Semitism against the Jews.The Zionist movement, especially

Herzlian Zionism, sought to turn the Jews into a nation like all other modern

nations. However, not only did Zionism fail to do so, but its institutional vehi-

cle,theStateofIsrael,whichseesitselfas“Zionist”andisseenassuchbyoth-

ers,alsomakestheIsraeli-Jewishnationseemevenmoreanomalousamongthe

world’snations.BeforeZionismappeared,theanomalousnatureoftheJewish

people’sexistencetooktheformofdiscriminationrelativetoothernations.To-

day,Israelisnotdiscriminatedagainstinthefamilyofnations;onthecontrary,

it is given preferential treatment and privileged benefits. Of all the nations on

earth,onlyIsraelisstillconsideredamemberofthedemocraticcountriesclub

evenasitdeprivesmillionsofpeopleoftheirfundamentalrights.OnlyIsraelis

allowedtoimprisonanotherpeopleinenclavesthatresembleaghettoandthen

claimtherighttoself-defencewhenthatsamepeoplefightsforitslibertyand

nationaldignity–ifattimesusingterroristmeans.OnlytheIsraeliprimeminis-

terisallowedtomakefalsecomparisonsbetweenotherstatesandnationsand

NaziGermany,demeaningthememoryoftheHolocaustanditsvictims,even

DimitryShumsky 26

as he protests against the identical kind of false comparison – between Nazi

GermanyandIsrael–suchastheonemadebyTurkishPresidentRecepTayyip

Erdogan.Arewetobesurprised,then,thatacountryenjoyingsuchprivilegein

theinternationalcommunityhasawakenedheftyandongoingwavesofhatred

against itself? Should a state that seems to stand above international law and

provokestheworldoveritsinternationalconduct–particularlythepublicopin-

ion of democratic countries – be permitted to be adjudicated outside interna-

tionallaw?

HatredoftheStateofIsraelinourtimes–whichfrequentlyspillsoverinto

hatredofJews,wherevertheybe–indirectlypointsatafundamentalfailurein

the fulfilment of Zionism.This failure, which contains within it an existential

dangertotheJewishpeople’sstatusthroughouttheworld,isjustasbadasthe

one Herzl saw in his own day as the basis of modern anti-Semitism. Its main

componentisthefailureofIsrael,whichhasneverfullyintegratedintothefam-

ilyofnationsduetotheintolerableanomalyofitsciviloppressionandnational

subjugationofPalestinians,whichareperpetratedunderthebannerofdemoc-

racyandfreedom.Themoreprofoundlythisanomalybecomesentrenched,the

stronger the trend of banishing Israel and ostracising it from the internation-

alcommunitywillgrow,coextensivelywithZionism’sfailuretobringtheJews’

anomalouspoliticalstatusinlinewiththatoftherestofthenations.Thisanom-

aly–ofasupposedrighttobeoccupiersandyetbethoughtenlightened–en-

dangers Israel’s status and sabotages the Zionist normalisation project of the

Jewishpeople.And,sinceitisgrowingevenstrongerundertheNetanyahu,Ben-

nett, and Lieberman government, which sees itself as impeccably Zionist, one

couldsaythatthisgovernmentistherealbetrayeroftheZionistidea.

InordertoovercomethisanomalyandfulfiltheconstitutiveZionistaspira-

tion of normalising the existence of the Jewish people in Israel/Palestine, we

need to shift from the contemporary dominant interpretation of Zionism,

which has been premised on ethnic separation, exclusive Jewish sovereignty

and ownership, and the denial of Palestinian identity and rights to a pre-1948

Zionism, which favours “binationalism” (or, rather, the multinational democ-

racy) as the constitutional pattern upon which the Jewish State is to be built,

and promotes joint ownership, integration, and coexistence. Indeed, and as I

willexplainbelow,theshifttothisold-newlogicdoesnot,bydefinition,reject

thetwo-statesolution,butseekstobaseitondifferentvaluesandparameters.

TheAspirationtoNormalisation:RethinkingContemporaryZionistPolitics 27

Itisonlywhenthisold-newlogicisembracedandZionismisreconsideredand

rethoughtalongitspre-1948lines(asanin-depthanalysisofthepoliticalwrit-

ingsofthefoundingfathersofmodernZionismshows),onlythencanwestart

normalisingJewishlifeintheregion.

Iwillnowbrieflyexplainfewimportantcharacteristicsofthisold-newZion-

istlogicandinterpretation,whichcallsforadiscussionofthelinkagebetween

the Zionist thrust and the so-called “two-state solution”.The “two-state solu-

tion”postulatestheestablishmentoftwoclassicalethno-nationalprototypesof

nation-states, whereby their constitutive national groups monopolise the pro-

vision and regulation of communal and cultural rights. Still, it is also possible

that the two people’s political elites will agree to divide Palestine/the Land of

Israel into two countries that are not quintessential nation-states, but rather

into states that recognise the communal rights of the other nation’s minority

residingintheirterritory.Anotherpossibilityisthattheywoulddecidetodivide

thelandintotwonation-states,asmostresidentsoftheLandofIsrael/Palestine

currently wish, according to the latest surveys. However, either way, any divi-

sionofsovereigntybetweentheIsraeli-JewishnationandthePalestinian-Arab

nationintheLandofIsrael/Palestine,includingtheoptionofdividingtheland,

depends on recognising the fact that the land itself is binational: both Israeli-

JewishandPalestinian.Putgenerically,twopeoplecannotdivideupaproperty

unlesstheyareitsjointowners–inthesensethattheymutuallyrecogniseeach

other’s right to own the land as national groups.That is, dividing or portion-

ingupalandnecessitates,first,mutualrecognitionoftheirjointownershipof

theland.Themisfortuneisthatthevastmajorityofthosewhoswearallegiance

to the concept of “two states for two peoples” refuse to consider “binational-

ism”becauseithasbeentwistedintomeaninga“binationalstate”,ratherthan

themere oppositeof“division”,amisconceptionwhichshouldbereconsidered.

Two nations that inhabit one land will never agree to its division into two na-

tion-statesunlesstheyfirstacknowledgethatitisabinationalland.

Theadvantageofanarrangementnaturallystemmingfromthislogic–two

statesbuiltasconsociationaldemocraciesfavouringsharedsovereignties–on

thetwopolarsolutions“one-state”and“twostatesfortwopeople”isevident.

Each of these two solutions hides a speck of violence, be it institutional or de-

mographic, vis-à-vis the (bi)national reality between the Jordan River and the

Mediterranean. On the one hand, the “one-state” solution practically means

DimitryShumsky 28

the coercion of institutional standardisation on two nations – a measure that

radically alters the daily existence routine and increases the tensions and con-

flictsbetweenthem.Ontheotherhand,the“twostatesfortwopeoples”model

followingtheformulaoftwoethno-nationalstatesentails,inturn,theviolent

evacuation of some Jewish settlers in the West Bank, further expropriation of

Palestinians’ land inordertobolsterthesettlementblocs,andaseriousthreat

tothecivicandcivilstatusofthePalestiniancitizensof Israel,whosedemand

tofullandequalrightsmaybeencounteredwithmoreresolutecallsfortrans-

feralongthesloganof“GotoPalestine!”.Incontrast,thearrangementoftwo

consociational democracies would be based on the containment of the multi-

dimensionalrealityonbothsidesoftheGreenLine:thefoundationalprinciple

ofdivorceandseparation,whichhasbeendetrimentaltothelastcentury,would

bereplacedwiththecommonsenseofmoderationandadaptationtothecom-

plexityofthediversehumanexperiencethatcharacterisesthepresentcentury.

It is therefore essential that Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic negotiations be

conducted on the basis of a completely different logic than the one on which

theyhavebeenconductedsofar.Adivisionofthelandbetweenthetwonations

mustnotbediscusseduntiltheyagreethattheyhavejointownershipoverthe

land.Thismightrequireadifferentkindofpolitics,too;onethatdepartsfrom

the logic of political settlement between the parties’ respective political elites

and opens up the gates of historical reconciliation between the two nations.

Thereis,thus,hopethatsomedaysuchanarrangementwillbeputonthenego-

tiations’table,andthesooner,thebetter.

EngagingwithSovereigntyinIsrael/Palestine

Azar Dakwar

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has recently declared upfront:

“there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish se-

curitycontroloftheterritorywestoftheRiverJordan”.1Inotherwords,Israel’s

military occupation and sovereignty over the West Bank are here to stay. Very

few informed observers and scholars of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would

contest the claim that the current empirical constellation in Israel/Palestine is

thatofa“OneStateReality”or“SingleSovereigntyCondition”–Israeli-Jewish

parexcellence.TheunsuccessfulPalestinianattemptin2011togaininternation-

alpolitical recognitionatthe UNSecurityCouncilhasmarkedthebraindeath

of the “peace process”.The UN General Assembly vote in 2012 granted Pales-

tine “non-member state” status and was an important Palestinian psycholog-

ical and political win; but it has, alas, changed almost nothing in the material

and socio-political certainty of colonisation and discrimination in Israel/Pales-

tine. As dispossession and settler-colonisation in East Jerusalem and the West

Bankareeverincreasing,thereisnotmuchleftofthephysicalterritorialdivide

(letalonethenecessarypoliticalmobilisation/willnecessaryforrealisingaviable

two-state solution based on territorial partition). In effect, Palestinians and Is-

raeli-Jewsarelivingtogetherinarealityofspatialandbi-nationalheterogeneity,

whichfurtherjeopardisesthe“twoexclusivenation-statesfortwopeople”reci-

pewhichbegsnationalhomogeneityanddemographicseparation.

Inthepasttenyears,numerousdedicatedIsraeliandPalestinianscholarsand

commentators have argued that one of the paramount generators of the con-

flict’s intractability is not concerned with the “state(s) formula/arrangement”

asasolution.Onecaneasilyenvisageaone-statesolutionwithrampantIsraeli

colonisation and discrimination, or two states without a truly sovereign Pales-

tinianstate(subordinatedtoefficientandcomplexcontrolarrangements),and

withrenewedinternalcolonisationinsideIsrael(asobservedintheNaqab/Ne-

gevarea).Thisanalysisdoesnotdisqualifythesoundempiricsofstatesaspow-

erful,andcrucial, institutionalframeworksshapingpoliticaloptions,thedistri-

butionofresourcesandpeople’sindividualandcollectiverights.However,itis

AzarDakwar 30

the content and context of these institutional arrangements that we must dis-

cussaswellastheirabilitytocorrespondwithfairdistributionofresourcesand

equal individual and collective rights. With the waning of the “peace process”,

therelevanceofanddesireforaPalestinianstatesovereigntyhasbeenreceding

formanyPalestiniansasoneworthbeingpursuedasacoreandorganisingpo-

liticalobjective.TheywishtogetridofIsraelioccupation,butnotnecessarilyto

surgicallydividethelandifthisdivisionseverelycompromisestheirpoliticaland

historicalindividualandcollectiverights.EndingtheIsraelimilitaryoccupation

and colonisation and enjoying self-determination, besides realising justice for

therefugees,remaincentralalongwithastrongattachmenttotheland.

Thestate isamostmeaningfulunitofanalysis inthemodernpoliticalreal-

ity,yetitliesinaconceptualfieldandepistemicdiscoursewhichareintimately

relatedtosovereignty;forwhatmakesastateastate?Inthissense,ourmodern

and conventional will to political knowledge is intertwined with the idea and

perception of sovereignty from the start.The relationship between questions

ofsovereignty(practicallyunderstoodastheexclusiveandabsolutepracticeof

authority) and questions of knowledge are more interlinked than what com-

monwisdomrevealsorenablesustoimagine.Theverydivideininternational

discourseonIsrael/Palestine,betweenwhatisposedasapoliticalquestionand

whatthediscoursequalifiesasapoliticalistheresultofaregimentedpoliticsof

truthandknowledgegenerationorchestratedbypowerfulinternationalagents

and dishonest peace brokers. These actors are increasingly put under public

scrutinyandarethuscalledupontorethinkandrevisetheir“peacepromotion”

policies.Avoiding,temporarily,thedirectquestionofthe“process”requiredfor

endingtheIsraelioccupation,andinsteadaskingabouthowitwasspokenofor

deployed throughout the last three decades might help in the rethinking task.

The“process”hasbasicallyservedasacoverfortransforming,andhas in itself

facilitatedtwisting,thematerialrealitybeyondwhatwaspresumedbytheorigi-

nalintentionanddiscourseoftheprocess:viabletwo-statesbasedonterritorial

partition.Oncethisincongruitybetweentheempiricalrealityandthepredomi-

nant discourse on solutions is realised, the rethinking imperative becomes un-

avoidable, both morally and politically. Connecting the answer to this enquiry

with the difficulty of speaking of and knowing what the hypothetical Palestin-

iansovereigntydenotesnowadayswhentalkingaboutthe“two-statesolution”

might open up vistas of alternative, practical, and valid solutions. Increased

EngagingwithSovereigntyinIsrael/Palestine 31

attentionshouldalsobedevotedtothediscourseonpower inthePalestinian-

Israeli conflict, which is usually bracketed and as such serves as a strategy for

concealingrealpowerrelationsandsilencingdailygrievances.Broadlyspeaking,

the discourse on sovereignty is a discourse on power, but that does not imply

thatweoughttoacceptitsreductiontoanexpressionoffactualpowerrelations

ortoapracticeofconcealment.

Israel’s Ministry of Housing and Construction has recently launched an of-

ficialwebsiteformarketinghousingunits intheStateof Israel,demarcatedas

theentirepolitybetweentheJordanRiverandtheMediterraneanSea.Thesup-

plementedmapandthezonedareasthereincontainnomentionoftheGreen

LineoranyreferencetotheCivilAdministrationintheoccupiedPalestinianTer-

ritories (oPT)(theresponsible instancefor landandhousingmatters). It turns

out that marketing housing units for Jews in the illegally confiscated lands of

theWestBankisdelegatedtotherespectiveresponsiblebodyin“Israelproper”–

Israel Land Authority.2 Anthony Giddens has pointed out that “sovereignty si-

multaneouslyprovidesanorderingprincipleforwhatis“internal”tostatesand

whatis“external”tothem”.Thisdoubleandconstitutivecharacterofsovereign-

tyisaprinciple,ifnottheprinciple,of legitimacypeculiartothemoderninter-

nationalorder/system.Israel’ssovereigntyintheoPTappearsnottofloatfreeof

itsinstancesinthe“domestic”and“international”spheres.Rather,itcutsacross

these levels of observation and analysis, and is probably the condition behind

their simultaneous separation (e.g. “autonomous Palestinian Authority”) and

interdependence (e.g. sweeping Israeli control over Palestinian land and bio-

politics). Put differently, Israeli sovereignty performs a crucial logical link be-

tweenwhatIsraelportraysasPalestinianubiquitousdisorderandviolenceand

itsimmanentsubjugationandimposedillegitimateorderoverPalestinians.

Despite serious recent attempts to rethink and differently reconceptualise

sovereignty, the paradigmatic and customary understanding of sovereignty in

internationallawonIsrael/Palestinehashardlychanged.Itislargelytreatedas

“themonopolyoverterritory”.Thereis littledoubtthatsuchanimperialunder-

standing is anachronistic and does not correspond with the fundamental revi-

sionsandrequirementsofthenotionsandpracticesofdemocracyandjusticein

thecaseofIsrael/Palestine.Therelationshipbetweentherulerandtheruledin

whateverpowerconstellationofauthorityisnormativelyboundtobeexamined

through the concept of legitimacy, be it input legitimacy and accountability

AzarDakwar 32

(responsiveness to the representation and plurality of represented interests of

those affected) or output legitimacy (enhancing problem-solving capacities of

therulingpowerforthebenefitofthoseruledby it).Whileguardiansof inter-

nationallawaresupposedtoactunambiguouslyuponIsrael’sferociousoccupa-

tion,howeversuspendedbytheeverlasting“peaceprocess”,theadjudicationof

de-factoIsrael’sillegitimatesovereigntybytheseactorsisquiteaclumsymatter.

International law and sovereignty seem to be disjointed, if not incommensu-

rableat theoperational juridical level.Therefore, for internationalactors inter-

estedinupholdinginternationallawandresolvingtheconflict,itisimperative

toquestionthepracticesofIsraelisovereigntyintheoPTandmobilisepolitical

pressuresinsolidarityandsupportoftheimmediateandbasicneedsandrights

ofthePalestiniansubjectswithstandingitsappropriativeandeliminatorythrust.

In accordance with comparative studies on materialisations of sovereignty,

one could claim that without a proper mode of knowledge to render it intelli-

gible,theabsoluteandexclusiveIsraeliauthorityovertheentirelandandpeople

betweentheJordanRiverandtheMediterraneanSeacannotexist,andlosesits

capacitytoorganisepoliticalrealitythroughademarcationofitsspatialoreth-

nicreferents:insidefromoutside;“same”from“other”.

It is my contention, therefore, that it is time to depart from statist sover-

eignty containers as the organising principle for the imposed Israeli oppres-

sion,ortheinternationalconflict-resolutionefforts.UnpackingIsrael’sexclusive

statesovereignty,hence,isanepistemictaskthatcouldinvigoratelatentpoliti-

calforcesagainstthecurrentactualityofdirerealitiesonthegroundaswellas

againstthedespairandtragicfutilityonpartoftheoppressed.Thistaskprom-

ises to un-bracket questions of burning immediacy to Palestinian well-being:

property rights, access to water and natural resources, economic exploitation,

freedomofmovementandaccountability.It isalsoimportanttoacknowledge

the constraining effect of this protracted conflict on Israel/Palestine’s peoples’

allegiances,perceptions,andsocio-culturalautonomy.

The aforementioned conditions and observations bespeak an alternative

notionofsovereignty–onethatguaranteesthenationalandindividualrights

as well as the cultural habitus of the peoples of Israel/Palestine. In short, it

is time to problematize a modicum of sovereign rights of the Jews and Arabs

in Israel/Palestine along non-statist logic; one grounded in norms of reci-

procity, respect, bi-nationalism and egalitarian democracy, and in an ethos of

EngagingwithSovereigntyinIsrael/Palestine 33

decolonisation and human dignity.The above endeavours must start from an

analysisofthepresentandexplaintheformationofthispresentintermsofits

past–notintermsoftellingwhatactuallyhappenedinthepast,butdescribing

how the present became logically possible, and thus optimising interventions

aimedatinstillingjusticeandpeaceamongthepeopleofIsrael/Palestine.

1 Read more at: <http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-gaza-conflict-proves-israel-cant-

relinquish-control-of-west-bank/#ixzz3FC6j4Txd> (last accessed on October 3, 2014).

2 More details at: <http://www.haaretz.co.il/captain/net/.premium-1.2441158> [Hebrew];

http://www.land.gov.il/static/start.asp [Hebrew] (last accessed on October 3, 2014).

NewHorizons

Inbal Arnon

Iwritethisinthebloodyaftermathofthesummer2014waronGaza.Over2000

Palestinianshavelosttheirlives,64Israelisoldiers,and3Israelicivilians.Weeks

of indiscriminatebombingshave leftGaza indevastation–countlessof inno-

cents killed and injured, the infrastructure completely ruined, no regular out-

flowofelectricityorwater–aman-madecatastrophe.Israel’salready-neglect-

edsouthhassufferednumerousHamasrocketattacks,leadingittoacomplete

economicparalysis.Andtherecentracistandanti-democraticrhetoricinIsrael

islikenothingIhaveseenbefore.Compassionfortheotherisseenasanactof

treason,PalestiniansinsideIsraelarebeingfiredforopposingthewar,andleft-

wingdemonstratorsarebeatenupandpubliclyostracised.Thesearebaddays

foranyonewhobelievesinadifferentfuture.Andyet,itispreciselyatthismo-

mentofdeepcrisisthatalternativevisionsaremostneeded.Twentyyearsafter

theOsloAccords,ajustandviabletwo-statesolutionisfarfrommaterialising.

The past twenty years have deepened the oppression and inequality, strength-

ened Israel’s control over the Palestinians, and provided neither lasting secu-

rity for the Israelis nor freedom, independence, or dignity for the Palestinians.

Twenty years after the Oslo Accords, and we find ourselves in a political dead-

lock.

What caused this deadlock? And how can we move forward to a better

futureforthetwopeoples?

Iwasbornandraised inIsrael,andgrewupinapoliticalhousethatactive-

ly opposed the occupation, believing that the only way forward is a just two-

statesolution.However,overthepastfewyears,andafterdiscussionswithlike-

mindedPalestiniansandIsraeli-Jews,Ihavecometorealisetheneedforamuch

broader paradigm shift.That is, a political framework whose starting point is

notaparticular implementation,butasetofprinciplesthatguaranteesthe in-

dividual and collective rights, interests, and identities of the two people. A set

ofprinciplesacknowledgingthereligiousandhistoricaltiesofbothpeoplesto

theentiretyofhistoricPalestine;asetofprinciplesacknowledgingthatboththe

Palestinian and Israeli-Jewish collectives should have a legitimate presence in

NewHorizons 35

theMiddleEast;principlesacknowledgingthatneitherofthetwopeoplescan

haveexclusiveprivilegesorsovereigntyovertheentireland.

Whyisthelogicofseparation–endorsedpracticallyandrhetoricallyinthe

Oslo Accords, and championed by many Israeli Jews – so problematic? On a

practicallevel,itignoresthefactthatthelivesofthetwopeoplesaregeographi-

callyintertwinedandignoresthefateofthePalestiniansinsideIsrael.Italsoig-

nores the history of the conflict, and, particularly, the Nakba and the 1948 ref-

ugees.Talking about two states, one Jewish and one Palestinian, ignores the

bi-nationalrealityontheground–thefactthat20%ofthepopulationinside

Israel is not Jewish.These omissions have serious consequences: the logic of

separation, of construing the other as the enemy and peace as a divorce pro-

cess, isreflectedinthegrowingracismanddiscriminationagainstPalestinians

insideIsrael,andtheincreasingmarginalisationofanyonedissentingfromthis

position.

On a more conceptual level, separation in and of itself does not guarantee

theindividualandcollectiverightsofthetwopeoples.Thetwo-statesolution–

asassumedimplicitly intheOsloAccordsandtheyearssince–hasfailed,not

onlybecauseitsimplementationwasflawed,butalsobecauseitdidnotaddress

severalfundamentalissues:(a)itdidnotresolveorrectifytheinherentpolitical

andeconomicasymmetrybetweenthetwosides, (b) itdidnotaddressthebi-

nationalrealityinsideIsrael,(c)itdidnotresolvetherefugeeproblem,and(d)

itdidnotprovidethesideswithanacknowledgementofthelegitimacyofboth

collectivestoliveintheregion.Alloftheseconcernscanbeaddressedbymov-

ingtoaprinciples-governedsolution,wherebythemainpriorityistoensurethe

individual,collective,andnationalrightsofallthoselivingbetweentheJordan

RiverandtheMediterraneanSea.

What could this alternative paradigm look like? And why would Israelis be

interested in promoting it? For while the status quo is devastating for the Pal-

estinians, Israel, at least on the surface, has not suffered from it. On the con-

trary,Israelhasgainedbothrelativesecurityandadditionallandandresources.

However,onadeeperlevel,onlymutualrecognition,andafairandjustsolution,

canofferIsrael,andIsraelis,along-termandviablepresenceintheMiddleEast.

Ibelieve,andhope,thatthisunderstanding,whichhasseemedsoalientocon-

temporary Israeli public opinion, is slowly gaining ground. For the only future

theIsraeligovernmentoffersitscitizensisoneofperpetualbloodshed,war,and

InbalArnon 36

violence–aconstantstruggleagainsttheentireMiddleEast.Thisvision,com-

binedwiththegrowing internaleconomicdifficulties,poverty,anddecreasing

trustinthegovernment,mayslowlypushpeopletolookforadifferenthorizon.

Whatcouldthathorizonlooklike?Itwouldhavetostartfromtherecogni-

tionthatthelandbetweentheMediterraneanSeaandtheJordanRiverishome

totwopeoples,bothofwhomdeservetoliveindignityandpeace,andneither

ofwhomisentitledtoexclusiveprivileges.Thishorizonwouldhavepolitical,so-

cial,andindividualcomponents.Thepoliticalarrangementwillhavetoberefor-

mulatedandrethought,butseemstopointinthedirectionofaconfederation

of two national entities – with a recognised bi-national reality.The economic

relationsbetweentheentitieswillaimatreducingthedisparityinlivingcondi-

tionsbetweenthetwoeconomies.Onasociallevel,thehorizonofferedtothe

twopeopleswillemphasisesocialjustice,closetosocial-democraticperspective,

wherebythestateensuresthewellbeingofitscitizens,theireducation,health,

housing,andothersocialrights.Onanindividuallevel,thebasicunderstanding

isthatallhumanbeingsarebornequal,andthatalldeserveequalrights,regard-

less of nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sex. Unlike the Oslo Accords,

andmanyotherpoliticalarrangements,thishorizonoffersaholisticvision:one

thataddressesnotonlytherelationsbetweenthetwonationalmovements,but

alsothosebetweenthecitizensthemselvesaswellasthosebetweenthecitizens

andtheirgoverningbodies.Itisafar-reaching,“greatvision”,butitmayoffera

morehopefulandlastingfutureforIsraelisandPalestiniansalike.

NewParadigmforIsrael/Palestine

Leila Farsakh

For the past twenty years, the two-state solution has been the internationally

endorsedsolutiontotheIsraeli-Palestinianconflict,andhasbeenthebasisfor

Israeli-Palestinianmutualrecognition.Yet,witheveryIsraeliofficialacceptance

of the rights of the Palestinians to their own state, Israel has constructed new

settlements on the occupied Palestinian lands. Today, more than half a mil-

lionIsraelisettlersliveintheWestBank,includingtheoccupiedEastJerusalem,

whichfurtherfragmentsthePalestinianterritorialintegritythattheOslopeace

process promised but failed to protect. After twenty years of the Oslo peace

process, the Palestinians find themselves far from independence.They are fur-

therenclosedinpopulationenclavessurroundedbya703kmseparationbarrier,

whichtheycannotcrosswithoutapermitfromtheIsraelimilitarycommander.

Thepromiseofatwo-statesolutionhasmetamorphosedintothenightmareof

anapartheidreality.

ThinkingofalternativestopartitioninIsrael/Palestinehasneverbeenasur-

gent as it is today. It is necessary because the two-state solution has been de-

stroyed under the weight of an unequal and discriminatory one-state reality.

Israel continues to control people’s movements, as much as it does their land,

regardless of whether they live inside the 1948 borders or beyond them, and

whereby Palestinians cannot move freely as Israelis do.There is one sovereign

andlegalauthoritythatrulesoverthespacefromtherivertothesea,butone

that is partly based on democratic rules applied on Israeli citizens, be they set-

tlersorresidentsofTelAviv,andpartlydefinedbymilitaryordersappliedonPal-

estinians,andwhichcontinuetodemarcatetheirspace.

Moreover, there is only one economy that engulfs both Israel and the Pal-

estinianterritories:itisdominatedbyIsraelicapital,benefitsIsraelilabour,and

onefromwhichPalestiniansintheWestBankandGazacannotviablyseparate.

90% of Palestinian exports go towards Israel and 70% of their imports come

from Israel.The siege on Gaza has forced it to develop an entire tunnel-econ-

omyconnectedtoEgypt,barelyallowingGazatosurvive.Gaza’sair, land,and

seaaccessremainsunderIsraelimilitarycontrol.Beforethelatestwar,athirdof

LeilaFarsakh 38

Gaza’s population lived in poverty and 70% of its population still received aid.

In2013,unemploymentwasover30%,comparedto18%intheWestBank,and,

in2014,per-capitaincomeinGazaislowerthanitusedtobein1993,andishalf

ofthatoftheWestBank.By2025,theGazaStripwillbeecologicallyuntenable,

giventheweightofitspopulationgrowthandstrangulatedeconomy.TheWest

Bankhasknowngrowth(or,rather,unsustainablegrowthbubbles)onlythanks

tothegenerousdonationsoftheinternationalcommunity,whichhasbeenpro-

vidingitwithover$1.1billionperyearsince2000.Furthermore,andsince1993,

theEuropeancommunityalonehasgiventheoccupiedterritoriessixbillionEu-

ros, indirectly subsidising an occupation that it, along with international law,

haddefinedasillegal.

However,eversincethefailureoftheCampDavidnegotiationsbetweenthe

PLO and the State of Israel in 2000, which was followed by a debilitating vio-

lence,agrowingnumberofscholars,activists,andpoliticianshavecalledfora

paradigmatic shift in resolving the ongoing conflict.They have been advocat-

ing alternatives to partition that promote rights, rather than statehood per se,

in any discussion in that regard. Such a rights-based approach is necessary be-

causetheprojectofaviablePalestinianstatehasbeendestroyed.Itisinevitable

becausethepresentone-staterealityisdangeroustoallitsresidents.Itisethical

becauseitdoesnotseektoremedyaninjusticewithanotherformofoppression.

Itcanberealisticbecauseitneithernegateshistoricaldevelopmentsnoraspires

to an unattainable ideal. It is founded on principles that acknowledge individ-

ualandcollectiverightsofPalestiniansandIsraelis,withoutgivingprecedence

toonegroupoveranother.It isnotboundtoaspecific,territorialsolution,for

itprioritisespolitical rightsoverquestionsof territorialsovereignty. Itprotects

boththePalestinianandIsraelirighttoself-determination,basednotonmere

territorialtermsbutonademocratic, inclusivepolity,beitbi-national,confed-

erate,two-states,orone-state.

FromaPalestinianperspective,thisalternativetopartitionrespectstheunity

of the Palestinian body politics without fragmenting it as the Oslo Peace Pro-

cesshas.Itguaranteestherightoftherefugeestoreturnwithoutinfringingon

therightsoftheland’spresentinhabitants.ItprotectstherightsofPalestinian

citizensofIsrael,whosecollectiverightshavelongbeendeniedandabsentfrom

anypoliticalequation.ItallowsthePalestiniansofGaza,astheWestBankers,to

bereconnectedwiththeirbrethrenandtomovefreelyintheirland.Politically,it

NewParadigmforIsrael/Palestine 39

providesameanstoacknowledgeJewishattachmenttotheland,basedonthe

principle of political equality, rather than on the superiority of Israeli security

considerationsoverPalestinianbasichumanandpoliticalrights.Inthisrespect,

itpushesthePalestinianpolitical leadershiptorethinkits ideaofademocratic

state,whichitproposedinthe1970s,inwaysthatinclude,ratherthanabstract

the“other”.Thechallenge lies,however,withinthePalestinian leadership’sca-

pability of such generosity when bombs continue to fall on Gaza, when Pales-

tinian citizens of Israel are still discriminated against, and refugees relive their

traumastimesandagain.

Inthisregard,theEUhasanimportantroletoplay.PeaceinIsrael/Palestine

isofvitalimportancetoitsinterestinregionalstabilityandsecurityintheMedi-

terranean.TheEUisbestplacedtoupholdinternationallawandholdIsraelac-

countable to it. It is most capable of engaging the Palestinian and Israeli lead-

ershipinthinkingofalternativemodelsofstatehood.Furthermore,itcanhelp

address the challenges that stand in the way of implementing a rights-based

alternativetopartition,namelycreatingalegal infrastructurethatcansupport

it.For, justasUNresolutions181and242formthe international legalbasis for

a two-state solution, a new resolution could create the legal foundation for a

stateforallofitscitizens,beitabinationaloraconfederatestate.TheEUknows

toowellthescaresofpartitionandtheremedyofeconomicandpoliticalunion.

Ithasbothhistoricalresponsibilityandtheeconomicclouttodefendtheright

ofalltoequalpoliticalrights.

ThereisHopebeyondDespairandPartition

Avraham Burg

TheMiddleEasthasundergoneaseriesofdramatic,tectonicchangesinrecent

years.TheIsraeli-Palestinianconflict,whichinthepastservedasthefocalpoint

of regional tensions, is becoming just one of a number of regional and global

challenges whose solution is very critical today as a vital part of new balances

ofpowerandalliances.Twoquestionsarisefromthesemajorchanges:whyare

nottheIsraeliandPalestiniansocietiesexperiencingsuch“game-changing”tur-

bulence?Andwhyisnotaresolutepoliticalforceemergingfromthestatusquo

demandingtheacceptanceofcomprehensivesolutionthatwouldopenanew

chapterintherelationsbetweenthepeoples?

Thesetwoquestionsareclearlytiedtogetherandrequireprofoundandcriti-

calinvestigationsofthepolitics,sociologyandstrategyofbothsocieties.How-

ever,myanalysiswillfocusontheIsraelisideonly.Withanin-depthlookatthe

rootsoftheIsraelistrategy;tryingtounderstandwhyalloftheeffortstoresolve

theconflicthavefailedsofar.AtleastfromtheIsraeliperspective,theansweris

clear:Israel’scurrentpoliticalanddiplomaticoutlookpreventsitfromreaching

afairandfinalagreement.IfonlybecauseofthefactthatmostoftheJewishpo-

liticalsysteminIsraelisdrivenbytheZionistidea.Theprevailinginterpretation

oftheideacontainsbuilt-inobstacles.Itisfocusedonitself,onsolvingtheexis-

tentialproblemsoftheJewishpeople,without“conversation”tools,acommit-

ment,orconnectionwiththesurroundingswherethesolutionsmustbefound.

Inthissense,Israelisatypeofpsychological“ghetto”thatmakesithardforits

inhabitants to venture beyond its subliminal walls.The Israeli political leader-

shipknowsthetruth,buthasbeen loathtocontendwiththesebasicnational

strategicchallenges.This leadershipfinds ithardtoadmit thatduringthefirst

sevendecadesofthestate’slife,insufficienteffortsweremadetoavoidreaching

thecurrentreality.Atthesametime,themechanismsofobliviousness,separa-

tion,andfalsesymmetrythatforgedthisrealityhavegrownmorepowerfuland

dominant.IwillbrieflyexplainthesemechanismsbeforeIofferastrategicalter-

native.

ThereisHopebeyondDespairandPartition 41

Obliviousness

Almost since its inception, Zionism adopted obliviousness and disregard to

otherpeople’spresenceasitsstrategy.Thestatement“alandwithoutapeople

forapeoplewithoutaland”marksitsonset.Rootedinthethen-predominant,

European arrogant approach towards the entire East, it was only natural that

thisattitudewouldflourish intheheartsandmindsofmanycolonialists, Jew-

ishandWesternalike.However,whilethisattitudewasdroppedwiththeend

ofthecolonialistera,itstillexistsinIsrael;disregardfortheexistenceofthePal-

estinianpeopleandtheirdesirescontinuestothisveryday.Thisattitudegrew

evenstrongerwiththeestablishmentofthestateandwasblatantlyexpressed

inthelegalandpoliticalattitudetoward“presentabsentees”–thePalestinian

citizensofIsraelwhowereuprootedfromtheirhomesduringthe1948warand

definedintheAbsenteePropertyLawasabsentees(andwhosepropertywasex-

propriated) despite their actual presence in Israel. Later, prime ministers of Is-

raelGoldaMeir,EhudBarak,andArielSharonwould,respectively,grumblethat

“thereisnosuchthingasaPalestinianpeople”,determinethat“thereisnopart-

ner”,andunilaterallywithdrawfromGazabecause“thereisnoonetoleavethe

keyswith”.

Flourishing communities were established on the ruins of demolished vil-

lages,holysiteswereleftinastateofneglectorconvertedforuseasunhallow-

edground,andisolatedfencesofpricklypearcactiremainmutedtestamentsto

thememoriesofdisregardedpeople.Themechanismsofforgettingdidimpres-

siveworkinerasingthePalestinianpresencefromthelivesofIsraeliJewswithin

Israel(Proper)–theGreenLineborders.However,theSix-DayWarandtheoc-

cupied territories resuscitated all that the Israelis had managed to bury within

theirsideoftheborder,andhighlightedtheproblemsof1948inIsraelilife.And,

ever since then, the question in its entirety is expressed in every possible way:

indiplomacyandreality,attheKnessetandRamallah,intheinternationalarena

andGaza.Thus,weobsessivelyengageinsimultaneouslyforgettingandremin-

ding–withoutbeingabletoapproachtheachingcore,facingthefactsandhis-

tory,andwithouttryingtorepairthefuturewithoutcreatingnewinjustices.

Furthermore, Israeli governments have tried to extend their policy of disre-

gardingArabstotheOccupiedTerritories.TheJewish-only“bypassroads”, the

separation wall, complementing thousands of additional kilometers of fences,

AvrahamBurg 42

minefields,andwarninganddeterrentsystemsarealldesignedtoachievetwo

objectives:tocontinueconcealingtheproblemfromIsraelieyes;andtoperpe-

tuate another mistaken, decades-old strategic guideline – partition between

thepeoples.

Separation

TheStateofIsraelwasfoundedbyvirtueofUNResolution181inNovember1947.

This decision was preceded by decades of countless declarations, committees

andplansmostsharedtheconceptofpartition.TheArabrejection,theresultsof

the1948warandthecircumstancescreatedonthegroundduringthecourseof

thefollowingsevendecadesdidnotleaveatraceoftheoriginalplan–except-

ingasingleword,thatis,whichwasadoptedasasweepingstrategy:partition.

TheprincipleofseparationwasplantedverydeeplyandbecametheguidingIs-

raeliprincipleinthespacebetweentheJordanRiverandtheMediterraneanSea.

DuringthefirsttwodecadesofIsrael’sexistence,mostIsraeliArabslivedun-

deramilitaryadministration,unlikethemajorityofIsraeliJews.Evenafterthe

military administration was lifted, full integration was not achieved.The state

budgetallocationsfortheArabpublic,forexample,aredisproportionatelysmall

anddiscriminating.And,whilethegenerallyhollowcitizenshipwasgrantedto

Palestinians living in Israel, theresidentsoftheterritorieshaveneithercitizen-

shipnorrights.Exclusionfromthepublicspaces,services,andpoliticalindepen-

denceremainsuncontested.

Furthermore,theoverwhelmingmajorityoftheJewishcitizensofIsraeldoes

notdistinguishbetweentheArabsof1948andthoseaddedtoIsraeliresponsi-

bility in 1967, perceived domestically as unequal citizens and externally as ene-

mies.Israelisdescribingtheirstateas“avillainajungle”explicitlydisplayssuch

attitudes;manyseetheirstate’sbelligerenceasessential,actingasalegitimate,

electric fence separating the imagined “civilisation” of the villa’s inhabitants

from the “barbarity” of the jungle dwellers, separating master from serf. And,

whilemanyvotersforleftistpartiesinIsraelwantpeace,theyseekitforitssepa-

ratist,ratherthanitsexistentialvalue.

ThereisHopebeyondDespairandPartition 43

Asymmetry

Disregard and separation enable the Israeli political soul to create a comfort-

ableillusionforitselfandtobelievethatthisillusionistheexclusivetruth.Many

Israelis developed a strange sense of equivalence, whereby the dispute is per-

ceived as one between equals. More precisely, although Palestinians in Israel

comprise a mere fifth of the population, and despite the fact that millions in

the territories have lived in a state of complete denial of rights for nearly fifty

years,manyIsraeliJewsfeelthatthereissymmetrybetweenthepeoples,asifit

wereadisputebetweenequals.However,there isnoparityatall. Israelishave

a state while the Palestinians are stateless. Israel has a strong and flourishing

economy while the majority of Palestinians suffer from systemic poverty.The

JewishstatehasabsolutepowerandthePalestinianpeoplebarelyhavetheright

andpowertoprotest.Briefly,thisisaglaringcaseofstrikingasymmetry.Thefic-

titioussenseofequalityenablesIsraelistoofferthemselvesreassuringcompari-

sonsabout“themostmoralarmyintheworld”and“theonlydemocracyinthe

MiddleEast”and“lookwhatishappeninginSyria”.

What’s next ?

Zionist thinking could only go as far as the Oslo Accords. And, while Oslo’s in-

tentionsweregood,itsoutcometestifiestoitsfailure.Basedon“partition”,the

Accords achieved their unconscious objective: a nearly ultimate separation be-

tweenthepeoples,diminishingsharedspacesandpointsofcontact.TheOslo

Accords fully exploited the capacity for disregard, separation, and asymmetry

betweenthepowerfulStateofIsraelandthePalestinianpeople.Itfailedtoful-

lypursuetheideaofthePalestinianstate(whichwouldbalancetheasymmetry

betweenthecollectives),anditfailedtorelinquishthemonopoliesoncontrol,

power, and separation. Moreover, distancing the Palestinian presence from Is-

raeliliferemovedtheissuefromeverydaypoliticallifeandweakenedthecamp

thatchampioneddialogue.Thus,Oslo,thegreatestpoliticalachievementofthe

peacecamp,engendereditsowndemise.

Whatshouldthenextstagebe,then,forthosestillcommittedtoapeaceful

solutionoftheconflict?Whilerealitylooksdepressing,itispreciselygreatdespair

andviolencethatrenderthismomentasripeforanalternative.Topotentiatea

AvrahamBurg 44

differentandgenuinepoliticalsolution,wemustadoptaparadigmwithadif-

ferent internal logic, based on inclusion and partnership. This paradigm will

generateadifferentrealityforthetwopeoples:neitherside–betweentheJor-

danRiverandtheMediterraneanSea–willhavemonopolyonpower,liberties,

resources,government,orterritory.TheabsoluteprivilegesforJewswillbedis-

mantled; an indiscriminate constitutional system and realm of justice will be

built;andequalrightsandfreedomsforallwillcomprisetheethicalbasis.Two

independentstateentitiesoftheJewishandPalestiniancollectiveswilloperate

accordingly,andabovethemwillpresideacoordinatingsuperstructure–acon-

federationwithagreed-uponauthoritiesandcapacities.

While“fatchance”willbetheautomaticresponseofmany,theoutcomeof

theexpectedsynergywillbelargerthanthesumofitsparts.Theproposedsys-

temwouldgeneratemorepeace,security,andstabilitythanpossiblyimagined

today: as soon as the walls of separation fall and the partition ends, new prin-

ciplesandpracticalhorizonswillopenforthetwopeoples.Lifewithoutbarriers

will indeed create new frictions, but will also spawn new partnerships and ac-

quaintanceshipsfacilitatinghope,cooperation,andbuilding.

DrawingPalestine,DrawingIsrael:GoingBeyondSeparation

Yonatan Mendel

IthitmeonEdgwareRoad. Iwasabout25,anewstudent intheMaster’spro-

gramme of SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies) who had heard so

muchaboutthisareaofLondon–“theclosestplacetotheMiddleEastoutside

the Middle East”. As a young Jewish Israeli for whom “the Arab world” had al-

ways been a threatening, unreachable concept, the Edgware Road solution –

withitsArabicbookshops,music,restaurantsandshishaplaces–wasapermis-

siblepathtofollow.There,sittinginthefirstLebaneserestaurantIcameacross,

I “got” it.The nice waitress who took the order wore a golden necklace with

a pendant of a map I knew well.The map had no flag or colours on it, but its

shapeleftnoroomformisunderstanding.Icouldfeelmyheartracing.Ididn’t

want to tell the waitress where I came from. And even though I tried to hide

it,Icouldn’ttakemyeyesoffhernecklace.Iatequickly,paid,anddisappeared,

hurryingbacktotheEdgwareRoadtubestation,bringingmyArabexperience

inLondontoaclosemuchearlierthanplanned.

ThatencounterontheEdgwareRoadhashauntedmeeversince. I remem-

bertryingtounderstandwhyagoldenmapontheneckofayoungPalestinian

womanmadeher,inmyeyes,my“enemy”,andan“extremist”;andwhyInever

thought that the same map, with the label “Israel” on it, could be considered

just as “hostile” and “extremist”.That same year, upon reading about “Census,

Map,Museum”inBenedictAnderson’sImagined Communities,itbecameclear-

ertomethatmapshadaconstitutiverole inthecreationoftheirusers’politi-

calimagination.Furthermore,asAndersonputsit,mapsrepresentedthespatial

conflictand,assuch,directlyimpactedthevocabularyofthetwosides’politics.

IntheIsraeli-Palestiniancontext,Irealised,themapisnotonlyabasisforanaly-

sisofa“politicalreality”,quiteafluidconceptonitsown,butalsoasourcefor

the axioms, fears and desires, logic and phobias, and political reading and his-

toricalperceptionsofthepeoplesusingthem.Thiscouldalsoexplainhowthe

“map of Palestine”/“map of Israel”, which Israelis and Palestinians draw in the

exactsameway,hasbecomeasymbolofbothashieldandasword:itexpresses

YonatanMendel 46

thedemandforone’sownrecognitionontheonehand,andsabotagestheoth-

er’sdemandfortheverysameontheother.

The Israeli authorities’ repeated accusation that the Palestinians do not ac-

knowledge the State of Israel on their maps (a recurrent element in what Is-

rael considers the Palestinian attempt to “delegitimise” Israel and “an act of

terror”)usuallyculminatesinwhatIsraelconsidersas“incitement”:Palestinian

textbooksthat includethemapofhistoricPalestinewithoutmentionofIsrael.

However,theseaccusations,givenbythevastmajorityofIsraelis,losetheirvir-

tuewhenonelooksattheIsraelitextbooksorthemajorityofIsraelimaps(such

astheweathermapsintheleadingIsraelinewspapers)inwhichthemapofIsra-

elisdrawnwithnoindicationoftheexistenceofPalestine,nosignoftheGreen

Line,andnomentionof“TheOccupiedTerritories”,letalonethewords“Pales-

tine”or“ThePalestinianAuthority”.

Each side’s take on the map generated a unique way of negotiations over

theland.Strikingly, inallnegotiations,fromtheOsloAccordstotheWyeRiver

Memorandum,fromtheCampDavidSummittotheRoadMap,fromtheSharm

al-SheikhMemorandumtotheAnnapolisConference,thedivisionoftheland

was always marked on the same map – the one known to both Israelis and

Palestinians–onwhichdifferent linesweredrawn.Neverhasamapof“post-

agreement Israel” or “post-agreement Palestine” been presented.This means

that the complicated sketches have been accepted only so long as they were

drawnonthesamefamiliarmapofhistoricPalestine.

Ioncetriedto imaginethefutureof IsraelandPalestine if theyweretobe

separatedintotwonation-states.Idrewthemapofthetwopost-agreementin-

dependentstates:of“IsraelwithoutPalestine”and“PalestinewithoutIsrael”.In

drawingthesemaps I followed what the media hasportrayedas theaccepted

principlesforanyfutureagreement(whichincludedIsraelmaintainingitshold

oftheJordanValleyandof“settlementsblocs”intheWestBankinexchangefor

territoriesaddedtothePalestinianstateintheGazaStripandaroadconnecting

theGazaStriptotheWestBank).Theresultwasthesetwomaps:

DrawingPalestine,DrawingIsrael:GoingBeyondSeparation 47

The State of Palestine The State of Israel

Sketches by Yonatan Mendel

It was weird to look at these two maps of the two “nation-states” of Pal-

estine and Israel for different reasons. Firstly, it made it crystal-clear that both

peoples never imagine themselves without the context of the familiar map of

historic Palestine. Secondly, these two maps highlighted, visually rather than

verbally, the impossibility of separation. It poses the question: for how long

would the independent and sovereign “State of Palestine”, as depicted on this

map, continue to be “swallowed up” by the “State of Israel” that surrounds it

onallsideswithoutgeneratinganotherroundofviolence?Anditalsomakesus

wonderwhethertheseparationofterritoriesbetweenthefuturestatesofIsra-

elandPalestineisatallpossibleconsideringtheirobviousintertwinementwith

one another.Thirdly, it is obvious that no Palestinian would ever draw “Pales-

tine”astheweirdmappresentedontheleftandnoIsraeliwoulddraw“Israel”

asthehollowedoutstateshownontheright.It isobviousthattheseparation

willnotbesustainableandwillalsonotcometogripswiththedeeperlayersof

theIsraeli-Palestinianconflict,includingcrucialdilemmassuchastherefugees,

YonatanMendel 48

theplaceofthePalestiniancitizensofIsraelfollowingthe“separation”,and,the

elephantintheroom–thequestionof1948.

Mostimportantly,thetwoimprobablemapsofthe“StateofPalestine”and

the “State of Israel” emphasise that building an agreement with the stones of

separation might result in a house, but not an enduring one.The arguments

againsta“purist”two-statesolutionmustthereforebereconsidered,alongwith

theideathatperhapsnosolutionisbetterthananunjustone,onethatdoesnot

dealwithdeeperlayersoftheconflict,andonewhichisnotsustainable.Onthe

otherhand,leapfroggingstraightintothe“one-statesolution”alsoencompass-

esaseriesofdifficulties,includingthecementingofapartheidrelationsbetween

JewsandArabs,thefearandhatredthatmayresultinviolenceandinternalsep-

aration,andalsoother,seriouscomplicationssuchastheJewish-Israelifearof

being a minority in a state shared with the Palestinian people, the Palestinian

desiretohaveanArab-PalestinianstatewithanArab-Palestinianidentity,sym-

bols, and language, as well as an Arab-Palestinian state that does not share a

polityofJewishandHebrewsymbols,ajointflag,andajointanthem,etc.

Theimprobabilityofseparationintotwostatesandthecurrentimpossibility

ofgenuineunificationintoonestatethereforerenderreasonableandpossiblea

setofsolutionsthathavebecomedominantinthelastdecadeorso.Attheba-

sisofallthese“outofthebox”solutions,however,liesoneprinciple:theshared

spacefromwhichanysolutionwillemergeandbeimplemented.Inthisshared

space, Palestinians and Israelis would apply a political settlement that may be

basedonautonomy,differentiationbetweencitizenshipsandresidencies,ona

unificationbetweentwostates,onaparallel-statessolution,onasolutionthat

allowsthetwostatestocomplementeachother,onaconfederation-basedso-

lution,agreementsthatwouldfacilitatethefreedomofmovementwithinthis

shared space, on dialectic relationships between the Jewish and Palestinian

entities,andsoon.Morethananything, theseagreementswill stemfromthe

recognition that both peoples use the same map of their homeland.This fact,

presented today as a source of concern, could serve as the key to the solution.

Hence,anagreementacknowledgingthissimple,symbioticrelationship,rather

thanthephysicalbarrierbetweenthestates,islikelytobetheonethatproduces

apeacefulandenduringsolution.

Buyingasandwichat“Tomer’sBread”bakeryinWestJerusalemin2014,Ire-

calledtheEdgwareRoadexperiencefromadecadeago.TheIsraeli-Jewishgirl

DrawingPalestine,DrawingIsrael:GoingBeyondSeparation 49

whotookmyorderwasalsowearingagoldennecklacewithapendantofamap

Iknewwell.Themaphadnoflagorcoloursonit,butitsshapeleftnoroomfor

misunderstanding. It was Israel for the Israeli-Jewish girlandPalestinefor the

Palestinianone.ThecontestedlandofhistoricPalestine,whichiswornaround

thenecksofbothJewsandPalestinians,inboththeirhomelandandthediaspo-

raisindeedthecurrentsourceofabloody,intractableconflict.Butjuxtaposing

thetwomaps,anddecidingtosharethislandratherthanpartitionit,couldbe

one courageous step towards solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, allowing

thetwogirlstowearthesamenecklacewithoutviewingeachotherasenemies.

TheUltimateActofPalestinianResistance

Sam Bahour

A call for political leadership

As the horrific carnage in Gaza slowly moves off the world’s headlines and all

theshockandoutcrythatreverberatedaroundtheglobeturnsitsattention,for

nowatleast,tothehealingandreconstructionprocessesandtothenextcurrent

affair,thePalestinianpolitical leadershiphasahistoricresponsibilityat itdoor-

steps.Itmusteitheractnoworstepdown.

After Secretary Kerry’s efforts folded into Israel’s latest aggression on Gaza,

andgiventhebackdropofthenewlyacquiredUNstatusfortheStateofPales-

tine,thereisnothingleftstoppingthePalestinianpoliticalleadershipfromtak-

ing the political initiative, one that will be a game changer that matches the

seismicshiftthathasjustemergedfromGaza.

WiththesystemiccrisisofthePalestinianpoliticalsystem–afrozenPales-

tine Liberation Organisation, the absence of a Palestine National Council and

PalestinianLegislativeCouncil,andabankruptPalestinianAuthority–Ifindit

necessarytocontributetocraftingapoliticalwayforward.

AlongwithaveteranBritishresearcherandanalystwithalong-termaffinity

with both Palestinians and Israelis, Tony Klug, the following carefully thought

outproposalwasofferedforconsideration.ItwaspublishedinAprilinFrance’s

Le Monde diplomatique. HereistheEnglishversion.

IfKerryFails,WhatThen?

Sam Bahour and Tony Klug

SupposetheUSSecretaryofState,JohnKerry,failstocajoletheIsraeliandPales-

tinianleadersintofinallyendingtheirconflict.Whatwouldhappennext?

A tsunami of pent-up animosities is likely to be unleashed, with each side

holding the other responsible for the failure and calling for retribution. At-

temptsto indictand isolateeachotherwouldgatherpaceandviolencemight

returnwithavengeance.Thetoxinsletloosewillinevitablyhaveglobalspillover.

For over twenty years process has trumped outcome, but it is now in dan-

gerofbeingout-trumpeditselfbythetotalcollapseoftheonlyinternationally

recognisedparadigmforasolutiontotheconflict.Anewinternationalstrategy

urgentlyneedstobedevisedandmadereadyasanalternativetotheprospect

of failed bilateral negotiations. Any such strategy should be rooted in a vision

oftheendgame,basedontheprinciplesofarapidendtotheIsraelioccupation

andequalitybetweenPalestiniansandIsraelis.

Our proposal takes as its starting point the need to resolve two crucial am-

biguitiesregardingIsrael’scontroloftheWestBankandGaza:itsruleoverthe

Palestinians and the colonisation of their land. Resolving these matters are es-

sentialtoachievingafinalresolutionoftheconflict.

First, is it, or is it not, an occupation? The entire world, including the US,

thinks it is, and therefore considers the Fourth Geneva Convention and other

relevant provisions of international law to apply.The Israeli government con-

teststhisontechnicalgrounds,arguingthattheGenevaConventionrelatesonly

tothesovereignterritoryofaHighContractingParty,andthatJordanandEgypt

didnothavelegal sovereigntyovertheWestBankandGazaStrip(respectively)

whentheypreviouslygovernedtheseterritories.

On the basis of this reasoning, Israel has maintained that the Geneva Con-

ventiondoesnotstrictlyapply,andthereforeitisnotlegallyforbiddenfroman-

nexing,expropriatingandpermanentlysettlingpartsoftheterritoryitcaptured

duringthe1967Arab-Israelwar.

But at other times, the Israeli authorities rely on the Geneva Convention

to validate its policies, particularly with regard to treating Palestinians under

SamBahourandTonyKlug 52

Israel’sjurisdictionbutoutsideitssovereignterritorydifferentlyfromIsraeliciti-

zens,citingtheprovisionsthatprohibitalteringthelegalstatusofanoccupied

territory’sinhabitants.

This ambiguity has served the occupying power well, enabling it to cherry-

pick the articles of the Geneva Convention and have the best of both worlds,

whiletheoccupiedpeoplehastheworstofthem.

Second,atwhatpointdoesanoccupationceasetobeanoccupationandbe-

comeapermanentorquasi-permanentstateofaffairs?Nearlyhalfacenturyon,

duringwhichtimesignificantalterationshavebeenmadetotheinfrastructure

oftheterritory,isitrealisticfortheIsraelioccupationstilltobedeemedsimply

an“occupation”,withitsconnotationoftemporariness?

Ourcontentionisthattheoccupyingpowershouldnolongerbeabletohave

itbothways.Thelawsofoccupationeitherapplyordonotapply.Ifitisanoccu-

pation,itisbeyondtimeforIsrael’scustodianship–supposedlyprovisional–to

bebroughttoanend.Ifitisnotanoccupation,thereisnojustificationfordeny-

ingequalrightstoeveryonewhoissubjecttoIsraelirule,whetherIsraeliorPal-

estinian.SuccessiveIsraeligovernmentshavegotawaywithacolossalblufffor

nearly47years.Itistimetocallthatbluffandcompeladecision.

TheIsraeligovernmentshouldbeputonnoticethat,bythe50thanniversary

oftheoccupation,itmustmakeupitsminddefinitivelyonewayortheother.A

halfacenturyissurelyenoughtimetodecide.ThiswouldgiveituntilJune2017

tomakeitschoicebetweenrelinquishingtheoccupiedterritory–eitherdirect-

lytothePalestiniansorpossiblytoatemporaryinternationaltrusteeshipinthe

first instance – or alternatively granting full and equal citizenship rights to ev-

eryonelivingunderitsjurisdiction.ShouldIsraelnotchoosethefirstoptionby

thetargetdate, itwouldbeopentothe internationalcommunitytodrawthe

conclusionthatitsgovernmenthadplumpedbydefaultforthesecondoptionof

civicequality.Othergovernments,individuallyorcollectively,andinternational

civilsociety,maythenfeelatlibertytoholdtheIsraeligovernmentaccountable

tothatbenchmark.Thethree-yearwindowwouldbelikelytowitnessvigorous

debatewithinIsraelandinducenewpoliticalcurrentsthatmaybemorecondu-

civetoaswiftandauthenticdealwiththePalestiniansovertwostates,probably

withintheframeworkofthe2002ArabPeaceInitiativeforwhichthereispolling

evidenceofgrowingsupportamongtheIsraelipopulation.

IfKerryFails,WhatThen? 53

Weneedtobreakfreeofthedivisiveandincreasinglystiflingone-state-ver-

sus-two-statesstraightjacketthattendstopolarisedebateandinpracticeends

upperpetuatingthestatusquo–whichisaformofonestate,albeitaninequit-

able one.The aim of our proposal is to bring matters to a head and to enable

peopletoadvocateequalrightsforPalestiniansandIsraelis,inoneformoran-

other,freeoftheimplicationthatthisnecessarilycarriesathreattotheexistence

ofthestateofIsrael.

Tobeclear,thisisnotacallforaunitarystate.HowIsraelisandPalestinians

wishtolivealongsideeachotherisforthemtodecideandtheindicationsstill

are that both peoples prefer to exercise their self-determination in their own

independentstates.Ourproposalwouldnotforeclosethisoption. Itwouldre-

main open to the Palestinians to continue to agitate for sovereignty over the

West Bank and Gaza, for a future Israeli government to relinquish these terri-

toriesand, inextremis, for theSecurityCouncil toenforcethecreationof two

statesthroughtheUNCharter’sChapterVIImechanism.However,untilthisis

finallydetermined,equaltreatmentshouldreplaceethnicdiscriminationasthe

legitimatedefaultpositionrecognisedbytheinternationalcommunity.

Asimilarprincipleshouldextendthroughouttheregion.ThestatelessPales-

tinians – not just the four million living under Israeli military occupation but

alsothefivemillionwhohavebeenlivingasrefugeesinthesurroundingstates

forthepast66years–sufferdiscriminationallovertheMiddleEast.Inalmost

every Arab state, their rights are severely curtailed and they are mostly denied

citizenship, even where they, their parents or their grandparents were born in

thecountry.Whatevermayhavebeentheoriginalexplanation,theircontinuing

limbostatusisshamefulsomanyyearson.

ThebottomlineisthatuntilthePalestinians,likethe[Israeli-Jews],achieve

their primary choice of self-determination in their own state (if ever they do),

they should no longer, in the modern era, be denied equal rights in whatever

landstheyinhabit[withoutforfeitinganyoftheirhistoricrights].Inthecaseof

Israeland its indefiniteoccupation,thismeansputtinganendtotheambigui-

tiesthathavelastedforfartoolong.

TheRisingCostsoftheStatusQuoinIsrael/Palestine

Noam Sheizaf

On November 2013, as the peace talks between Israeli and Palestinian nego-

tiators were failing to show any sign of progress, U.S. Secretary of State John

KerrysattoajointinterviewonIsraeliandPalestiniantelevision.Morethanfive

months before the process collapsed, Kerry was already showing frustration,

sendingwarningstotheIsraeliTVwatchers:“Thealternativetogettingbackto

thetalksisthepotentialofchaos”,saidKerry.“DoesIsraelwantathirdintifada?”.

Yet,evenKerryandhisteamprobablydidnotexpectthingstogosobadly,and

soquickly.AmonthandahalfafterIsraelleftthetalks(onthepretextofitsre-

fusal to negotiate with the newly-formed Palestinian national unity govern-

ment), three Israeli teens were kidnapped and later murdered by a rogue Pal-

estiniancell fromHebron. Israelusedthiseventtoconductatwo-weeks long

crackdownonHamas’politicalwing,charities,andcivilianinfrastructureinthe

West Bank (Operation “Brothers’ Keeper”), while gangs of right-wing Jews at-

tackedPalestiniansinsocalled“revenge”inoneincident,aPalestinianboyfrom

EastJerusalemwastorchedtodeath.

Inthemeantime,Israelwasalsosteppingupitsattackonmilitanttargetsin

Gaza;sothe localarmedgroupsfiredmoreandmorerocketsonIsraelitowns

andsettlementsaroundtheStrip.OnJuly8,2014,Israellauncheditssecondmil-

itaryoperationofthesummer–“ProtectiveEdge”–thistimeagainstHamasin

Gaza.Duringthemonth-longassault,2203Palestinians,mostofthemcivilians,

werekilled,alongwith70Israelis(mostlysoldiersandofficersthatdiedduring

thegroundinvasiontothestrip).ThousandsofrocketswerefiredonIsraelicit-

ies.Gazadescendedtoanotherhumanitariancrisis,withhalfamillionpeople

abandoning their homes during the fighting, and entire neighbourhoods de-

stroyed.Asthepartiesfinallyagreetoafragileceasefire,thisseemslikeasgood

asamomentascanbetore-examinesomeoftheideasthatguidedtheinterna-

tionalcommunityinitsengagementwiththeIsraeli-Palestinianconflict.

Surprisingly enough, throughout the recent crisis, from the kidnapping to

the end of the Gaza war, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu enjoyed

wall-to-wall support.The “pro-peace” opposition parties Meretz and Labour

TheRisingCostsoftheStatusQuoinIsrael/Palestine 55

mostlybackedthegovernment,andevenasthefightingsubsidedandmorecri-

tique of the government was voiced publicly, Netanyahu’s Likud party polled

significantlybetterthanitdidinthe2013generalelections.UnderstandingNe-

tanyahu’sappealiskeytoconfiguringthecurrentmoment.

Netanyahu is often blamed for not having a “Palestinian strategy”; howev-

er,thiscouldnotbeanyfurtherfromthetruth.AllofNetanyahu’spoliciesare

derivedfromthesameposition,whichperceivestheconflictwiththePalestin-

ians as unsolvable, and views the current status quo as the least-worst option

for Israel. Netanyahu’s strategy is the everlasting “conflict management”.This

strategy is designed to shield Israeli society from the effects of the occupation

while maintaining control over Palestinian lives and Palestinian politics.Thus,

changesareviewedasathreat.Netanyahuwillreluctantlyagreetomodifyhis

policiesonlywhenallotheroptionsareexhausted, includingthemilitaryones.

As recently demonstrated, Netanyahu would rather risk a rift with the Ameri-

canadministrationthanagreetomajorconcessionsinthepeacetalks;hewould

rathergotowarthanendthesiegeonGaza(ProtectiveEdgewasthethirdop-

erationofitskindinlessthansixyears).Inbothcases,thecostofchangeisseen

as greater than that of the current state of affairs on the ground, however im-

perfectthelattermaybe.MostIsraeli-Jewstendtoagreewiththeirprimemin-

isteronthisissue.ForthestatusquoisthecommondenominatoroftheIsraeli

politicalsystem:whilethesettlers’ leaderNaftaliBennetandtheJusticeMinis-

terTzipiLivnimightdisagreeonmanyissues,bothacceptthestatusquo.This

understandingallowsthemtositinthesamegovernment,astheydo.Butthis

goesbeyondpoliticalarrangements.Allknownformulasforafinalstatusagree-

ment–thetwo-statesolution,thesinglestatesolution,andaconfederacy/bi-

nationalmodel–requireIsraelistogiveupconsiderableassetsinthelandthey

control,toconfronttheirfierce, internalopposition,andtograntaformalsta-

tustoaPalestinianpoliticalpowerthatmightcontinuetochallengetheminthe

future.Thestatusquo’scosts,ontheotherhand,arepredictableandtolerable–

despitefrequentcondemnationsoveritsactions–Israelhasenjoyedprosperity

andrelativecalminrecentyears.

RegionalchangescontributedtotheIsraelireluctancetoreachasustainable

compromise with the Palestinian people.The disintegration of Arab countries

andtheIsraelipropagandisticuseandabuseofthisdisintegrationmakemany

Israelisbelievethat if Israel loosensupitscontroloverthePalestinians,similar

NoamSheizaf 56

chaos will ensue. At the same time, the turmoil allows Israel to form new alli-

ances that help it confront the Palestinian challenge – such was the case, for

example,withIsrael’scoordinationwithEgyptduringandaftertheGazawar.

Justhowstatusquo-orientedhasIsraelbecome?InarecentinterviewonIs-

rael’schannel10,aformermemberoftheNationalSecurityCouncilconfessed

that, among the political leadership and the security establishment, there is a

consensus regarding the need “to keep things as they are”, adding that “with

regardstoallstrategyandsecurityissues…theleadershipisfixedonthisthink-

ing”.“Keepingthingsastheyare”meansholdingmuchofthePalestinianpeople

underamilitaryregimeandwithoutcitizenshipforalmosthalfacenturynow;

keepingmillionsmoreasrefugeesaroundIsrael;andmaintainingthePalestin-

ianminoritywithintheGreenLine–whichmakesforonefifthofthepopula-

tion–assecondclasscitizenswhoarealwayssuspectedinsidingwiththeen-

emy (during the Gaza war, Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman called

upon all Jewish citizens to boycott Arab businesses). Furthermore, the status

quoisnotstaticatall;itmeanscontinuedsettlementactivitiesintheWestBank

andviolentmilitaryescalation,whicharebecomingincreasinglyfrequent.War

seemsnowmorelikeaformofcontrolexercisedoverthePalestiniansthanthe

result of a political crisis which got out of hand.The diplomatic community is

therefore wrong in assuming that there is an agreed-upon end-game in the

formofthetwo-statesolution,andthatwhatwefaceisaleadershiporimple-

mentation problem, which could be tackled through trust-building measures,

positiveincentives,andsimilardiplomaticformulas.Thisisthemistakethatlies

attheheartofthefailedKerryprocess,aswellasanypreviousroundofnegotia-

tions.AslongasthestatusquoremainsthecommondenominatoroftheIsraeli

politicalsystem,thediplomaticprocesshaslittlechanceofsucceeding.

Inthelasttwodecades,internationaleffortscentredaroundtryingtoforce

thetwo-statesolution“fromabove”,toartificiallypreservetheexistenceofthe

Green Line, support the Palestinian Authority, and negotiate with Israel over

itsinterpretationoftherightsanddutiesofanoccupyingforce–allthewhile

noting that the legal term “occupation” was not meant to deal with a perma-

nentsituationanyway.Underthecurrentcircumstances,thesemeasuresseem

counter-productive.Whethertheobjectiveistosolvetheconflictormerelyto

“cool”it,anyproductiveeffortshouldattachapricetotheentirestatusquo,thus

changingtheIsraelicost/benefitcalculation.ItshouldnottrytoconformIsraelis

TheRisingCostsoftheStatusQuoinIsrael/Palestine 57

(and Palestinians) to a formula – the two-state solution – which might seem

outdatedtomany,butrathercreateanewbalanceofinterestsandletlocalpol-

itics play its part.The European Union is uniquely positioned to play an active

roleinthisprocess.BeingIsrael’slargesttradepartnerandthe realneighbouring

superpower,theEUhasalreadydemonstrated itspolitical leveragewithavery

minorstep–itpublishedtheguidelinesregardingtheeligibilityofprojectsbe-

yondthe1967borderstoreceivegrants.Itwastheseguidelines,madepublicin

thesummerof2013,thatinducedIsraeltoparticipateintheKerryprocesstobe-

ginwith.

ItistimetoconditionthecurrentstatusofIsraelaspartoftheWest–afa-

vouritepartnerforjointprojects,tradeagreements,andculturalcooperation–

onupholdingwesternstandardsofcitizenship,equality,andhumandignityto

allwholiveunderIsraelisovereignty.Thisistheonlynon-violentapproachthat

could leadtoaparadigmshiftwithintheIsraeliestablishment, introducenew

ideas,promotenewleaders,andreopen–atlonglast–thenationalconversa-

tionregardingafairandjustsolutiontothePalestinianissue.

IsraelandPalestine:OldWaysWon’tGetUsThere 1

Salam Fayyad

Whilemuchremainstobedonetoensurethatthetentativeceasefirerecently

agreedto(August2014)byIsraelisandPalestinians isnotamere lull inhostili-

ties,manyhavealreadystartedlookingbeyondsecuringthatbasicrequirement,

arguing that it is high time to address the root causes of the conflict. I funda-

mentallyagree.But,Idonotbelievethisshouldmeanarushtohittheresetbut-

tononthestalled“peaceprocess”.Forthatrepeatedly,maybeevenpredictably,

didnotworkbefore,anditisvirtuallycertaintocontinuetofail,intheabsence

offundamentaladjustmentstotheexistingparadigm,namely,theOsloframe-

work,whichhaslostvalidityofpremiseinsomecriticalareas.

In determining the nature of the adjustments required, due consideration

shouldbegiventotheneedtonotonlyaddressthefundamentalasymmetryin

thebalanceofpowerbetweentheoccupierandtheoccupied,butalsotoeffec-

tivelydealwiththeconsequencesoffailureofthepreviousroundsofdiplomacy,

asreflected in, interalia,aprogressivewideningofthegapbetweenthemaxi-

mumonofferbyIsraelandtheminimumacceptabletoPalestinians.

TheadjustmentsIproposefundamentallyfallintwoareas.Thefirstrelatesto

thequestionofwhetherPalestinianrepresentationinthecontextoftherequire-

mentsofboththe“peaceprocess”,aswellasnationalgovernance,remainsad-

equate,whilethesecondrelatestothequestionofcontinuedvalidityoftheOslo

framework,especiallygiventhattheendofthetimelineonthebasisofwhichit

wasdesignedhaslongpassed.

Itmayberecalledthatthequestionofwherethepowerorprivilegetorep-

resent the Palestinian people resides had featured very prominently in the po-

liticaldiscoursebothonthePalestinianandArabscenessincetheearlydaysof

thecontemporaryPalestinianrevolution.Itwasnotbeforethemid-1970s,how-

ever,thatthedrivetovestthatpowersolelyinthePalestineLiberationOrgani-

sation(PLO)startedtogainmomentum,anditultimatelyculminatedinIsrael’s

recognitionofthePLOas“therepresentativeofthePalestinianpeople”inthe

contextofthehighlyasymmetricalandskewed“DeclarationofMutualRecog-

nition”. Conspicuously, but not coincidentally, missing from that formulation


was the characterisation of the “representative” as the “sole legitimate” repre-

sentative.But,thatisnotwhyIregardthatdeclarationashighlyasymmetrical.

Rather,thefactthatitwasaqualifiedrecognition,inthesenseofithavingbeen

conditionedonthePLO’srecognitionof“therightofthestateofIsraeltoexist

inpeace and security”,clearlymadeitso,withthePLO,bysettlingformuchless

thanareciprocalrecognitionoftherightofPalestinianstoastateoftheirown,

having in essence signaled acceptance of the Israeli historical narrative at the

expenseofthePalestiniannarrative.Inaddition,therecognition’sformulation

arguablygaveIsraelavetopoweroverthepossibleemergenceofaPalestinian

stateif itcouldrepresentthatPalestinianstatehoodinanywayunderminedits

security.Nevertheless,notwithstandingtheasymmetryofit,the“Declarationof

MutualRecognition”pavedthewayforthePLOtobecomeuniversallyaccepted

astherepresentativeofthePalestinianpeople.

Given the context in which it obtained, however, a downside to this suc-

cesswasthatasofthesigningoftheOsloAccords,thePLOstoodtobejudged,

notanymoreonthebasisofpastglory,butentirelybythesuccessoftheOslo

frameworkindeliveringafullysovereignPalestinianstateontheterritoryIsrael

occupiedin1967–agoal,which,incidentally,Osloitselfwassilenton.Unfortu-

nately,whenjudgedbythiscriterion,thePLO’srecordcannotbeconsideredbut

asoneofdismalfailure.Apartfromtheobvious,whichisOslo’sfailuretodeliver

Palestinianstatehoodbytheendofthe“interimperiod”,theprospectsofthat

happeninganytimesoonaredecidedlyalotdimmertodaythantheywerethen.

Thishascontributedtoprecipitatingaprogressivelyrecedingsenseofpossibility

aboutPalestinianstatehood,withtheensuingsenseofgloomhavingnodoubt

beenreinforcedbyacompletelyunbearablestateofthe“humancondition”in

theoccupiedPalestinianterritory,bothinGazaandintheWestBank.

The above mentioned factors, combined with the fact that the Palestinian

Authoritydidnotalwaysgovernrightorwell,didalotofdamagetothePLO’s

standing.However,what,probablymorethananythingelse,allbutcompletely

compromised and ultimately damaged that standing was the doctrinal defeat

whichthePLO’splatformofnonviolencesustained,astheviewthat“violence

paysoff”startedtogainfavourwiththepublicat large,thereby leadingtoen-

hancingthepopularityofnon-PLOresistancefactions.

An adjustment to the Palestinian representation framework is, therefore,

necessary. But, in addition, such adjustment could facilitate dealing with the

SalamFayyad 60

fundamentalproblemassociatedwiththeOsloframeworkhavingturnedinto

an open-ended interim arrangement. Failure to do so would entail perpetuat-

ingtheabsurdsituationwherebyPalestinianswouldcontinuetohavetochoose

betweenacceptingwhatIsraelwaspreparedtoofferinnegotiationsorcontinu-

ingtoliveunderitsoppressiveoccupation.

In a nutshell, the adjustments I propose consist of the following key ele-

ments.First,twenty-oneyearsafter itgainedfullPalestinianrecognitionof its

right to exist in peace and security, the State of Israel should reciprocate sym-

metricallybyrecognisingthePalestinians’righttoasovereignstateontheter-

ritory it occupied in 1967 in its entirety. Second, Israel should be prepared to

acceptaninternationallymandateddatecertainforendingitsoccupationanda

mutuallyagreedpathforgettingthere.Third,intheinterim,Palestiniansshould

notcontinuetobehamstrungintheirefforttoachievenationalunityby insis-

tence,onthepartoftheinternationalcommunity,onarigidapplicationof in-

ternationalconditionsthatderivetheirvalidityfromaframework,namely,the

Oslo framework, whose integrity has been undermined by a loss of validity of

premiseinkeyareas.Inaddition,Palestiniansneedtoseeacessationofallprac-

tices that undermine their right to live with dignity on their land, as they pro-

ceedtoattainfullnationalunityandpersevereintheirefforttobuildtheirstate

anddeepentheirreadinessforstatehood.

Thekeytoworkingtowardsecuringtheseadjustmentsquicklyliesinafully

determinedPalestinianeffortaimedatachievingunitythroughamoreinclusive

representation framework. Toward that end, consideration could usefully be

giventothefollowingelements.

1. Untilsuchtimeitmaybecomepossibletoexpandthemembershipofthe

PLO,whetherthroughelectionsorsomeotherobjectivemechanismthatmay

beagreed,itisproposedthatthePLO,togetherwithitsplatform,beleftalone,

while permitting it to retain the title of “sole legitimate representative of the

Palestinianpeople”.

2. OperationalisetheUnifiedLeadershipFramework(ULF),whichincludes

allPLOfactionsandthosenotaffiliatedwithit,andtasktheULFwithcollective-

lyinformingthedecisionsoftheExecutiveCommitteeofthePLOonmattersof

highnationalinterest.

3. MembershipintheULFbynon-PLOfactionsdoesnotrequireacceptance

ontheirpartofthePLO’splatform.Considerationcould,however,begivento


havingtheULFadoptatime-boundcommitmentbyallfactionstononviolence,

keepinginmindthatitwouldmakesensetohavethetermofthecommitment

tononviolencecorrespondtothetimejudgedtobeneededtoenablethegov-

ernment to unify the state official institutions and laws after more than seven

yearsofseparation.

4. Ensure that the government is representative of the full political spec-

trumandempoweredtothefullestextentaffordedbytheBasicLaw.

5. Commit to holding fair, free, and inclusive elections no later than six

monthsbeforetheendoftheinterimperiodreferredtoinitem3above.Inthe

meantime,reconvenethecurrentlegislatureandopenupthepoliticalsystemto

broadenthebaseofparticipationinit.

Whatiscriticallyneededatthisstageisanationalconsensusonthese,and

possiblyother,issues.But,onceachieved,thisnationalconsensus,especiallythe

timeline embodied in it, can be used as a basis for approaching Israel and the

international community with the chief aim of setting a date certain for end-

ingtheIsraelioccupationandmovingtoresolvealloutstandingissues.Howev-

er,beyondtryingtoforgeaPalestiniannationalconsensusonissuesofthekind

outlinedabove,itwouldbeimportantforthatconsensustoreflectanadequate

appreciationoftwootherelements.First,goodgovernanceisalwaysandevery-

whereimportant.InthePalestiniancontext,itisalsohugelyimportantasanen-

abler in the quest forgreater international attention andsupport.Second, the

“valuecontent”of the Palestinian state acquiresadded importanceagainst the

backdrop of a region tragically caught up in unprecedented extremism and vi-

olence.Thus, it is incumbent on Palestinians, and as a matter of conscious de-

cision making, to build a state that is founded on the basis of the universally

sharedprogressivevaluesofequality,tolerance,non-discrimination,openness,

andfullsensitivitytotheunabridgedrightsandprivilegesofcitizenship.

1 Adapted from a presentation made at the Atlantic Council, Washington D.C. on July 31, 2014.

S&D Group Conference on the Middle East Peace Process

DebateaboutNewParadigmsforIsrael&Palestine

AltieroSpinelliBuilding(ASP)5G 3–EuropeanParliament,Brussels

November6th–7th,2013

In partnership with the Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue, Vienna

S&DGroupConferenceontheMiddleEastPeaceProcess 64

Welcome

HannesSwoboda

President of the S&D Group

Goodafternoon,

Your Excellencies from the Middle East and H.E. the ambassador of Russia.

Iwouldalsoliketoextendmywelcometoallothersinattendance,andespecially

ourspeakerswhowillbeintroducedlater.

Iamverygladthatthehardworkinvestedintheorganisationofthisconfer-

enceresultedinthissuccess.SpecialthanksgotoZoltan(Simon)andhisteam

fortheirhardwork.FurtherthanksgototheBrunoKreiskyForumanditspeo-

ple; they have been an important steppingstone in bringing Israelis and Pales-

tinianstogetherandbringingtheirconflicttoEuropeanconsciousness.

I have been in this parliament for a long time, since 1996, and I know that

theS&DGrouphasalwaysbeendeeplyengagedindialoguewithallparticipants

intheMiddleEast.IthasmadeitveryclearthattheexistenceofIsraelisasim-

portantasthePalestinians’righttostatehood,andthattheMiddleEastconflict

mustberesolvedinapeacefulratherthanaviolentapproach.

One of the prominent advocates in Europe for a peaceful resolution in the

MiddleEast isMartinSchulz.AspartofourtriptotheMiddleEast, Iobserved

Martin deeply engage in the topic, driven by both his deep commitment to

theissueandhispersonalbackground.Thatiswhywearehavingaconference

like this amidst difficult times. It is a conference of dialogue and open discus-

sionthatrepresentsallviewsofalltheparticipants.Ourmediationdoesnottake

placeatthenegotiationstable,which,fortunately,hasbeenreopened,butrath-

erhereandinparalleltotherealnegotiations.Foritisjustasimportantforcivil

societyintheMiddleEastregionaswellasinourcountryandinEuropetocon-

tinuetopromotedialogueandpeace.

DebateaboutNewParadigmsforIsrael&Palestine 65

OpeningSpeech

MartinSchulz

President of the European Parliament

WhenIfirstbecamechairmanoftheS&DGroupin2004,myexperience,though

extensive,wasmainlydomestic. IhadbeenactingasbothaMemberofParlia-

ment and a mayor in a city in Germany. As a Member of Parliament, I had fo-

cused on domestic affairs/civil liberties rather than international or security is-

sues.Ihadnoexperienceinthatfront.So,IhavetosaythatIlearnedalotinthe

courseofmyyearsaschairmanoftheS&DGroup,muchofwhichIlearnedfrom

myfriendHannesSwoboda.

Mydearfriends,today’sconferenceismosttimely.Asweallknow,thepeace

negotiations under the aegis of the US recommenced in the summer. I think

many of us here viewed the renewal of negotiations as a good thing, though

withreservedoptimism.ButIthinkit’scleartoallofusthatthere’snoalterna-

tivetoapoliticalsolution; therecanbenoalternativeotherthanthepeaceful

processofatwo-statesolution.

However, we must be honest with ourselves.Twenty years after the Oslo

Accords, the Israelis and the Palestinians are reacting with indifference at best

andwithscepticismatworst.Thedistrustbetweenpartnersispalpable.SoIbe-

lieve that we must acknowledge that the chances of finding a solution within

ninemonthsarequitelimited.However,theparametersforapeaceagreement

arewellknowntous.Thetwo-statesolutionissupportedbyamajorityofPal-

estiniansandIsraelis.ItisalsosupportedbyamajoritywithinArabandMuslim

countriesaswellaswithintheinternationalcommunity.

Today’s conference is an opportunity to examine these facts and discuss

somepragmaticsolutions.Thatsaid,IwouldliketoaddthatintheS&DGroup,

andcertainlyduringmytimeasamember,we’vealwayssubscribedtothiskind

ofpragmatism.Now,whilewecancertainlyhave ideologicalbattles,theywill

not move us forward, as tempting as they may be; pragmatism, on the other

hand,will.

Thisconferenceisanopportunitytotakealong,cold,hardlookatwhywe

Europeansfailedinthepastonthisfront.It’sanopportunitytolookatrealities

astheyareandexaminethemwithintheirgeopoliticalcontext.Weshouldalso


examinethemwithinademographicandasociologicalcontext,bothofwhich

have often been underestimated or overlooked. Both Israel and Palestine are

undergoingsignificantdemographic,social,andsocio-culturalchanges,chang-

esthatwe,Europeans,havenotbeentakingseriouslyenough.

Ithinkthisconferenceisalsoanopportunitytolookatthenegotiationsand

employedmethodologies.Doesitmakesensetomeetinasomewhatceremo-

nial fashion, tomeet intheseratherformal forums?And,perhapsweneedto

think about a different model, a different approach, a different kind of nego-

tiations.Today’smeeting isameetingofEuropeans,parliamentarians,experts,

stakeholders,andrepresentativesofbothIsraeliandPalestiniansides.

Andfinally,itisanopportunitytolistentowhattheEuropeanUnionexpects.

Mysuggestionherewouldbetodaretolookforwardtothefutureratherthan

tothepast.Obviously,wemustbeclearabouthistoryandourdemocraticprin-

ciples.AsEuropeans,weareclearaboutourprogressiveanddemocraticvalues

andourcommitmenttointernationallawandunderstandourfinancialobliga-

tionsinthatregard.

We should discuss our role in the European Union and see that it matches

the political vision of the 1980 Venice Declaration. While Europe has made its

contributiontothedebateonthetwo-statesolution,ithasyettoplayamore

effectiveroleincontributingtothesolutionitself.Weareawarethat,shouldthe

negotiations fail, the radicals and extremists of both sides will take advantage

ofthesituation.Weshouldnotsimplywatchon;wecannotallowatwo-state

solution of co-existing neighbours to fail, as that would only exacerbate the

conflict.Thus,Ihopethatthisconferencestartsadebatethatwouldguidethe

negotiators into new relations, and so present a new kind of partnership with

Europe.

Ifthetalksweretobesuccessful,Ibelievethattheywouldchangeglobalpol-

itics. We must acknowledge that the unresolved Middle East conflict is one of

thebiggeststumblingblocks in internationalpolitics. Ifwe,the EU,acommu-

nityofstatesbasedonvalues,wishtoplayaroleintheresolutionoftheconflict,

wemustavoidfallingbackontothesameoldrhetoric.AndwhileIdonothave

manyconcreteproposalstooffer,Iwillstillruntwoofthembyyounow:

1. IbelievethattheEuropeanUnionshouldworkwiththeUnitedNations,

aswellaswithIsraelisandPalestinianstoaddressthesocialinequalitiesintheir

societies.Weknowthatsocialinequalitieshaveledtoradicalisationwithinthe


EuropeanUnion,whichisnowthecaseinbothIsraelandPalestine,andittakes

awayfromconstructivedialogue.

Inthebudgetdebate,wehadanextensivediscussionoftheEuropeanUnion

playingamoreactive,economicrole.Regrettably,however,wehavehad little

successinconvincingourgovernmentstofurthercontributetointernationalre-

lations.Nonetheless,wewillcontinuewiththisstruggle,asIbelievethatthere

isaverycloselinkbetweenpeacefuldevelopmentandsocialstability inthere-

gion,amatterthatEuropecouldcertainlyhelpwith.

2. I also believe that education and dialogue are crucial in this regard.

IwouldliketosaysomethingthatIexperiencedasanMEPandpresident.When

ItalkedtoyoungpeopleinPalestine/Israel,Irealisedonething:theynolonger

knoweachother.

TheEuropeanParliament,alongwiththeS&DGroupinparticular,arecom-

mitted to a program of encounters, whereby young Israelis, Palestinians, and

Europeansmeetandgettoknoweachother,which,Ibelieve,isanessentialpre-

conditionformaintainingadialogueofunderstanding.Ihopethatwewilldis-

cuss this here too. As the former president of the European Parliament, Hans-

Gert Pöttering had similar experiences to mine, he launched this program of

encounters,whichIwouldlikeustoexpand.Andwhilethisisnotnecessarilya

massivecontribution,itisquiteoftensmallcontributionsandstepsthatleadto

change.


ThePeaceProcess–fromPastFailurestoCurrentHopes Chair:HannesSwoboda

AndreasReinicke

European Union Special Representative for the Middle East Peace Process

Goodafternoon,LadiesandGentlemen.Iwilltrytoaddressafewofthepoints

thatthepresidentmentioned,whileopeningthisdiscussionwiththreeremarks.

Thefirstisabouttheongoingnegotiations,whichstartedattheendofJuly

2013, and which Europeans, the US Congress, and you, Social Democrats have

beencallingforallthroughoutthepastyear.And,we,Europeans,addedthatour

approachwiththesenegotiationsisonethattakesintoconsiderationtheArab

world.What’shappeningtoday,andthisalsoaddressesoneofthequestionsthe

presidenthasraised,isbasedonthepositionwhichwehaveadoptedoverthe

pastyear:ournewinitiativewastoholdthenegotiationstogetherwiththeArab

world, based on the Arab Peace Initiative; we aim at ending the conflict alto-

getherratherthanholdinganothertransitionaldiscussion.

Indeed,wehaveseenallmannerofdifficulties,whichSecretaryofStateJohn

KerryalsofacedwhentryingtoconvincetheAmericanpoliticianstogothisway;

hehadsixvisitsbeforehecouldstartthenegotiations–itwasverydifficultfor

himtoconvincebothpartiestoenterthenegotiationsroom.Thisisyetanother

reasonforwhyIthinkitisimportanttobasewhatishappeningnowonourown

Europeaninitiative.

Mysecondremarkconcernsourcurrentstandingwiththenegotiations.As

abottomline,Iwillsaythatwearestillontrackwiththenegotiations.Well,let

me take this “still” away: we are on track with the negotiations. And I should

probablyexplainthis.BecauseifyoureadthenewspapersinIsrael,inPalestine,

andhereinEurope,you’llhearthatmanypeoplearesceptical:“itwon’twork”,

“it’ssodifficult”,“whywoulditworkthistime?”andetc.

WhatIcantellyouatthismoment,however,isthatthenegotiationsarestill

ontrack,despitetheobviousdifficulties.Thenegotiatorsaretryingtheirbestin

adifficultenvironment.Theyareworkingagainstmanywhotrytospoilthene-

gotiations,butstill, Iwouldsaythatweareontrack.Wedonotknowhowall

willend,butweknowthatthefirststageisstillokay.


ThethirdissuethatIwouldliketoaddressisoneconcerningtheroleofthe

EuropeanUnion,anissuerightfullyraisedbythepresident.IthinktheEuropean

Unionhad,stillhas,andwillcontinuetohaveseveralrolesinthiscontext.

Thefirstroleissettingtheagendaorprovidingaframeworkfortheongoing

discussions.Asthepresidentrightfullysaid,thediscussionsstartedin1980with

the Venice Declaration, whereby the Palestinians’ right to self-determination

wasdeclared.Thesecondpointofthedeclaration,whichEuropeanshavealways

supported, was Israel’s right to existence and security.The question of settle-

mentactivitiesandthedangertheyposeonreachingatwo-statesolutionwas

alsoraisedbytheEuropeanUnion.

Weareaccompanyingthenegotiationsprocessasanopinionleader.Cathe-

rineAshtonhasveryintensivecontactwithSecretaryofStateKerry.Imyselfhave

beentravellingalottoIsraelandPalestine,totheArabworld,andotherstatesin

ordertogetasenseofthepeople’sperceptionofthesituationandpassonthe

messagetothenegotiators.Weaimtobeconstructiveinthisparticularcontext.

ThefinalremarkconcernstheconflictassuchandourEuropeanapproachto

it.Ifeelthatweareoftencaughtinthediscussionofwhetherwearepro-Pales-

tiniansorpro-Israelis.Inanswer,allowmetobesomewhatprovocative:Ithink

that we have to be pro-European. As the president said, the resolution of this

conflictisinourownEuropeaninterest.

The conflict, only a hundred kilometres away from our southern borders at

Cyprus, is increasingly affecting our own political decisions, particularly during

thedifficultstateoftheArabworld.Thus,resolvingthisconflictisinourownbest

interest.Weare interestedinasustainablepeaceagreementthatbenefitsboth

sides.Ithastobeanagreementthatmakesbothsidesfeelthattheyhavewon.

Sustainablepeaceisour interest;weneedtoensurethatthisagreementserves

bothparties’bestinterestsaswellasours,Europeans.

HannesSwoboda

Thankyouverymuch,Mr.Reinicke!Itisinterestinghowtheword“still”,asmall

word,canbeused.Youfirstsaidthat“we’restillontrack”andthenthat“wecan

stillsayweareontrack”.Maybewecanstillsaythatwearestillontrack.So,the

questionwouldbe“howlongcanwestillsaythatwearestillontrack?”.


LeilaShahid

Ambassador of Palestine to the European Union

Iwouldliketostartbycongratulatingyou,Hannes,aspresidentofyourgroup,

andforgatheringaverysignificantéchantillonofthepeaceadvocatesinthisarea.

In the past two years, many have been saying that the Palestinian-Israeli

conflict,oreventheArab-Israeliconflict,isnolongerthecentreofattentiondue

to the major revolutions taking place in the Arab world, the Iranian question,

and the stability of the Gulf states, among others. However, the turnout here

showstherelevanceandcentralityofthisconflict,whichhasbeentroubling,for

acenturyattheleast,oneofthemoststrategicareasintheworld–theMedi-

terranean.

ThisdoesnotrenderthePalestiniansasbetterpeoplethananyother,but I

dothink,asPresidentSwobodahasmentioned,thatthegeographyofthiscon-

flicthas imposeditselfasthevital interestforallthoseconcerned.Inthiscase,

Europeiscertainlytheclosestally,andIwouldliketopaytributetoallthework

thattheEuropeanUnionhasdone.AndhereIfindMr.Reinickemodestinsay-

ingthatthereareonlythreereasonsfortheEuropeans’closeinvolvement.The

EuropeanshavebeenvitalforthePalestinians’existence,notonlypolitically,but

alsopractically.Infact,theyhavebeentheoneswhoallowedustostartbuilding

theinfrastructureofthestatethatwillcome.Anditwillcome,butitneedsmore

thanjustpromises.TheEuropeanUnion,however,hasmadeitareality,andI’m

surethatitwillcontinuetobeso.

I would also like to congratulate the Bruno Kreisky Forum.Thank you, Ger-

traud(AuerBorea).AsIhavetoldyouinVienna–theheadquartersofyourFo-

rum–IthinkthatwealloweBrunoKreiskya lot.Herefusedindifferenceand

he precisely answered your question, Andreas: “Is it only an Israeli-Palestinian

conflict?”.AndhereIwouldliketosalutemycolleague,theIsraeliambassador,

whomImeetforthefirsttime,thankstothisconference.Ithinkthatthiscon-

flict is much too important to be only dealt with only by Israelis and Palestin-

ians.Ithinkthestakesaretoohighintermsofworldstabilityandco-existence;

ultimately,whetherweknowhowtolivetogetherornothasatremendousim-

pact.Andso,IwouldliketopaytributetothespiritofBrunoKreisky,whotried

tocontributeduringhislifetime,andwhoseworkiscontinuedbyafoundation

andaforum.


Oneofthequestionsthatariseswhenspeakingindifferentplacesisthatof

theOsloAccords.Dowekeepanythingfromthemordowethrowthemaway

altogether? Were these twenty years of our lives simply lost or did we achieve

something?PeopleforgetthattheOsloAccordsdidnotstartin1993.Theystart-

ed with the efforts of all the Social Democrats who opened the Socialist Inter-

nationalupforYasserArafatandtheleadersoftheLabourparty,YitzhakRabin

andShimonPeresinparticular,aswellasMeretzandFatahmovement,whoare

nowobservers intheSocialist International.AndIthinkthatwehavetheMin-

isterofNorwaywithustoreminduswithtremendousknowledgeofhowboth

NorwayandSweden,theSocialDemocratsinSwedenandinNorway,playeda

veryimportantroleinactingasano-man’s-land,wherebothIsraelisandPales-

tinianscouldgettoknoweachother.

PresidentSchulzwassayingthatyoungpeopledonotknoweachother.Iam

oldenoughtorememberthatRabin,Arafat,AhmadQrei’(AbuAlaa),Uri Savir,

YossiBeilin,andAvrahamBurgcouldfinallymeetandtalkonanequallevelfor

thefirsttimewasattheSocialist Internationalmeetings.Theycouldnotmeet

in Israelasequalsandneithercouldtheydoso inPalestineasoneofthe laws

forbadeIsraelisfromenteringPalestine.SoIwouldliketoremindpeoplehere,

someofwhomareyoung,ofhowmuchthirdterritoriesareimportantforpeo-

plewhoareentangledinsuchalong,historicalconflict.Ofcourse,thirdterrito-

riescannotreplacetheprotagonists,butIthinkthattheycanplayaveryimpor-

tantrole.Ibelievethatthesuccessoftoday’smeetingisproofofhownecessary

it is tohaveaplacetoevaluateallparadigms,thinkofnewones,andpossibly

share more innovative ideas, rather than throw the baby into the water alto-

gether.BecauseIthinkthat,despiteallthedifficulties,theOsloAccordshaveal-

lowedonemajorthing,andthatisputtingPalestinebackinPalestine.Inother

words,ratherthanfindingsolutionsonlyoutsidetheterritory,theywerelooked

forwithintheterritory.TheOsloAccordsshowedusthatwemustlearntoshare,

whichwefailedtodo.

AsanambassadorforPalestine,Iwouldliketosaythatweare,indeed,still

on track. In fact, this meeting takes place at the same time when Mr. Kerry is

meetingwithPresidentAbbasinBethlehem,havingalreadymetPrimeMinister

Netanyahuthismorning,whomhewillmeetagaintonight.So,atleastonthe

Palestinianside,wearecompletelycommitted,asmypresidenthassaid,intry-

ingasbestaswecan.Wearetrying,despiteallourfrustration,anger,andeven


ourfurryexperiencedeverytimewehearaboutthelargenumberofnewsettle-

ments,whichwouldpracticallyeliminateJerusalemfromtheagenda.Still,we

arecommittedtostay,aswearetheoneswhohavemosttogain–gettingto

endtheoccupationandgrantingthePalestiniansasovereignstate.

However, I would also like to say that nobody is a fool and everybody re-

membersthatwehavebeennegotiatingfortwentyyears.Thisofficialtrackof

negotiationshasgonethrougheightdifferentIsraeligovernments,somemem-

bers of which were the actual authors of the Oslo Agreement. I would like to

paytributetoMr.Rabininparticular,whomovedforwardfromwherehestart-

edanduntilhisassassination,whichwebelievewastheresultofthisgracious

act.Ontheotherhand,wehadseveralgovernmentswhowereagainstOslo.So,

whenevaluatingOslo,wemustrememberthatwehadtodealwithIsraeligov-

ernmentsthatwerenotintendingtoimplementtheAccords.

Besides the total commitment to resolving at least one of the major issues

andreachingsomesortofagreementinninemonths,whatmattersmostisnot

whathappensatthetable,butwhathappensontheground.Whilepeoplehave

confidence inthenegotiators, inSaebErekat, inMohammadShtayyeh,and in

MahmoudAbbas,theycannotacceptthediscrepancybetweenwhatissaid,or

whatisthoughttobesaidaroundthenegotiationstableandthefactsimposed

onthegroundbythestrongerelement–theoccupier.Wewillnotspeakofa

symmetricalsituationwhenIsraelhasthemeanstoimposethefactsorrealities,

whichIamnotsure,willbringusclosertopeace.

Ithinkthatweoweittoourselves,toyou,andtoourIsraelineighbourstotry

andthinkofwhatwillhappenifwedonotreachanagreement.Arewegoingto

suddenlydiscoverthatwehavenotthoughtofanyothersolutions?Ifearthat

itwouldbetoolatethentoevadethethirdexplosionofviolence,whichwould

not come from the Palestinian side only, but also from the Israeli side, as set-

tlershaveprobablybecomethemostactiveelementofIsraelisociety.Andthat,

is very scary, including their provoking people at Haram al-Sharif and literally

playingwiththepossibilityofareligiousoutburstofwar.

I really wish that in the upcoming two days, you are able to be as innova-

tive as possible, while steering away from the official talk that ambassadors

have to use – you do not have to be politically correct or use diplomatic lan-

guage.Also,pleasetryandthinkofwhatthecontributionof thirdparties like

youcouldbe,incasetheofficialactorscan’treachanagreement.Whatcanbe


thecontributionofIsraelicivilsociety,whichisverywellrepresentedhere,and

thePalestiniancivilsociety?AndweshallnotforgettoincludetheArabcivilso-

ciety as I think that they are also very concerned, if not even more so, as they

areundergoingveryimportanteconomicandsocialchanges.Andonthatnote,

I am very happy that the Arab League is represented in this conference at the

highestlevelaswell.

IwouldliketoendbyagreeingthatthisiscertainlyavitalinterestoftheEu-

ropeanUnion.WhatistheworthofthewholeEuro-Medvisionanditsrelation

withthesouth,ifthereisnoPalestinian-IsraelipeaceorIsraeli-Arabpeaceand

co-existence? How could one build or even think of a Mediterranean project

withoutit?

DavidWalzer

Ambassador of Israel to the European Union

Thepoliticalprocess,thedialoguebetweenIsraelisandPalestinians,andespeci-

allythisone,ismuchmoreimportantthanthehurdlesinitsway,someofwhich

areverytough.AsMr.Reinickehashinted,please,donotbe impressedbythe

scepticismyoureadinthepress.FromtheverylittleIknow,Icanassureyouthat

thosewhospeakdonotknowandthosewhoknowdonotspeak.So,leavethe

scepticismforthosewhoaresellingpapers–theyhavetomakealiving,that’s

understandable–butpleasedonottaketheirwordsasfactsontheground.

I think that one of the major differences between what we are doing now

and what has been done for more than twenty years is that, as you said, Leila,

withthehelpoftheAmericans,Europeans,andothergood-wishingparties,we

havebeenabletocreateasituation inwhich,at leastbythisstage,bothsides

understand that this is no zero-sum game.The winning of the Palestinians is

notthedestructionof Israelandvice-versa.Webothhavemuchtowin if this

processissuccessful.Wehaveidentifiedissues,whicharecrucialforbothsides,

and we are dealing with them in the negotiations room. I think that the out-

comemuststillbeatwo-statesolution.AndwhileIknowthattomorrowsome

ofyouwillexamineotherpossibilities incasethisfails, Ithinkthatforthema-

jority of Israelis and Palestinians, there is no alternative to this two-state solu-

tion.Iamtellingyou,asanIsraelicitizen,andassomeonewhohaschildrenin

Israel, that I do not want another solution. So, I think we should dedicate our

energyandinvestitinmakingthisasuccessstory,andwecan.


Indeed,what isexpectedfrombothofus istoanswerasetofverydifficult

questions.Weneedtoensurethattheleadershiponbothsidesisboldandcou-

rageousenoughtomakethosedecisions.Andyes,Iknowthatinthishouse,and

possiblynotonlyinthishouse,thesettlementspolicyisnotverypopular.ButI

mustremindallofusthatinexchangeforapeacetreaty,Israelhasgivenupter-

ritory,includingsettlements.ThisiswhathappenedinSinaiwhenwestruckthe

agreementwiththeEgyptians.ThisiswhathappenedwhenweevacuatedGaza,

nottomentionwhatwehavereceived inreturn.AndIamsurethatall inthis

room,withoutgoingintodetailsandrevealingtoomanysecrets,arealsoaware

ofthefactthatpartofwhatisbeingputonthetableisland-swapsoralandex-

change,whichwillhopefullysolveoraddressthisissuetothesatisfactionofall

ofus.

When we look at the broader neighbourhood and what is going on in our

area,whatwasinitiallycalledtheArabSpring,thereisagrowingunderstanding

ofIsrael’ssecuritydemandsaswellasothersecurity-relatedissues.Ithinkthat

ifyoufocusonthequestionofsettlementsonly,youcannotaddresstheother

issues.However,ifyoucombinetheissues,someofwhicharethesettlements,

security,therightofreturn,Jerusalem,andalltheknownissuesthathavebeen

repeatedlydiscussedforyears,wecanbothprioritiseandstarttoaddresseach

oneofthem.Thereistime.

Iwanttomakeonestatement:while I jointhosewhosaythat itmightbe

verydifficulttoreachthefinalagreementinninemonths,Iamquitesurethat

Mr. Reinicke, on behalf of Lady Ashton, will not look at punitive measures if

thosediscussionstakenineandahalfmonthsinsteadofnine.Nobodywillbe

angry ifMr.Kerryannouncesthatweareonourwayandthat, insteadofnine

months,itwilltakeustenmonths.

Leila(Shahid)mentionedsomeissuesrelatedtotheoccupation,ortheoccu-

pyingpower,ontheground.Idonotwanttogetintothoseproblematicissues

now as the list is very long. On behalf of whom does Abu Mazen speak when

wespeaktohim?OnbehalfoftheWestBank?OnbehalfofGaza?Whomdoes

herepresent?Canhedeliver?Canhemakeagoodpromiseontheissueofthe

right of return? We trust him. We trust his good will. We trust Abu Mazen to

meanitwhenhesays“Idonotwant”or“Idowant”,“IdreamofitbutIunder-

standthatIwillnotbeabletogobacktoliveinmyhouseinSafad”.However,

he will have to convince his clientele, the Palestinian clientele, to apply this


promise. Ireiterate,there isnoalternative,or,theremightbealternatives,but

please, do not elaborate on them.Try and focus on supporting this two-state

track,fornotonlyisittheonlyviableone,butalsotheonlyonethatcanprom-

isebothIsraelisandPalestinians,andindeedEuropeandtherestoftheworld,a

betterplacetolivein.

Conclusion

HannesSwoboda

Iwillmakeonebriefcomment.Ithinkthatratherthandiscussingdifferentso-

lutions, perhaps we should discuss what the principles of any peace solution

shouldbe–principlessuchasmutualrespect,mutualinterests,andmutualob-

ligationsshouldbethebasisforanykindofresolutiontobereachedbetween

IsraelandPalestine.


MappingRealities

Chair:VéroniqueDeKeyser

Vice-President of the S&D Group

Before starting this panel, I would like to briefly harp back to something that

happenedafewyearsago.(Javier)SolanawastheHighRepresentativeforthe

CommonForeignandSecurityPolicyatthetimeandcametotalktotheEuro-

peanParliamentabouttheprogressofthepeaceprocess.Therewereanumber

ofEuropeanParliamentmemberswhoaskedhim:“Mr.Solana,howcanyoube

sooptimisticwhenclearlynothingismoving?”.AndSolanaanswered:“Because

optimismisthecourageofdiplomats”.AndsoIwouldliketothanktheambas-

sadorsforsuchabraveandoptimisticoutlook.Foritistruethatwhenwemove

away from our dream, our dream being a peace process that succeeds, to the

harshrealityontheground,includingtheentireclimatesurroundingIsraeland

Palestine (Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan), we could encounter many reasons for

concernandscantreasonsforoptimism.

Our next panel engages with the multiple realities on the ground, which I

hopewewillexploreindepth.

Introduction

EspenBarthEide

Former Chair of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee

Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway

YourExcellencies,LadiesandGentlemen,itisapleasuretobehere.Thisisavery

timely moment to hold this conference. Since the title of the session is “Map-

pingRealities”,Iwillstartbyrepeatingwhathasbeensaidinthepreviouspanel

andsayingthatthisisamomentoftruthfortheMiddleEast:theMiddleEastas

weknewitanditsbordersetting.

As has been mentioned, almost twenty years have passed since Oslo. And,

asLeila(Shahid)verycorrectlypointedout,Oslowasnotthebeginningofthe

process but an important moment in it, where the parties agreed in principle

toaparticularvisionofatwo-statesolution,afterwhichwesetoutaseriesof


initiativesinordertomakethatrealityhappen.Ofcourse,thewholeseriesofne-

gotiationshasbeenrestartedfollowingthemanypreviousfailures,andischaired

byNorway,and,until threeweeksago,bymyselfastheMinisterofForeignAf-

fairsand lateraschairoftheAHLC–theAdHocLiaisonCommittee.Thisyear

markstwentyyearsofourbeingad hoc,whichnaturallymakesonequestionthe

name–“AdHoc”.Ihopethatwecanstillcallit“AdHoc”becausethisshouldnot

goonforever–wewanttodothisinordertoachievesomethingdifferent.

And the good news is that, at least for the last few years, Palestinian state

building has been remarkably successful, at least in the West Bank – Gaza is,

unfortunately,aratherdifferentstoryfornow.Threeyearsago,everyoneinthe

AHLCagreedthatwehadarrivedatalevelofPalestinianstate,notinapolitical

sensebutintheinstitutionalsense–itsstatutoryinstitutionsareonparwith,or

abovethelevelof,manyofthestatesthatwerecogniseasstates.

After2010,afterthisshortperiodofoptimismandbottomupstatebuilding,

weweresimplywaitingforthenegotiationstoensue.However,severalfrustrat-

ingprocessesenteredthestageatthatpoint,andwhilethePalestinianshadthe

institutions ready, nothing was happening on the political level. Many donors

were also asking the very hard question of how long they were going to con-

tinuedonating.Theirrecurringquestioniswhethertheyhaveactuallybeendo-

ingnothingmorethanfinancingIsrael’soccupation.Whiletheanswerisknown,

thequestionisanimportantonetokeepasking.Atthebeginningof2013,Ihad

tomakeitverycleartothedonorsthatthiswasnotgoingtocontinueforever;

forthiseffortismeaningfulonlyifitcorrespondswithapoliticalhorizon.Ialso

statedthatifthepoliticalhorizonisnotbackonthetableafterthe2013ultima-

tum,wewillhavetoquestionourcontinuoussupport.

However, John Kerry also entered the stage and, with the help of the Euro-

peanUnionandmanyothers,convincedtheIsraeliandPalestiniangovernments

tomeet,despitealltheobstacles.Sonow,oncemore,thereseemstobearayof

hope.Nonetheless,andIhavesaid itbeforeandwill repeat itmore loudlynow,

thisisthelastchance.Iamnotsayingthatthisisthelastchanceforpeacebetween

IsraelandPalestine,butitisthelastchanceforpeaceundertheOsloparadigm.So,

eitheritsucceedsthistimeorwemustdosomethingelse.So,Iamhappytocon-

tinuetotalkaboutplanA,asDavid(Walzer)suggested,butonlyforafewmore

months.Afterthat,somekindofplanBwillhavetobediscussed.Ihopethatthis

isnotthecasebutallwilldependonhowthenegotiationsmoveahead.


As has been mentioned, there are several obstacles to these negotiations,

oneofwhichhasbeenreferredtoseveraltimesalready.Therearealsodeepdi-

visionsinsideIsrael.Andinthatsense,Israelisatrulydemocraticsociety–any

opinion held by any Israeli is also represented in government. So, while these

opposingviewsmaylookalittleconfusingtotherestofus,theyformademo-

craticrepresentationofthevariousopinions.However,adifficultbalancingact

betweenthesecrowdsisatplayatthemoment.Forinstance,thepoliticalpris-

onershavebeenreleased,whichisagoodthingandshouldbeacknowledged.

For, although these prisoners should have been let out a long time ago, I do

understandthatthisisadifficultstepforanyIsraeligovernmenttotake.Atthe

same time, and to keep the internal balance, the government repeatedly an-

nounces the building of more settlements, which undermines the good news

thatprecededit(ofreleasingprisoners).Thisprocessofinternal-balancingisbe-

ingperpetuatedtimeandagain.

Similarly, there are deep disagreements on the Palestinian side as well: the

continuousconflictbetweenGazaandtheWestBankandbetweenHamasand

Fatah,thelatterofwhichhasitsowninternaldivisionsaswell.Notallmembers

of Fatah will always agree with all the technocrats running the government –

thisisanimportantissuetoaddressinanhonestdiscussionandmoveforward

fromthere.So,asthereisanumberofprocessesgoingonbetweenmanysides,

wemustunderstandwhattherealityisinordertobeconstructive.

Mymainmessageis,however,thatwecannotcontinuethisforever.Toput

onmydiplomatic,optimistichat,forustomoveforward,allofusmustmakeit

cleartobothsidesthatthiscannotcontinueforever;wehavetogettheparties

outoftheircomfortzone.IfImaysayso,formanyIsraelis,atleastforthoseliv-

inginTelAvivandJerusalem,lifeisquitepeaceful.Theyhavenotseenanyter-

rorist attacks for years, at least not from the West Bank, and they could go on

living like this – the Europeans, Norwegians, and the Americans are happily

payingforthis.Whyshouldtheychange?Perhapstheythinkthatthestatusquo

theyhavenowisbetterthananunknownalternative.Butwemustgetthemout

of their comfort zone.The same could be said about some people on the Pal-

estinianside,althoughfrankly,theywouldneveradmitit.Inasense,theylead

reasonablyokaylivesontheinsideofthisconflict.Obviously,theywouldprefer

anotherrealitybutcanlivewiththedefactoone;theywillnotadmitit,butthey

can.This,however,willnotcontinue–wereallymustmoveaheadonthisone.


Currently,threethingsarehappeningatthesametime:therenewedpeace

talks, the continued state building, and the economic peace initiative. While

I am in favour of an economic initiative, I would like to stress that there is no

economicalternativetopolitics.Youknow,youcan’tsubstituteagenuinepoliti-

calsolutionwithmoney,regardlessofhowlargetheamountsare.Itwillneither

workmorallynorrealistically;investorswouldnotinvestintheunknown–they

would not invest without knowing who would run the place, what the rules

wouldbe,orwhethertheseruleswouldberespected.

Asregardstheregion–theregionisinshutters.ThechangeinEgypthada

tremendouseffectonthisgame;theGazawarwasroughlyayearago(Novem-

ber2012)andHamascameoutquitewellinpoliticaltermsdespiteIsrael’smili-

tarysuccess–thepoliticaleffectwasthestrengtheningofHamas.Hamas’rela-

tionshipwithMohamedMorsiandtheMuslimBrotherhoodmadecertainArab

countriesbelievethatthepoliticalweightperhapsliesinGazaratherthaninthe

West Bank. However, all that has changed now. Hamas is in deep trouble and

thepeopleofGazaareindeeptrouble.Thesetwofactsareunrelated,however,

sincethepeopleofGazahavebeenalreadyindeeptroubleanyway.Butthereis

obviouslyasevereproblemwithGaza–itisatickingbombanditlooksbad.

However,oneobservationthatImadeduringmylastvisitwasquiteinterest-

ingandslightlyoptimistic:whenIaskedthekeyplayerswhattheythoughtabout

theirneighbourhood,theyactuallycameupwithrathersimilaranalysesonEgypt,

Syria,Iran,andLebanon.So,whatthetwopartiesmightnotrealiseisthathaving

talksaboutissuesotherthantheirownmightgetthemtoagreeonsomething.

Andwhiletheregionisfullofwar,conflict,trouble,andfailingstatesontheverge

ofacollapse,thesmallstretchesoflandofmostofPalestine,mostofIsrael,and

Jordanareactuallyquitepeaceful.So,youcouldeitherkeepitthatway,whichyou

willhavetodotogether,or,ifyoufailtosustainthepeaceprocess,youtoowillbe

drawnintothebiggerdramatakingplaceallaround.Oncemore,mypointisthat

we have very little time to lose; the parties must stay committed and we must

compelthemtoremainassuch.Otherwise,wewillhavetodiscusstheoneoth-

eralternativebesideswarthatIknowof,whichisaone-statesolution:onestate

fortwopeopleswithdemocraticrightsforeveryone.Andfrommyexperience,I

haverealisedthatthebestwaytohavethemoreconservativeIsraelissupporta

two-statesolutionistoremindthemthatthealternativeisaone-statesolution,

whichdetersthembecauseofitsimplicationsontheJewishcharacterofIsrael.


Paneldebate

AbdullahAbdullah

Chair of the Political Committee of the Palestinian Legislative Council

Our topic is the realities of Israel and Palestine. The negotiations have start-

ed,thankstoMr.Kerry’seffortsandtimeinvestment.Thesenegotiationswere

startedforthepurposeofsolvingtheconflictbetweentheIsraelisandPalestin-

ians,ratherthanmanagingtheoccupationofIsraeltothePalestinianterritory.

Nineteen rounds of negotiations have been completed, including last night’s,

whichendedwithaninterruption.Inthesenineteenrounds,theborders,secu-

rity,andJerusalemwerediscussed.Inhisletter,Mr.Kerrydescribestheend-goal

ofthesenegotiationsasendingtheIsraelioccupationandhelpingwiththees-

tablishmentofthePalestinianstate.

Endingtheoccupationmeans,attheveryleast,endingallIsraelipresencein

the 1967 Palestinian territories and granting Palestinians complete sovereignty.

However,insteadofdiscussinghowtoendtheiroccupation,Israelisarediscuss-

ing a new wall in the Jordan Valley area and perpetuating their soldiers’ pres-

enceforanunknownnumberofyearstocome.Theyareonlycreatingobstacles

rather than investing any political good will in these negotiations. It was only

lastweekthatfiveministersspokeaboutannexingtheWestBankandbuilding

more settlements in it, where the Palestinians would become mere residents.

Thisdoesnotreflectanyinterestordeterminationtotrulyreachanagreement.

Undoubtedly, the alternative to the two-state solution is very alarming to

the Israelis. Last weekend, Haaretz newspaper, a prominent Israeli newspaper,

warnedinitseditorialthatifthepeacenegotiationsfail,Israelwillfacefurther

isolation.Twodaysago,Netanyahu’sformerNationalSecurityAdvisor,Yaakov

Amidror, said that Israel will face serious international isolation if it fails these

negotiations.ThesearethevoicesthatneedtobeencouragedwithinIsrael,be-

causepeaceservesnotonlythePalestinians’ interestsbutalsotheIsraelis’and

theinternationalcommunity’s.EveryAmericanofficialwouldsaythatreaching

peacebetweenIsraelisandPalestiniansisinthenationalinterestoftheUnited

StatesofAmericaandservestheworld’sinterestsaswell.

So how is this being translated into action? What we see in the territories

inPalestinianlandnowismoresettlements:inthreedays,thebuildingof3359

units has been announced and approved by the government – this is not the


way of peacemaking. Moreover, there are hundreds of orders to demolish Pal-

estinianhousesonPalestinianlands–farbethisfromtheroadtopeace.There

are also threats being made to stop delivering the tax revenues, that is, in ad-

ditiontotherestrictionofmovementandthesegregationofAl-AqsaMosque.

Moreover, thebillsbeingread intheKnessetarealarmingtomanyIsraelis, let

alone Palestinians. So, how are we to get along with these policies and mea-

sures?Theseactionsspeakmuchlouderthanthenicewordssaying,“wewant

atwo-statesolution”.

I think that the international community has a role to play. Our leadership

agreed to resume the negotiations last July thanks to two factors. Firstly, Mr.

Kerry’senthusiasm,hisrelentlesseffortsandcommitmenttotheprocessmade

us trust him. Secondly, we felt that Europe was starting to take practical mea-

suresagainsttheillegalityofthesettlements.Allthesesignswereencouraging.

Nopeacecanbeworkedoutbetweenconflictedpartieswithoutreferringback

to international law and agreements signed between the parties concerned.

However,thewayitisnowbetweenIsraelisandPalestinians,theoccupierand

occupied,everyoutcomeofsuchnegotiationswillbeinfavourofthestronger

party,which,inthiscase,isIsrael.So,weneedmoreeffortstosupporttheAmer-

icansandfortifytheirefforts,andconvincetheIsraelistoabidebyinternational

law.It isnotamatterofcompromise:wearenotinabazaarstrikingbargains.

The law determines what is right and what is wrong.That the occupied terri-

tories of 1967 cannot be annexed by Israel is an international consensus based

ontheinternationallawoftheinadmissibilityoftheacquisitionofterritoryby

force.

Ibelievethatthe lettertheforeignministerofGermanysenttoMr.Netan-

yahuonthe25thoflastmonth[October]istheonlyfactorthatforcedMr.Ne-

tanyahutosendtheIsraelidelegationtoGenevatotheUnitedNationsCouncil

ofHumanRights.Intheletterhesaid,“Ifyoudonotgo,youwillharmIsraeland

thefriendsof Israelandwillnotbeabletodefenditatthe internationalseat”.

Wemustallrespectinternationallawandseekmutualsecurity.Israelisnotthe

onlyonethatseekssecurity;Israelhasnuclearandchemicalweaponsaswellas

thestrongestarmyintheregion;everybodyseekssecurity.WhatIsraelrequests

foritselfshouldbegiventoitspartnerinpeaceaswell.


OliverWates

Moderator

NowIwouldliketoaskHilikBartospeakplease.YousaythatIsrael ismaking

mockeryofthepeaceprocess,areyouserious?

HilikBar

Member of Knesset, Chair of the Knesset Caucus for Ending the

Israeli-Arab Conflict – Deputy Speaker of the Knesset

Some friends here were more optimistic and some were pessimistic. I will be

pessimisticat thebeginningandoptimisticafterwards.Sincethisdiscussion is

about mapping the reality, I will be realistic rather than a dreamer – not that

Iamnotadreamer–wemustbedreamerstobelivingintheMiddleEast.

It looks like the negotiations today are stuck. We must face many difficul-

ties. Having spoken with Palestinian and Israeli negotiators, I understand that

sadly,thecurrentpeaceprocesshasverylowchancestobringaboutafinalsta-

tus agreement for a number of different reasons. However, the negotiations

havestartedandbothsidesmadeverypainfulconcessions.Releasingthepoliti-

calprisoners,forinstance,wasnoteasyfortheIsraelisociety.However,itlooks

likethetwopartieswerenotreadyenough,neithermentallynorpublicly.Allthe

while, Kerry keeps jumping from Jerusalem to Ramallah to Washington, pos-

sibly trying harder than the parties in question in order to bring them peace,

whichisembarrassing,tobehonest.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is having problems reaching peace this time,

which I link to three circles.The first is the immediate circle: his family, ideol-

ogy,andschoolofthought.ThesecondishispoliticalhomeandtheLikudparty,

whichisbecomingmoreextreme.AndthethirdisNetanyahu’scoalition,which

includesNaftaliBennett (fromthe JewishHome)andothers.Thecurrentgov-

ernment coalition is divided between those who realise that the two-nation-

statesolutionisthebestone,butlackasenseofurgencytoapplyit,andthose

whocategoricallyrejectthepartitionoftheland.Theproblemisthattheinflu-

enceof thesecondgroup isextremelyhigh inthiscoalition.Thisstance ispar-

ticularly tragic today because the current Knesset, unlike its predecessors, has

a very strong majority that favours the two-state solution. More than seventy

membersofthe120Knessetmembersarereadytosignorapprovetodayafinal


status agreement with the Palestinians based on the two-state solution. How-

ever,whilethepublicandtheparliamenthaveamajorityforthetwo-statesolu-

tion,amajorityofthegovernmentisagainstit,whichistragic.

However,Israelisnottheonlyonewithproblems.ThePalestiniansideisalso

divided – the West Bank and Gaza are ruled by separate governments, which

hasintroducedrealdoubtsaboutthePLO’sabilitytodeliverus,Israelis,acom-

pleteendofconflictandtheendofallclaims.Andnaturally,weoweittoour-

selvestonotsettleforlessthantheendofallclaims.

Moreover,andthisisabigproblem,whilethePLOfocusesonthetangibles

in the negotiations, such as borders, settlements, natural resources, refugees,

and Jerusalem, Netanyahu’s and the Israeli team’s focus is on the intangibles,

suchasnationalrecognitionandthegrowingincitementintheformalPalestin-

ianeducation.Netanyahudoesthisforareason;heknowsthattheIsraelisoci-

etyhaschangedrapidlysincetheninetiesandtheOsloAccords.Today’sIsraelis

are increasingly concerned with securing the state’s Jewish identity. Israelis to-

daycareaboutanationalidentityandwantthestateofIsraeltoprotectitand

allow it to prosper, and Netanyahu knows that. He needs to show the Israelis

thatpeaceandconcessionsdonotmeanthelossofourJewishidentity.Netan-

yahualsoknowsthatthesecurityissue,bothpersonalandgeneralsecurity,isa

commondemandoftheIsraelisociety.Infact,theissueofsecuritybecomesa

major challenge when we speak of Palestinians and Jews sharing a very small

geographicspace.Itisnotsurprising,then,thatthenegotiatorshavefacedvery

large gaps so far and consider the positions of the other party to be absolute

nonstarters.

Extremists or academics from both sides will speak about a one-state solu-

tionorathree-statesolution,thelastsuggestingGazaasoneofthethreestates.

But both Palestinians and Israelis know that the two-state solution, based on

the1967borders,withpotentiallandswaps,istheonlysolutionthatbothIsrael

andthePalestinianscanallowthemselves.

Still,theydisagreeonthreehardcoreissues:Jerusalem,thequestionofthere-

turnofrefugees,aboutwhichIhavemyownremarksbutwillnotsaythem,and

thesettlements.Mycontribution,however,willmainlybeaboutthesettlements

andsettlers,as itseemstobeyourmainconcern,andthemajorproblemover

whichtheagreementwillfailorsucceed.And,indeed,therearecloseto400,000

settlerslivinginthesettlementsintheWestBank.So,howdowesolvethis?


Well,thesettlersintheWestBankaredividedintofourgroups.One:those

whowouldremaininIsrael,underIsraelisovereignty,dueto landswaps.Two:

those who would gladly return to the other side of the 1967 borders, as their

presenceintheWestBankisaresultofeconomicconsiderations(theWestBank

offers cheaper housing than Jerusalem).Three: the hardcore ideologists, who

are also split into two groups – those who, despite their hardcore ideologies,

willrespectthegovernment’sdecisionandreturntoIsrael,andthosewhowill

useviolencetoremainthere.However,asourambassadorsaid,weknowhow

totakecareofthelatter.Four:aminorityofJewishpeoplewhowouldchooseto

remainunderthesovereigntyofanindependentPalestinianstate,agroupthat

deservesmoreattention.For justaswearehappytohaveandlivewitha20%

Palestinianminority,thereisnoreasonwhythisshouldnotbethecaseforthe

5%,6%,or10%oftheJewishminoritylivinginthe(future)Palestinianstate.

ThiscouldcontributetotheeconomyofthenewlycreatedPalestine;itwill

solvea lotofpoliticalproblemsforPrimeMinisterNetanyahu, and itwillpull

thecarpetfromundertherightists’feet,whoareclaimingthatatwo-statesolu-

tionwillfailbecausesomepeople(settlers)wouldreallywanttostayinthePal-

estinianstate.ThePalestinianstatewouldbeeffectivelybasedonthe1967bor-

ders,preservingitsspace,contiguity,andnaturalresources,allthewhileoffering

Jewstherighttoremaineitheronanindividualoracommunalbasis,basedon

amutualagreement,ofcourse.Forweoftentalkabouttherighttoreturnbut

neverabouttherighttoremain.

In that case, all settlement structures remaining within the borders of the

newPalestinianstatewouldbeconvertedintocivilcommunitiesunderthePal-

estiniansovereignty.Weshouldalsospeakaboutwhetherthey(theJewishset-

tlers)shouldbecomefullcitizensorresidents(ofthefuturePalestinianstate)at

theprimarystages.Anothersuggestionwouldbethatallexistingphysicaland

economic settlement infrastructures be preserved, including industries, indus-

trialzones,andculturalestablishments.TheyshouldbepartofthePalestinian

economyratherthanthrowntothegarbage.

Lastly,byadoptingthisoption,wewillachieveequitableoutcomestomeet

the key national aspiration of both people, despite challenging geographi-

cal strains and while preserving the distinct national character of both states.

Thus, we need to propose the establishment of two, independent sovereign

nation states, principally along the 1967 borders, all the while granting and


safeguardingfullcitizenshiprights totheir respectiveminorities– Jews inPal-

estineandPalestiniansinIsrael.Andperhapsifwegointhisdirectionandthink

outside of the box, this round of negotiations will have a chance to succeed

ratherthanfail,aswetendtoexpertlydo.

OliverWates

Thenwhyarewehereif90%ofthedealisalreadydone,seventyoreightymem-

bersofthe120membersoftheKnessetarepreparedtosignforatwo-stateso-

lution,whatwillittakeforthattocometopass?

MeravMichaeli

Member of Knesset

We are here because we need someone to bring us the deal – that is the only

problemthatwehave.IthinkthePalestinianssharethesameprobleminmany

ways.Weneedsomeonetobringthedealsothatwecanvoteforit.Somaybe

youcantakecareofthatproblemandwecanallgohome.AndwhileIdonot

knowwhateightmoreminutesofmorewordswillbeabletodoaboutthesub-

ject,I’llstillshareafewthoughtsthatIhave.

First,IhavetodisputemycolleagueMKHilikBar,eventhoughwearemem-

bersofthesameparty.Idonotwishtoexplain,justify,orunderstandmyprime

minister.Icompletelydisagreewithhispolicyandwithallthatheisdoingnow

asprimeminister,hasdoneinthepastasprimeminister,andhaddoneinthe

pastbeforebecomingprimeminister.Imightaddthatsomeofthelatterhave

possiblycontributedtotheassassinationofPrimeMinisterYitzhakRabin,who

wastheonlyprimeministerinIsraelbraveenoughandoptimisticenough.And

optimismshouldnotonlybethecourageofthediplomats,butalsobethecour-

ageofpoliticiansandstatespeople.

Iagreewithyou,Mr.Abdullah–it isallaboutpoliticalwillanditgoesina

similarmannerastheancientsaying:“Wherethereisawill,thereisaway”.And

there will be so many different ways: ones including the right to remain and

oneswithout,therightofreturnandwithout,onesaddressingthequestionof

water,andonesthoseofland,etc.However,whatitreallytakesisapoliticalwill,

andapoliticalwillisnotseparatefromotherkindsofwill.

Unfortunately,andthisiswhereIdifferwithmycolleagueMKBar,asawom-

anandafeminist,Iknowhow“whatyouseeiswhatyouget” stronglyapplies


towhereyoucurrentlystand.AndIalsoknowhowdifficultitistogiveupapo-

sitionofprivilege–justashowIknowthatthereisnomanintheworldwho

would willingly give away or give up his privileged position wherever it may

be. Similarly, I know how difficult it can be to give up the position of the vic-

tim,whichholdsitsprivilegesaswell–IsraelandPalestinehavebeencompet-

ingoverwhothebestandmostjustifiedvictimisfortoolongnow;theyhave

beencompetingoverwhoistoblame,whichIamafraid,isanotherpartofthe

currentnegotiations–politicallytermedastheblamegame.Eachishopingto

comeoutandsaythattheydidtheirbestbutthattheothersidewastheunwill-

ingone.

Unfortunately,bothsidesareplayingthesamegame.Yes,Israelistheoccu-

pier,andyes,Israelistheonethathastopayinhardcoin.ButthePalestinians

aretheoneswhoarestillstrongerinincitement,facilitatingthewayforthose

IsraeliswhodonotwanttoreachanagreementandclingonwhatthePalestin-

ianswillnotgiveupon.Myoptimismliesintheunderstandingthatittakestwo

peopletosealthedeal.Thereareplentyofpeopleonbothsideswhowillvote

forit–itistotallyachievable.Butfindmethosetwopeoplewhoarewillingto

doit.

HusamZomlot

Executive Deputy Commissioner for Foreign Relations, Fatah

Well,negotiationsare, indeed,ontrack.We,thePalestinians,wishitsuccess. I

believe the issue of whether this will succeed or not will be a major Palestin-

ianinterest.Thishasbeenpartofourpolicyforthelast25years–anunwaver-

ingpolicy.Weinitiatedthetwo-statesolutionin1988andhavebeentheparty

thatinvestedinitdayinanddayout.Ourpolicyhasbeenastrategic,unwaver-

ingcommitmenttothreeissues:thetwo-statesolution,thenegotiationsasthe

way to achieve that two-state solution, and using nonviolent means to attain

ourgoals.Asourambassadorsaid,wewillbethebiggestlosersifthisfails,and

Ibelievethatourleadershipwillgiveitallithastoensureitsucceeds.

Havingsaidthat,Ihavetwopointstomake,andIwillrelieveyoufromthe

Israel-Palestinediscussion.One isonAmericaandoneonEuropeandtherest

of the world. Given the venue, it is of vital importance to discuss the role and

responsibilitiesofourpartnersandcolleagues.ButbeforeIdothat,allowmeto

saythatIbelieveIrepresenttheaveragePalestinianonthestreetwhenIsaythat


thecurrentIsraeligovernmentisincapableofgettingustowherewewanttobe

intermsofthetwo-statesolution,which,bytheway,Ms.Livnihasalsostated

inpublic.

The words we hear are no longer words; they have become actions. In the

pastfewdays,actionhasspokenveryloudlyintermsofannouncingthebuild-

ingofsettlements,notonlyinEast-Jerusalem,whichIthinkisaPalestinianred-

line,butdeepwithintheWestBank–ahumiliatingact.Doyouknowwhatthe

distance is between Beit-El and the Palestinian presidential compound? Less

thanonekilometer.Toannouncethebuildingof126unitsinthatcompound,a

merewalkingdistancefromthepresidentishumiliating.AndIdon’tthinkthat

itsimplyintendstonaturallyexpandtheexistingsettlements.Youhavecertainly

heardabouttheannouncementofthewallbetweentheWestBankandJordan.

We see two camps in the current coalition. One led by Tzipi Livni, who be-

lievesthatIsraelneedsasolution(now).But,tobebrutallyhonest,shehasprob-

ably said it because she thinks that the Palestinians are currently divided and

mightbelieve,alongwithherparty,thatthisisourweakestpoint.ThePalestin-

iansarefragmentedanddivided,theArabworldisgoingthroughturmoil,the

UnitedStates isgoingthroughitsownissuesandpriorities,andEurope isstill

discussingthe issue.Soperhapsshethinksthatthis isatimelymomentto im-

poseasolutionthatmeetsIsrael’spreferences.

Theothercampisdividedintothreesub-camps,allofwhichrejectthevery

ideaofasolution.Thefirstsub-campadvocatesforaninterimagreement–yet

again,atransitionalagreement,aftertwenty-fiveyearsoftransiting–asifwe

were not already in a transitional state for all these years. And you know how

itgoes–onceitisinterim,interimbecomespermanent.Thesecondsub-camp

wants to see the status quo perpetuated, waiting for another moment that

servesIsrael’interestsinabetterway.Andthethirdandlastsub-campincludes

thosewhoarestartingtoargueagainforunilateralism;thatis,forIsraeltojust

pulloutofanyterritorywhichandwhenitseesfit.AsfarasthePalestinianside

ofthestoryisconcerned,Icantellyouthatallthesecampswillfindnopartner

inus.Idonotthinkthatthecurrentpoliticallandscapewillproducetheresults

thatwealldesire.

As far as the upcoming six months are concerned, the ball is squarely in

Washington’scourt.IbelieveWashingtonhasthreepossibilities:mildinterven-

tion,mediumintervention,andmaximumintervention.Thefirstone,themild,


will follow the method of keeping at it – trying their best, which is what we

havenow.Tryingtoeasethesituationeconomicallyisyetanotherwayofkeep-

ingatitandmaintainingthestatusquo.Wehavebeenthroughthisbusinessfor

somanyyears.

The medium intervention entails presenting a bridging proposal, which

is bound to upset both sides.The maximum intervention would be a regime

change in Israel, which the US has done before. It has done it with Yitzhak

Shamir in1992aswellas in1999,withtheverysamemanheadingthecurrent

government,BenjaminNetanyahu.

Thesearethethreepossibilities.Giventhe informationwehavebeenhear-

ing,IdoubtthattheUSwillresorttothethirdoption.Andso,wewillmostlikely

bestuckwiththefirstorthesecondoptionsfornow.Idonotthinkthatthefirst

isgoingtoproduceanythingbutalastingprocessdesignedtopreventtheout-

come,andwehavebeenthereseveraltimes.

The second option – presenting a bridging proposal without studying and

understandingPalestinianpoliticians’policiesalongwiththeIsraelisideofthe

story,repeatingthescenarioofCampDavid,mightbeextremelydangerous.

ThefirstissuewiththesecondoptionistheideaofaJewishstate,whichpos-

esaproblemfortherightsofthosePalestinianslivingwithinthe1948borders,

andwho,asitstands,donothavefullandequalrightsascitizensofIsrael.The

secondissueisthemajorsettlementblocks,whichsurprisinglyseemmoreofa

PalestinianratherthananIsraeliproblem,astheseblockshavetobeacceptedas

afactoflife!ThethirdissueisJerusalem,spokenofintermsofArabneighbour-

hoods rather than the entire East Jerusalem as capital of the (future) Palestin-

ianstate.Thefourthissueisthequestionofrefugees.Myperceptionisthatpeo-

plehavecometobelievethattherefugeequestionshouldbeviewedasagrand

compromise–therightsofthe1967populationinexchangeoftherightsofthe

Palestiniansoutside.Andthelastissueisthesecuritydoctrinethathasbeenwell

irrigatedintheinternationalsystem:Israelhastocontrolalltheborders,creat-

ingabufferzonebetweentheWestBankandIsrael.

Tobehonest,wewishthiscurrentprocessallthesuccess,butIalsothinkthat

weshouldfocusonthesecond,andthelast,pointthatIwillmaketoday.What

if thisprocessdoesn’tgotowherewewant it togo?The issue isnotwhether

wearestillontrack–youcanbeontrackbutmovingbackwardsorsittingstill

allthesame.AndwhileIbelievethatwearetryingtopushforwardwithallour


force,thesheerforceoftheoppositesideistryingtopullusinadifferentdirec-

tion.AndhereIrefertothetitleofthisconference–Alternative Paradigms.

RegardingEuropeandtheinternationalcommunity,Ireallydobelievethat

for the current process to succeed, the following must be done. One: reinstat-

inganinclusivePalestinianpoliticalsystem,whichisofvitalimportanceandfor

whichnowisatimelyhistoricopportunity.Ibelievethatthingsarereadyandwe

mustrevisitsomeofourinternationalguidelinestodothis.Two:theEUhasto

become our strategic partner, whose guidelines were a pull-factor for the Pal-

estinianstoresumethenegotiations,grantingusthesecurityweneededanda

push-factorforIsrael,lettingthemknowthatnotengaginginapoliticalprocess

wouldbecostly.Three:involvingtheUnitedNationsandinternationalactivism

isofvitalimportance.IdonotseewhyapproachingtheUnitedNationstoseek

statusleverage,toseekstatehood,toaffirmatwo-statesolution,ortodeposit

the two-state solution excludes us from negotiating. If we are negotiating on

thebasisofthetwo-statesolution,weshouldbeallowedtogoaheadwiththis.

Asforinternationalactivism,Ibelieveitishightimetheglobalcivilsocietychal-

lengedthestatusquo,progressingfromtheadvocacysidetotheactionsideof

thestory.

Andlastly,weshouldtakeaverygoodlookattheregion,thenewpartners

forminginit,whatishappeninginIsraelandintheworldwideJewishcommu-

nity.Thereisaseaofchange–JewishcommunitiesintheUnitedStateswantto

raisetheirvoicesinadifferentinstitutionalsettinginavalue-basedway.

Anynewparadigmwillhavetotakeintoconsiderationtwopoints.Andhere

I can assure you that Fatah is very open to listening to the new paradigms be-

causeweareawareofthestrategiccrossroadsatwhichwestand.

First,evenwhileunderoccupation,wedohaverights.Ourrightsshouldnot

wait until we get a politically-sufficient settlement. Jerusalem’s residents con-

tinuetobetreatedasvisitorsandaliensintheirowncity;theyarethreatenedev-

erysingleday;andtheiridentitycardsarebeingwithdrawn.Similarly,theWest

BankcitieshavebecometheperipheryoftheWestBank,wherethesettlement

blocksbecomethemaininfrastructurethatreceivesallthemainservices.

Asforthepeopleofthediaspora:therefugees,whoaremadetobeademo-

graphicthreat,couldbeofmuchhelptoPalestinians–weneedourdoctorsand

lawyers,likeSamBahourwhocamebackallthewayfromtheUnitedStates.His

presenceisnotathreattoanybody,onthecontrary.


We also have economic rights even while under occupation. Israel has ex-

ploitedmuchofourpotassiumfromtheDeadSea,naturalgasfromtheGaza

shores,andotherresources.Accesstowaterisoneofourrights.Protectingour

rightswhileunderoccupationisthefirstthingthatIwouldliketoseeadopted

inanynewparadigm.

Second,anynewparadigmwillhavetoabandonthreeapproaches.Thefirst

is that the two sides must not sort things out on their own; as the ambassa-

dorsaid:wesimplycannotdothatduetothesheer,embarrassingasymmetry

ofpowerbetweenthetwosides–asituationthatcallsforresortingtoan in-

ternational legitimate presence. Remember the last twenty years of business

when we were left to sort it out on our own? There were no negotiations or

talks;therewereonlydictates.Thesecondisaboutinterests.Wehavetofocus

onasetofvalues,ratherthaninterestsandpowerbalances;onethatcouldap-

plytothetransitionalperiod,theperiodbeforereachingasolution,andthepe-

riodafterreachingasolution.Thethirdistofocusonourrights,notonlyour

needs.

Andso, lastly,asanationalmovement,wehavetobaseourentirepolitical

agencyonvaluesandrightsratherthaninterestsandpowerrelations.

NouraErekat

Human rights Attorney and Professor, Temple Law School,

Georgetown University

IamalittlecuriousbecausethetitleoftheconferenceisAlternative Paradigms,

andsincethebeginningoftheconference,Ihavebeenhearingareaffirmation

ofthetwo-statesolution,which isnotnewatall.Andwhiletheformerrepre-

sentative of Norway did mention the one-state solution, he mentioned it al-

mostasathreatincasethetwo-statesolutionfails.

I think that the only new paradigm presented here was Husam Zomlot’s,

whospokeofarights-basedapproach.So,Iamhopingthat,ratherthandiscuss

therights-basedapproachasanewparadigmonly,wealsodiscussitasaframe-

worktounderstandingtheconflict.Becausewithoutunderstandingthatthere

isonecollectivepartythatdoesnothaverightswhileanotherpartyactuallyhas

rights,IsraeliscannotcomplainofhavinggrievancessimilartoPalestinianswho

do not have these human rights. In other words, what these negotiations ac-

tuallydoiscreatetheillusionofparity,wherenoneexists,creatingadiscourse


thatpresentsboth partiesasmakingdifficultcompromises,whenPalestinians

arestructurallycompromisedandareinneedofprotection.

So,forthisforumofnewparadigms,myquestionis:whatisthepossibilityof

usingtherights-basedapproachasawayofdiscussionasopposedtousingthe

two-statesolutionasourentrypoint?

Conclusion

VéroniqueDeKeyser

IbelievethatinthecourseofourdiscussionwehavecoveredGaza,rights,rec-

onciliation,andmore–almosteverything,butIwouldliketopickoutthreeof

theseasthemostsalientpoints.

Firstly,regardingthefinalityofthepeacenegotiations,whichdonotseemto

bethefinalnegotiations,“final”beingawordweshouldneversayanyway–no

negotiationsarethelastones.However,thiscouldbethelastchancefornego-

tiationsunderthepresentschemeofnegotiations.Thisisaveryimportantpoint.

We do not know what other schemes may appear, but we get the impression

that,giventhedifficultenvironmentinwhichtheregionisbubblingthesedays,

thesearecruciallyimportantnegotiations.

At the same time, however, there is a lack of political will involved. It has

been repeatedly said that it is only with a political will that these negotiations

will bear an outcome. I have much sympathy for these members of the Knes-

set who are opting for the two-state solution, whose position would be inter-

estingtofurtherdiscuss inthisgroup.Butthe importantthingisthatpolitical

willislacking,despitetheongoingeffortsofPresidentObama,whoisalsofac-

ingproblemswithhisCongressregardingthisissue.Whileit isverydifficultto

haveapoliticalwill today, it isalsothe lastchancefor it.Muchhasbeenmen-

tionedhereonthatpointandIthinkthatwecouldfindwaysofworkingtogeth-

er, whereby the parliaments make the crucial and strategic importance of this

currentmomentcleartothepoliticians.

Theotherimportantpointraisedmeetswithourconcernsoverthequestion

ofrights.Weshouldnotwaitforapoliticalsolutionforrightstobegiven.Ithink

thattheS&DGroupmembersaroundthistableareveryawareofthisissue,and


which,whenraised,ourIsraelifriendsveryoftenfailtotakenicely.Theygetthe

impressionthatbymentioningtheissueofrights,wemightbeattackingIsrael,

whichisnotthecaseatall.WhileIdonothaveanawfullotofsympathyforthe

Netanyahugovernment,wearenotmixingthatgovernmentupwiththeIsrae-

lis.What we dobelieve, however, is that these rights,particularly incertainar-

eas of the country, such as Gaza, for instance, are not respected, and that per-

hapswecouldworktogethertoensurethattheybecomemorerespectedinthe

future.

Iamnotgoingtofurtherdiscussthequestionofthesettlements.Weconsid-

erthemasillegalandathreattopeace.Muchhasbeenmentionedaboutalter-

natives,suchastheideathatperhapsthesettlementswouldnotdisappear,but

rather,oncepeaceisachieved,turnintoasafe,Jewishentitythatcouldstillex-

istwithinaPalestinianstate.WedonotnecessarilyhavetorepeatwhatSharon

didinGaza,whichwashighlytraumatic,butthesearequestionsthatshouldbe

raisednonetheless.

AndthelastpointregardstheroleoftheEuropeanUnion.HastheEuropean

Unioncorrectlyplayeditsrole,andwhatcanitdointermsofreconciliation?I

have heard it repeated often, not necessarily around this table, that there is

nothing else left for Europe to do, that Europe is disappearing behind Ameri-

ca, that we need to broaden the negotiations at a UN level, and that the cur-

rent framework is not the right framework for negotiations. Europeans very

oftenbeattheirchestandsay:“Haven’twedoneenough?”.Well,maybeithas

not done enough. As regards the question of the due reconciliation of Fatah

andHamas, there ismuchtobesaidonthatpointbutourPalestinianfriends

were too polite to attack us there. But please do not hesitate to engage with

thisproblematic.


AlternativeApproaches–TheBrunoKreiskyForumInitiative

Chair:LiborRoucek

Vice-President of the S&D Group

Discussingalternativeapproachesoralternativewaysofthinkingisexactlywhat

this panel will be about. As has been mentioned, everybody around this table

wishesandhopesthatplanAcanbeimplemented.Inotherwords,thatwecan

haveatwo-statesolutionwherebythestateofIsraelcanexistinsecureborders

alongsideaPalestinianstatethatsimultaneouslyexists inthesamesecureand

viableway.

Incasethecurrentandmostlikelylastwindowofopportunityfailstodeliver

inthenextelevenmonths,whatwouldhappenafterwards?Inourthirdpanel,we

willbetalkingaboutthesealternativeapproachesincasethelatterscenariotakes

place.

ThenameofBrunoKreiskywasmentionedseveral timeshere. Iamnotan

Austrian, but I was lucky enough to not only meet him when I was a refugee

fromcommunistCzechoslovakia,butalsotoworkwithhimintheSocialDem-

ocraticPartyofAustriainthepressdepartment.BrunoKreiskywasaverycoura-

geousmaningeneralandinhisapproachtowardsthePalestiniansandthesolu-

tionoftheIsraeli-Palestinianconflictinparticular.

Introduction

SamBahour

Independent Business Consultant

To be honest, I had planned to introduce this panel with a story about my

daughters.But,instead,Iwouldliketostartwithastorythathadjusthappened

on my way here. I flew from Amman and landed in Vienna, and I went up to

lanenumberthreetothepassportcontrol.Thepassportcontrol isasmallbox

madeofabulletproofglasswallthroughwhichyoulookatthepassportcontrol

officer;underit,thereisasmallslotatthebottomoftheglasswhereyouslide

yourpassportin.So,beingtiredaftertravellingthewholeday,Islidmypassport

inandsetmyhandonthedesk,waitingformypassporttobereturned.Ibelieve


thattwoofmyfingersslidabouttwoextracentimetersundertheglass,which

madetheofficerlookatmeandsay:“Sir,pleasekeepyourdistance”.Ismiledand

tappedontheglass.Hedidnotsmileback.

Iassociatethisshortstorywithourtopictoday.Torevisithistory,duetothe

atrocitiescommittedonthisEuropeanlandinWorldWarTwo,theworldorder

wasreset;andforanyonewhodoesnotbelievethattheworldorderwasreset,I

wouldlikehimorhertoinvitemewhentheVandalsareexpectedtogobackto

PolandandwouldliketheCongressoftheUnitedStatestoinvitemewhenthe

American-IndiansdecidetogobacktoManhattan.

Theworldorderdidresetandinternationallawbecamethedividingbullet-

proofglasspreventingtheseatrocities.Butnotonlydiditbecomeadividerfor

thoseatrocities,butalsoadividerbetweenthoseatrocitiesandthehumanac-

tionsthatcanbetakentoallowanenvironment,astate,orasocietytobeable

tobuildupthemomentumtoactuallycreatesuchatrocities.Internationallaw

todayisthatglasswall.And,likeeverysafeguard,whetheritisanuglywallora

longfence,there isalwaysanopening, just liketheoneunderwhichIslidmy

passport.

Inmystory,thatofficerhadaseriousissuewithmeintrudingonhisspaceby

about two centimetres. Palestinians have had their space systematically tram-

pled upon for 65 years. Every single day, and even as we speak, as we discuss

peaceandpeaceprocesses,whatweknowanddonotknow,ourland,economy,

andbasichumanrightsarebeingviolated.NotonlyintheWestBank,inEastJe-

rusalem,or inGaza,butalsoworldwideasthoserefugeesyearningtogoback

homehavetheirRight(ofReturn)violatedonadailybasis.

So,weaskyoutokeepyourdistanceastheEuropeanUnion.Donotplayfor

Israel or for Palestine. We ask you, as you stated at the beginning of this con-

ference,toplayEuropean.And ifyouplayEuropean,youdonothaveacasual

choice of whether to implement international law or not.You have a legal ob-

ligationto implement international law.Andwhatweaskyou is to justknock

ontheglasstoholdIsraelaccountable.AndIwanttobefrank,justaseveryone

preceding me has been frank as well. While the EU guidelines had brought in

abreathoffreshair,thisparliamentrelegatedholdingIsraelaccountableaway

from the politicians, who are supposed to hold states that violate internation-

allawaccountable.Itallowedittocomeoutofatechnocratinstitution,which

implementsEUlawforEUpurposes.AndIwouldhope,inparalleltothat,that


thepoliticsofholdingaccountablethosewhoviolate international lawwould

bebroughtbacktowheretheybelong–inthepoliticalrealm.

Withthat,IwillgoontotellyouthestorythatIwasgoingtostartwith.It’s

a story about my daughters. I have two daughters. One is a 19-year-old MIT

(Massachusetts Institute of Technology) sophomore, who was born the same

yearasOslowasborn(1993).Theotherisa13-year-old,Nadine,whowasborn

the same year as the second Intifada was born (2000). Both of my daughters

have known nothing but walls, fences, house demolitions, and restrictions of

movementandaccess.Thatistheirlife.AndIoncecalledthemandaskedthem

tobringtheirclassmatestogetherasIwantedtohearwhatthenewgeneration

ofPalestiniansthinksaboutthestatethatwearein.AndwhatIwouldliketosay

nextiswhattheytoldme.

Thisiswhatmychildren’sgenerationsays:

“We know we are militarily occupied. We’re not going to accept it, don’t wor-

ry. We, as Palestinians, for better or for worse, are not going to make world

history and be the first population on this planet to accept a military occupa-

tion.But,dad,wereadourhistoryandweknowthatwhathappenedtoyouall

in 1948was likeonehundred9/11’sstruckonthesameday.Andyoudidwhat

anystatewoulddo,evenintoday’sterms.Youtriedtofightyourwayback.And

youchosearmedstruggletogetbacktoPalestine.Andbytheway,itwasn’tthe

PalestinianswhosaidthattheyweregoingtothrowtheJewsintothesea.That

statementnevercameoutofaPalestinianmouth–itcameoutofanEgyptian

leader’smouth.

But dad, we proved one thing beyond reasonable doubt – we proved that

wedon’tknowhowtofight.Notonlythat,weareupagainstaregional,ifnot

a global, military power that is a producer of weapons and which did not get

there by itself. It got there because France gave it a nuclear technology. It got

there because Germany gave it submarine technology. No, we can’t fight our

wayback.

So,whatdidthePalestinianmovementdothen?Itwenttointernationallaw.

Ataround1974,thePalestinianmovementdecidedtogototheplumbingofin-

ternationallaw.WecanrattleoffmoreoftheFourthGenevaConventionthan

youwilleverwanttohear.A13-year-oldwalkinginthestreetscanrattleoffall

theUNresolutionsthatrelatetoPalestinianrights.But,dad, itdoesn’tmatter,

we’restilloccupied.


Andthenwhathappened,dad?Whathappenednextisthatthepeopleunder

occupationsaid“That’senough–nomore”.Theyhadanuprising.Andtheup-

risinggottheworld’sattention,especiallyinEurope.Butitalsobroughtusbro-

kenbones.Andthatdidn’twork–we’restilloccupied.

Andafterthat,whathappened,dad?Youwerepartofthisone,dad.Youde-

cidedtohavebilateralnegotiations,becausetheUSbasicallyforcedituponyou,

withtheIsraeliside–youroccupier.

Anddad,whenyoucamein1993toPalestine,intheyearoneofyourdaugh-

terswasborn,thenegotiationsstartedwith100,000settlersonthegroundand,

twentyyearslater,therewere500,000settlersinstead.So,youwanttoconvince

us,dad,thatdockingisokaywhiletheworldturnsablindeyetotheactionson

theground?No,dockingdidn’twork–we’restilloccupied.

Andthen,whatelsedidyoudo,dad?YouallwentbacktotheUnitedNations.

Butthistime,nottotheplumbingpartoftheUnitedNations–youwentback

tothetop.Andyougot138countriestoacceptPalestine.Withyourownhands,

you brought the two-state solution to the international arena. And what hap-

pened there, dad? The majority of the world said “Yes”, but the United States,

Israel, the Czech Republic, Canada, the superpower of Micronesia, the super-

powerofPalu,andafewotherssaid“No”.So,thatdidn’tworkeither–we’re

stilloccupied”.

Andthen,mydaughterstellmesomethingthatIhaveaveryhardtimesay-

ingmyselfandthatmyowndadcouldneversay.

Theysaid:“Dad,maybeit’stimetolookIsraelinthefaceandsay:‘Youwin.

Youwin–yougetitall!YougetIsrael,yougettheWestBank,yougetallthewa-

ter,yougetallthefrequencyandairspace,yougettheentireJordanvalley,you

getallofthesettlementsand,youknowwhatelseyouget?Us!Now,weheard

youhavefreehealthcare inIsrael.Wheredowepickupourhealthcards?And

wewantsomeofthatfreeeducationtoo.’”

Whilethedebateisusuallyaroundaone-stateandatwo-statesolution,as

ifthoseweretheonlyoptionsavailabletous,therearestillplentyofotherop-

tions:one-state,two-states,three-states,aconfederation,afederation,aparal-

lel sovereignty, a condominium agreement, and many more. (As a non-politi-

cian,Idonotknowwhypoliticalscienceisnotcalledpoliticalart.)

Butwe,includingthisnewergeneration,havecreatedalitmustestbywhich

to examine any of the political arrangements that might be offered. And the


litmustest isbasicallythreewordsthatthe lateEdwardSaidoncesaid:“Equal-

ity,ornothing”.AndIwonderwhatmakes itsocomplicatedfortheEuropean

UnionortheUnitedStatesofAmericatounderstandthosethreewords“equal-

ity, or nothing”, regardless of the political arrangement. And I hope that that

opens up a discussion in the panel when discussing what those arrangements

couldbe.

Paneldebate

GertraudAuerBoread’Olmo

Secretary General of the Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue

Letmeverybrieflythankthetwolegsthatallowedustomarchonthisalterna-

tivepath.OnelegisDr.BashirBashir,whointroducedthisideatomesomeyears

ago.ThesecondlegistheonlyAustrianinstitutionthatsponsoredthisinitiative,

theDirectorateforSecurityPolicyoftheAustrianMinistryforDefence.So,secu-

ritycanalsobeinterpretedinadifferentandinacreativeway.

Iamveryhappytohavetheopportunitytointroduce“AlternativestoParti-

tion”,whichhasbeenaprocessofthelastthreeyears,carriedoutbyagroupof

PalestinianandIsraelifriendswhowerebraveandcourageousinworkingand

promotingparadigmaticshiftsoutoftheimpasse.

Ourvocabularyishistoricalreconciliationandpoliticalengagement,andour

grammar departs from the current paradigm of division or partition, towards

commongrounds–aparadigmbasedonwhatunitesratherthanwhatdivides

us.ThedeliberationsthatwentonforseveralyearsinViennaresultedinpropos-

ingseveralprinciples thatwouldsecurethe individualandcollectiverights, in-

terestsandidentitiesofJewsandPalestiniansalikeinhistoricalPalestine/Israel.

Thisnoveltypeofintellectualandpoliticalengagementisnotmerelyauto-

pianexercise,whichisveryoftenacritiquethatweget,butonethattakesinto

considerationthesolid,empiricalrealitymanifestedinthegrowingintertwine-

mentof lives,rights,andidentitiesofPalestiniansandJewsinIsrael/Palestine,

aswellasthefactualdevelopmentsontheground.

Wegroundedour interventiononpremisesandconcernsof justiceandon

an inclusive and egalitarian notion of democracy.The Alternatives to Partition


projectdoesnotnameorimplyaspecificgovernmentalinstitutionalformulaor

modalityofendingtheconflict.Wearenotpromotingonestateortwostates.

Wearenot“one-staters”,butwearepromotingrightsandvalues.Itfocuseson

thefundamentalprinciplesthatneedtobetaken intoconsideration inthede-

sign and implementation of any viable solution, and which can be accommo-

dated and realised in various constitutional and/or institutional arrangements,

beittwo-states,afederation,confederation,abi-nationalstate,oryounameit.

Inotherwords,wehavecomeupwithasetofguidingprinciplesthatgobe-

yondthepredicamentofthebinaryofone-state/two-statesoranytheoretical

institutionalarrangementsforapoliticalsolution.Webelievethatlivingtogeth-

errespectfullyalongsideeachotherisbothdesiredandpossible.Thisdocument

doesnotaimtosuggestaconcretesolution,butrathertolayoutanewpolitical

grammarandvocabularytodifferentlyunderstandandframethediscourseand

actualitiesofajustanddurablesolutioninIsraelandPalestine.

Ourdeparturepoint lies inthebeliefthatthefaithoftwopeople is inextri-

cably linked,that Israeli JewsandPalestiniansarepartoftheMiddleEast,and

that neither will be granted exclusive privileges or sovereignty over the entire

landbetweentheJordanRiverandtheMediterraneanSea.Foraclosereviewof

thesetofprinciplesthatourgrouphascomeupwith,pleaseseepage131ofthis

volume.

LeilaFarsakh

Professor, University of Massachusetts

Thankyouverymuchforinvitingusandinvitingmetospeakatthisimportant

gathering.Itmakesmefeelthattheworkofacademicscanbeofsomevalueto

politicians.AndIremainatheartimmersedinpoliticshowevermuchIpretend

towanttobeacademicallyrigorousorobjective.

I would like to discuss the relevance of the idea of alternatives to partition

towhathasbeendiscussedinthepreviouspanels.Thatis:howdowetieinthe

ongoing negotiations with Oslo? What have we learned from Oslo? Was Oslo

acompletewasteoftimeorisittheonlygameintownandwethereforehave

tosticktoit?Whatistheretobelearnedfromtryingtoemphasisevaluesand

rightsinordertoovercomeprivilegesandcreateasustainablepeace?

So,thequestionis,whyisthistwo-stateproposalnotatthetablewhenboth

societiesseemtoadheretoatwo-statesolution?Inthisrespect,Ibelievethatit


isunavoidabletoaskourselves:whathavewelearnedfromOslo?Thatis,what

didOslobringwhichwasfoundational?AndwhatdidOslonotbringtogetus

tothisimpassethatwearein?

Here,IthinkthatitisimportanttorecognisethatOslohasbeenrevolution-

aryinthreeimportantways.

The first (and one of the most important and positive) ways is that it pro-

videdanofficialrecognitionofthecollectiverightsofbothPalestiniansandIs-

raelis.AsLeilaShahidexplained,thisPalestinianrecognitionofIsrael’sexistence

in 1988 became official after Israel and Palestine’s mutual recognition of each

other’scollectiverightsandequalclaimtotheland.

However,whathappenedintherecordofthepasttwentyyearsdocumentsa

trivialisationoranemptyingofcontentofwhatPalestinianstatehoodorPales-

tinianindependencecouldmean.AndthisemptyingofthePalestiniancontent

ofanationalcollectiverighthashappenedasaresultofthreemainpractices.

Firstly,itresultedintheterritorialfragmentationthatOsloinstitutionalised,

asthelatterdidnotprovideafinalstatussolution.ThisismanifestedintheA,B,

andCAreas(intheWestBank),theexpansionofsettlements,andtheexpansion

of checkpoints, permits, and the wall. Secondly, Oslo brought economic frag-

mentation.ItismanifestedinaneconomicseparationbetweentheWestBank

andGazaandinpovertyratesof60%ofthepopulationintheGazastrip.Inthe

West Bank, poverty rates are lower, but they have institutionalised extreme in-

comeinequality.Andthirdly,Oslohasbroughtpoliticalfragmentation.

These three processes of fragmentation did not necessarily result from Is-

rael’sconcernforsecurity,butfromthewayinwhichOslowasstructured–it

avoidedtherootcauseoftheIsraeli-Palestinianproblem.Atthetime,thenego-

tiatordecidednottotacklethefivecoreissuesoftheconflictbecauseoftheidea

that we were not familiar with each other yet and first needed to create con-

fidence measures.The Palestinian authority was assigned as the vehicle to cre-

atethesemeasuresbetweenthetwosides;onlyafterwardswouldtheysitdown

andtalkaboutthefivecoreissues.

ButIthinkthatthereissomethingmuchmorefundamentaltoit.Oslobased

theconflictonthe1967war,makingitthestartingpointoftheconflict,rather

thanthe1948war.Ithinkthattodaywearepayingthepriceofnothavingtack-

ledthatproblem.BythatIdonotwishtofaultIsraelorPalestinewithanything–

thisisnottheissue.Rather,itistosolvetheproblemoftwopeoplehavingthe


sameclaimonthesameland,whichhastobetackledbasedonvaluesandrights,

ratherthantheinterestsandpowersatplay.

Andinthatrespect,thesetofprinciples(BKF’sAlternativetoPartitionprin-

ciples)isparticularlyvaluablepreciselybecauseitemphasisesthatanyproposed

solution, be it a one-state, a two-state, a confederation, or a condominium,

mustensurethissetofvalues.AndthesevaluesarenotIsrael’salone.Justaswe

talkaboutIsrael’ssecurity,wemustalsotalkaboutPalestiniansecurity.Andjust

astalktalkingaboutIsraelineedforspace,weshouldalsotalkaboutPalestinian

needforspace.So,wemustresorttovalues.

FromaPalestinianpointofview,theseprinciplesemphasisefourmainissues

atthecoreofthePalestiniannationalmovementandthecoreofthePalestinian

struggle.

First of all, they emphasise the rights of Palestinians in their totality.They

protectthePalestinianrefugees’RightofReturn,whichhasbeenenshrinedin

internationallaw.AndtheyalsotalkaboutthePalestiniancitizensofIsraelwho

liveinsidethe1948borders.Moreover,theyprotectPalestinianrefugeesaswell

asPalestinianslivinginsidetheWestBankandtheGazaStrip.Thus,itallowsa

reunificationofthePalestinianbodypolitics,whichhadalsobeenfragmented.

Secondofall,theyaddresstheJews’rightsinPalestine.Initsdiscussion,Oslo

has marginalised this issue because it made the discussion as one between Is-

raeliandPalestiniannationalmovementsratherthanbetweentherightsofthe

Jews in Palestine and the rights of the Palestinians in Palestine.These sets of

principles, however, bring back the latter discussion.That is, by discussing the

equalrightsofJewsinPalestine,wecanchallengetheargumentofprivileges.It

ceasestobeaquestionofwhohastheprivilegeofbeingmoreofavictim,and

ratherbecomesaquestionofhowwecanridourselvesof theconceptsofvic-

timhoodandprivilege.

Third of all, they protect the collective and individual rights, which is cen-

traltothediscussion.Anyonetalkingabouttheone-statesolutionisoftende-

scribed as idealistic. And anyone talking about values is often considered un-

pragmatic in disregarding the reality of the powers at play. These principles,

however,emphasisebothindividualandcollectiverightsforeverybody.Inother

words, they allow for a desirable state of rights.The state of equality that Ed-

ward Said had talked about cannot exclude a discussion of collective rights or

self-determination.


This set of principles allows us to conceptualise self-determination beyond

and irrespective of territorial sovereignty, which I think the EU could teach us

muchabout.TheEUisaresultof,andaprocessof,reconceptualisation,andhas

shownusthatself-determinationcanexistindifferentterritorialconfigurations

byfirstrecognisingnationalandindividualrightsinaunifiedstateofrights.

Andlastbutnotleast,thissetisalsoinharmonywiththedemographicreality

ontheground.ThePalestiniansarenearlyatademographicequalitywithJews.

Andaddressingthatissuebythinkingofsecuritybeforethinkingofrightssimply

delaystheprocess,tothedetrimentofeverybody,failingtobringpeacetothe

Palestinians,theIsraelis,and,also,toEuropeans,whoarecentraltothisconflict.

AvrahamBurg

Author, political activist, former Speaker of the Knesset

IsOsloalive?Well,itwasborn.TwentyyearsagowecelebratedthebirthofOslo.

However, it was born very sick and died soon afterwards. Eventually, it passed

awayinthemiddleof1999because,whileOslowassupposedtobeatransition-

alagreementtowardsadeclarationofaPalestinianstate,theIsraelileadership

ofYitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, followed by Benjamin Netanyahu lacked mo-

tivationandcouragetofullyexercisetheOslomission.SinceMay1999andun-

til today,Oslohasbeenadeadelement,andactuallybecameacodenamefor

thePalestinianauthorityasasubcontractortotheIsraelioccupation.Thereisno

Palestinianstate,noagreement,andnonothing.

Isuspect,thoughthisisnotmysideoftheequationhere,therearesomePal-

estiniansegmentsandelementswhoenjoythisstateaswell.Forthisisaworld

inwhich,ifenoughsidesarehappyaboutthewaysomethingis,itremainsthe

wayitis.Yes,Idoprayandcrossmyfingersthatsomethingwillcomeoutofitby

theupcomingMay[2014],attheendoftheninemonthsor,astheambassador

said,attheendoftenmonths,orperhapsattheendoftenyears,tendecades,

orwhateveritmaybe.Oneday,somethingwillcomeoutofit.Butstill,Idon’t

believeinit;youcannotbuildahealthystructureonasickorweakfoundation.

Osloatthetimewasitselfanalternativetothepreviousreality.Andthequestion

nowis,“whatwillthealternativetothealternativebe?”.

OneoftheoutcomesofOsloistheseparationbetweenthetwocollectives.

Until Oslo, and as difficult as it was, we would mix with each other – in the

streets,attheworkingplace,ontheroads.Underthepretenceofapeaceprocess,


whichgavebirthtoprocessesuponprocessesuponprocessesofpeace,separa-

tionwasborn.Andsincewearelookingforanalternativetothealternative,we

thereforearelookingforanalternativetoseparation.

Lookingforanalternativetoseparationaddressesanimportantissue.When

we agreed on a Palestinian state or a two-state solution twenty years ago, we

understoodthatthatwasactuallythefinalarrangement,thatthatwasthenew

setting.Today,however,whenyoumentionatwo-statesolution,mostpeople

think of it as an interim solution. So what next? Even if we have a two-state

solution by the upcoming May, whereby Prime Minister Netanyahu gives his

famousorinfamousBar-Ilanspeech,thequestionremains:thenwhat?

Whatcomesafterthehollowandemptyformula?Theconversationisavery

difficultonebecauseitfeelslikewalkingintoamagicaljunkyard.Ifyoulookfor

aone-statesolution,youhave it.Twostates,youhave it. IfyouwanttheArab

LeagueInitiative,youhaveit.Wehaveanythingyouwantinthejunkyard.And

everybodycomesandpicksuponeofthesesolutionsandenjoysit.Youtellme

two states, I tell you civil rights.You tell me civil rights, I tell you demography.

Youcomeupwithdemography,andItellyoutheArabLeagueInitiative.Youtell

metheArabLeagueInitiative,andItellyouaboutSyria.So, it is impossibleto

talk;theconversationisaveryconfusedandperplexingone.Andthequestionis:

bytheendoftheday,isitpossibletotakeasmanycomponentsaspossibleout

ofthisjunkyardandcreateanalternative?

And here I would like to offer one. Maybe it is not an absolute, complete

workingmodel,butthestructureisthere.

Wespeakabouttwostatesasakindofatop-bottomcollectivesolution.A

Palestinian state is presented as a deus-ex-machina, descending from the top

and, there we have it, whether the state of Israel is recognised or not. So we

havetwocollectivetop-bottomsolutionswithabinarynature: it iseithertwo

statesornothing.Thealternativetothetwo-statesolutionis“nothing”,which

we have adapted to, by the way. We opted for the nothing as opposed to the

two-statesolutionandhaveperfectedthenothingnessasapolicy.

Butabinarysolutionisinsufficient;forbelowthetwo-statesolutionweface

someissues,andabovethetwo-statesolutionwefaceothers.Sowhowillorga-

niseitandhowwillitbeorganised?Whataretheseissues?Inourera,rightsare

a priority for individuals; they are more important than a collective definition,

theHallelujahs,andthefireworks.Individualsask:Whataboutmyrights?


I would therefore like to offer a three-storey political structure.The basic

ground floor stipulates that between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean

Sea,every individualhasarighttothesamerights.WhateverIhave,youhave,

menandwomenalike,JewsandPalestiniansalike,IsraelisandPalestiniansalike,

andJewsandChristiansandFilipinosalikeaswell.Every individualhasaright

tohavethesamerights.LifeshouldbeEdwardSaid’sphilosophy;itissonatural

andshouldbeagiven.And,whileIsraelisveryproudofbeingtheonlydemoc-

racyintheMiddleEast,IwouldliketobeabitmodestandsaythatIsraelisthe

onlyhalf-democracyintheMiddleEast.PerhapsallthatisinbetweentheGreen

Line and the Mediterranean is okay; but whatever lies beyond the Green Line

bearsnoresemblancetodemocracy–tosaytheleast.Andsothegroundfloor

demandsthateveryindividualbetweentheJordanRiverandtheMediterranean

Seahastherighttohavethesamerights.

The mezzanine floor coordinates the relations within the collective, which

comprisesaJewishelementandaPalestinianelement.Will itbeastructureof

two states? I have no problem with it.Two sovereignties? I have no problem

with it either. Will it be two large communities? Whatever it may be, we will

need a mezzanine floor in which the collectives can define and express them-

selveswithoutthepermanentfrictionandalienationbetweenthetwoelements.

However, this will not be enough. We are next-door neighbours with few

kilometres separating us. There is a total economic imbalance and a lack of

commoninfrastructure.Itisunbearable,constitutionallyspeaking,thatonone

sideofthefenceanindividualisdefinedasafreedomfighterwhileontheother

sideofthefence,thesameindividualisawarcriminal.

Wethereforeneedaconstitutionalsupra-structurethatcoordinatestheval-

uesystemofbothsocieties.So,attheendoftheday,thisstructurehasaground

floorofrights,amezzaninefloorofpoliticalentities,andacoordinatingfedera-

tiveorconfederativesupra-structurethattakesonsomeoftheresponsibilities

andfunctionsonbehalfofusall.

Does this different structure for the Middle East correspond with some of

whatyouhavehere inEurope?Yes, itdoes. Is itpossible intheMiddleEastre-

gion?Ofcourseitis.

Allowmetomaketwofinalremarks:

The first is that I do believe that the contemporary Arab awakening offers

fantastic opportunities for Israelis and the West to engage with these liberal,


rights-seeking, committed forces in Arab societies, forces whose existence we

didnotevenwanttorecognisetwo,three,orfouryearsago.

Thesecondpointisthefollowing:untilImetHusam(Zomlot)–akindofa

traumaticorganisingmoment inbothofour lives–Iwalkedaroundwiththe

feelingthatnomatterhowitgoes,itwillbeallofusJewsvs.allofthemPales-

tinians;regardlessofwhathappens,itisallofusversusallofthem.Then,thanks

totheBrunoKreiskyForum,I“unfortunately”methim,alongwiththisgroupof

verygoodpeople,andrealisedthatourvaluesystemswereclosertoeachother

than thoseofmy cousinswhoare settlers and occupiers.So,suddenly, thepo-

tentialforapplyingstructureliesinaverysimpleacceptance:thatitissomeof

usandsomeofthePalestinians;versussomeofusandsomeofthePalestinians.

It is all of those who are committed to the value system of rights, acceptance,

andcoordination;versusallofthosewhotrytoannihilatetheother,onewayor

another.

Isthisstructurepossible?

Theproofisinthisroom.

InbalArnon

Associate Professor, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Attheriskofrepeatingsomeofwhathasalreadybeensaid,Iwillputonmyscien-

tifichatandsaythatrepetitionisreallygood,especiallywhenintroducingnewideas.

What we have been trying to do with these new principles is to reconsider

the logic of partition or separation. Mainly, these principles question the idea

thatthegoalofanagreementisthestrictseparationofthetwopeoples.

Wequestionitfortwokindsofreasons,bothpracticalandconceptual.Prac-

tically,thelivesofthetwopeopleshavebecomeincreasinglyintertwined.More-

over,whatthepartitionfailstoaddressisthefateofthePalestinianminorityin-

side Israel, which is a big failure. It also fails to acknowledge the two peoples’

historicalandreligioustiestoHistoricPalestine,aquestionwhichhasalsocome

upinpreviousdiscussions.

Onaconceptuallevel,andmaybeamoreimportantone,partitionorsepara-

tioninandofitselfdoesnotguaranteetheindividualandcollectiverightsofthe

twopeoples.So,thankstothetwentyyearsfollowingOslo,wenowknowthat

wecanhavebothaveryunjusttwo-statesolutionandaveryunjustone-state

solution.


Moreover,itisimportanttofindasolutionthatdoesnotmaintaintheasym-

metryandinequalitythatitwasmeanttoresolvebetweenthetwopeoples.This

shouldapplywithinboththeOccupiedTerritoriesandIsrael.AndhereIhaveto

disagreewithMPHilikBarabouthowhappilyIsraelacceptsthePalestinianmi-

norityinsideIsrael.Weknowforafactthatthereisalotofracismanddiscrimi-

nationthathasgottenworseoverthepasttwentyyears,inpartbecauseofthe

logic of partition. If we separate the Palestinian minority inside Israel, we risk

endangeringtheirrights.

Therefore, the starting point for any agreement should be a set of princi-

ples that guarantees the individual and collective rights, interests, and iden-

tities of the two people, upon which the two sides have to agree.The agree-

mentwill includeendingtheoccupation,discrimination,and inequality that

comewithit.

Theseprinciplesshouldguidetheinstitutionalimplementationthroughthe

visionratherthantheframework.And,oncemore,Iwanttostressthatweare

notadvocatingaone-statesolution.Infact,theseprinciplescanhappilylivein-

sideasomewhatmodifiedtwo-statesolution.Buttheideaistobaseourselves

on these principles and work for a solution henceforth, rather than the other

wayaround,whichhasbeendevoidofanycontentorprinciplesthatcouldactu-

allyimpactorendtheconflict.

We also hope that by implementing those principles we can address sever-

al of the shortcomings of Oslo. I will echo what Ambassador Leila Shahid elo-

quentlysaid:wecanusethepastfailurestolearnfromforthefuture.Onefail-

ure of Oslo, which Leila Farsakh mentioned, is that Oslo failed to touch upon

or resolve the fundamental issues; it did not provide the two sides with an ac-

knowledgmentofthelegitimacyforbothcollectivestoexistintheregion.Italso

failed to resolve the inherent asymmetry between the sides – in terms of eco-

nomics, resources, and rights. Likewise, it failed to deal with what would hap-

peninsideIsrael,todealwith1948ratherthan1967,toaddressthePalestinian

minorityinsideIsraelinsteadofrelegatingittoalaterdiscussion.Theyhaveto

beapartofthesolutiontotheendoftheconflict.

ButwhywouldIsraelor Israelisbe interestedinthisshiftofparadigms?So

far,tobeperfectlyhonest,thestatusquohascostthePalestiniansaveryheavy

price and the Israelis a very low price. Israel has actually been quite secure in

recent years and, in the years following Oslo, increased its access to land and


resources.Thus,thereappearstobenoincentiveorreasonfortheIsraelistore-

consideraparadigmshift.

However,thatisonlywhatappearsonthesurface.Therearetwostrongrea-

sons for why Israelis should consider this shift. First, ending the conflict by re-

coursingtotheseprinciplesistheonlywaytoofferIsraelisalong-term,viable

presenceintheregion,asisbecomingincreasinglyclear,especiallywhenexam-

iningthedevelopmentsorunderdevelopmentsintheregionaroundus.Thisin-

cludesourpresenceasbothindividualsandacollective.

Thesecondreasonisthatthisshiftinparadigmistheonlywaytomaintain

a democratic society inside Israel. And, as an Israeli who is deeply committed

to that society, and who chose to return to live in it, I think that this is incred-

iblyimportant.Ithinkthatthelogicofpartitionhasleadtoanincreasinglyrac-

istandundemocraticsociety.Wecanseethatinthelegislationbeingpassedin

therecentyears,inthewaytheminoritiesaretreated,andinthewaythecentre

istreated.Toavoidthatpath,weneedtoresorttoadiscourseofinclusiverights.

Andthelogicofpartitiondoesnotworkwellwithit.

Moreover,Ithinkthattheseprinciples,whichincludeanacknowledgement

of the presence of a Jewish Israeli collective in the region, will somehow reso-

natewithmoreIsraelis,bringingmoreinlinewiththeideaofapossibleendof

theconflict,leadingmoreoftheIsraelipublictoadoptit.

AnotherreasonwhythisiscrucialrightnowisthattheIsraelisocietyisata

crisispoint.Thereisanideologicalcrisisandanincreasingeconomicgap,lead-

ingtoashrinkingtrustinthestateanditsinstitutions.Thisisadangerouspro-

cess and the European Union, more than any other, knows where that could

lead.Atthesametime,however,thebreakdownofthetraditionalalliancesand

themistrustinthestatecanleadtotheformationofnovelalliancesaroundthe

discourseofrights.

Togiveoneexample,Iwilltellyouaboutthisgroupofpublichousingactiv-

ists in Jerusalem, which mainly comprised single mothers and homeless peo-

ple who had come together to try and demand public housing rights (as the

general state of the public housing in Israel is going through a big crisis). Re-

cently,thisgrouppaidavisitofsolidaritytoPalestinianfamiliesinShu’fatand

Beit-Hanina whose houses had been demolished by the state. While these

were not the classic left-wing audience, they still managed to form an al-

liance without giving up their differences or identify as Jewish-Israelis and


Palestinians.They have managed to come together around this basic right of

housing.

Finally,Iwillendwitharemarkaboutthemanypolicyimplicationsthishas

on theEU.First,havingthe EUcommittedtoguaranteeing individual andcol-

lectiverightsratherthanguaranteeingatwo-stateframeworkwouldbeanim-

portantstepforward.Thatmeansinterveningintheactualrightsontheground

rather than the promotion of more forums, which would allow us to discuss

possiblesolutions.Second,IproposethattheEUcommitstosupportinggrass-

rootsactionandalliancesonthegroundasawayofmovingaheadwithestab-

lishingfurthernewalliances.

BashirBashir

Research Fellow, Van Leer Jerusalem Institute

Iwillfirsttrytosummarisewhattheseinterventionsimplyintermsofthespe-

cific alternatives that they propose.Then, I want to touch on two very signifi-

cantpointsthatIthinkarethecoreofourengagementanddiscussiononthe

questionofIsrael/Palestine,bothofwhichhavetodowithsovereigntyandthe

state.IwillalsomentionthequestionofJerusalemandthequestionoftheJew-

ishstateasexamplesofhowour logicorparadigmproposesalternativethink-

ing,followinginthespiritandthecontextofnoneotherthanEurope.

Tosummarise,theseinterventionshavebasicallytriedtoproposeabi-nation-

alethicthatleadstoahistoricalreconciliationinIsrael/Palestine.WhatdoImean

by this and how is it different? Oslo, or the entire peace process, has been pre-

misedonalogicthatpromotesanasymmetricalsegregation,separation,orparti-

tion,asifguidedbytheHegeliannotionofmasterandslave.Thatis,theoccupier

andtheoccupied–abuilt-in,systematic,structuralasymmetryofpowerthatis

veryhardtobreak,andonewhichhasbeensufficientlyelaborateduponhere.

Whatisthealternative,then?Thealternativeisanapproachthatadoptsbi-

nationalethics,leadingtoahistoricalreconciliation,preciselytomeettheasym-

metryofpowerthroughacknowledgingprinciplesthatprovetobealternative

inthefollowingsense.

The first is based on egalitarian politics – the principle of equality.The sec-

ondisbasedonreciprocity.Thethirdisbasedonmutuallegitimacy;thatisthe

Palestinians must come to terms with the existence of Israeli Jewish national-

ism in historic Palestine and, more importantly, with recognising the Israeli


Jews’acquiredrighttonationalself-determination.Equally,itisabouttimethat

IsraeliJewishnationalismcomestotermsexplicitlywiththeexistenceofPales-

tiniannationalisminhistoricPalestine,and,mostimportantly,theirrighttona-

tionalself-determination.Thatiswhatwearetryingtopromote.

Now,onecouldsaythatthisisverynice,romantic,escapist,andutopian,but

Ithinkthatitprovidesmorethanjustthat.Howso?Iwillexplainitintwovery

briefissues,whichareatthecruxoftheEuropeanexperience.

Thefirstpertains to sovereignty.Our frame and ethicsproposealternatives

inwhatwehavecalledanewgrammarofpolitics.Whetheryouareascholar,a

politician, or an activist, integration is one of the most used words in the con-

textofEurope.Integrationisusedoftenbecausethereisaneo-medievalsystem

ofsovereigntyinEurope.ThatisexactlywhattheEuropeanUnionisallabout–

producing a neo-medieval notion of sovereignty. Unlike the old European in-

vention of the (absolute, indivisible, and unshared) Westphalian paradigmatic

notion of sovereignty, the new European invention substantively breaks from

that paradigm, introducing a post-Westphalian order.That is, it introduced a

newnotionofsovereignty,wherebysovereigntyisnotabsolute,butsharedand

divisible.

IwilltakeJerusalemasanexample.Mostoftoday’sparticipantsproposeJe-

rusalem as the capital of the two states, which is an example of shared sover-

eignty.ButwhyareweproposingasharedsovereigntyforJerusalem?Because

thetwosidesinJerusalemareintertwined–ArabsandJewsinJerusalemarein-

separable.However,theyarestillseparatedbywalls,Bantustans,ethniccleans-

ing, checkpoints, and many other systems. Nevertheless, and since all of this

isethically inconsistentandmorallyunacceptable,whatwepropose instead is

shared sovereignty. Historic Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterra-

neanSeaisamacrocosmofJerusalem,wherePalestiniansandIsraelisareinter-

twinedintheentiretyoftheland.

ThisisoneexampleforwhyIthinkthisideaempiricallyrelevant–Ibelieve

that the reality on the ground is already a few steps ahead of this idea’s politi-

cal conceptualisation. It also shows how the current negotiations enterprise,

amongmanyofitspredecessors,remainsavirtualone.

The second point pertains to self-determination. I believe that the over-

whelming majority agrees that both Palestinians and Israeli Jews deserve sup-

portforself-determination.AnotherEuropeandevelopmentthathasfollowed


thelogicofintegrationandanewpost-Westphalianorderwasthecashingout

of self-determination in a non-statist manner.That is, cashing out self-deter-

minationdoesnotnecessitateexclusivesovereigntyorstatehood;itcouldalso

becashedoutinsuchmodelsasafederation/confederation,aEuropeanUnion,

andmanyothersystems.

The logic of the Jewish state, however, perpetuates the distorted logic of

masterandslavethatisblindtothehugeindigenouspopulationthatexistsin-

sidewhatistermedasIsraelProper.TheyarenotJews;theydonotwanttobe

Jews, and the Jews do not want them (the indigenous population) to become

Jews.Toconnectthiswithpolitical theory,oneofthemost important ideasof

twentieth-centuryphilosopherJürgenHabermasisdeliberation and democratic

legitimacy,whichsetthetheoreticalblocksfortheformationoftheEUinspe-

cificandforpost-nationalismingeneral.Habermasstatesthatforademocratic

decisiontobemadeandbecomelegitimate,thosewhoareaffectedbyitshould

besomehowpartofitsmaking.AndsoitfollowsthatIsrael’swishtoberecog-

nisedasaJewishstatewithoutreferringto20%ofitsconstituency,isunaccept-

able. And I am confident that the overwhelming majority of Palestinian citi-

zensofIsraelisnotgoingtoacceptthis,letalonethelargerPalestinianpolitical

framework.

AndmylastpointregardstheIsraeliambassador’scomment(DavidWalzer).

Hemoreorlessimpliedthatwhilewecouldgoaheadanddothis(talkingabout

alternatives),weshouldnotdotoomuchofit.Whilehedoesnotdefyalterna-

tives,hedoesnotwishustoexplorethem,askingustodivertourenergyfrom

discussingthem.This,however,isconsideredpolicing.Ourgroupcallsthisthe

tyranny of statehood,as itdeterminestheboundariesofthe imaginable. Itde-

termineswhat ispermissibleandwhat is impermissible,what isworth investi-

gatingandwhatisnotworthinvestigating.Itisalmosttellingusthatifweare

tothinkaboutself-determinationandseektoberespectedoutsidetheframe-

workoftheJewish,exclusive,homogenous,andethnicnationalism,wewillbe

accusedofbeinganti-Semites,anti-Israel,andsoon.

Whilethisenterprisemightsoundalittleambitious, it isbothoverdueand

timely. And living where I live, I can assure you that it is based on an intimate

communicationwithandacarefulreadingofreality.Therefore,Ithinkthatthe

Europeans, in terms of institutions, could also start rethinking, or at least ex-

panding their horizon, abandoning that permissible/impermissible policing


concept,andactuallystartextendingtheirgenerosityandpoliticalandintellec-

tualintegritytoembraceandsupportinitiativesofthissort.

AndthisshouldnotonlybeaEuropeaninterest,asitisfirstandforemosta

European responsibility and obligation. Zionism is a European phenomenon,

whichwasananswertoaEuropeanracismandanti-Semitism,theconsequenc-

esofwhichthePalestinianshavebeenenduring.Nevertheless,thePalestinians

arewillingtosharetheland,Palestine,withtheIsraeliJews.Butthisremainsa

Europeanmandatory,ethicalresponsibility.WhilenotallEuropewasimplicated

init,anti-SemitismstillcamefrommajorEuropeanplayerssuchasFrance,Ger-

many,Austria,Poland,andmanyothers.

Therefore,theIsraeli-PalestinianquestionanditsrootsarebothaEuropean

questionandaEuropeanphenomenon.Thelanguageofinterests,terror,andse-

curityshouldnotbetheexclusivedriveoftheEuropeanengagements.Theethi-

calcommitmenttowhattheEuropeansbeautifullystandfortoday-democratic

principles,equality,aswellasjustice,alsomatter.Andthisisexactlywhatthisen-

terprise isabout–distributiveandrestorative justice,premisedonbi-national

ethics for a historical reconciliation, where we transcend and break out of the

master/slave,occupier/occupieddichotomy,notinthesenseofescaping,butin

thesenseofaddressingasymmetriesofpowerandcomingtotermswiththem.

JavierMorenoSanchez

Secretary General of the Global Progressive Forum

As has been said, these ongoing negotiations are perhaps the last opportunity

fornegotiationsofthiskind.Shouldwewaitnineortenmonths,orwhoknows

how long, for that chance to die before we introduce the new approach pre-

sentedtousthisevening?Dowehavetowaituntilthereisnomoresolutionto

applyanewparadigmbasedonvaluesandrightsratherthanoninterests?Or,

canwebringthattothenegotiationstable,andifso,how?

LeilaFarsakh

IdonotthinkthequestionisaboutwaitingornotwaitingtoseewhetherOslo

dies or not. We all know that the ongoing negotiations are based on a legal

frameworkthathasrecognisedtheonlyresolutiontotheconflictinatwo-state

solution.Ourlegalstructure,beitinResolution181,242andtheroadmap,which

admitsthattheonlysolutionavailablenowisaPalestinianstate.


Whatthediscussedprinciplestrytodoisstatethatthesolutionandoutcome

oftheKerry-sponsorednegotiationsmustaddresstheseissuesofrightsandval-

ues.Now,howcanwemakethemapplythoseprinciplesofrightsandvalues?

Asyouknow, it isonlytheEUandtheUnitedStatesthatcanimposetheseon

thestrongerparty.This isyourroletoplayratherthanours.TheEU’sstandon

settlementsiscentralhere–youcouldemphasisetheimportanceofseeingcol-

lectiverightsindifferentframeworks,andadoptingBashir’spropositiontocon-

siderJerusalemtofunctionunderasharedsovereignty.

Theproblem,however,isthattheinterlocutors,especiallyontheIsraeliside,

are not interested in such alternatives and can afford to waste time.The only

entity that can make them stop doing that is the international community, of

whichtheEUisacentralplayer–Israelistobeheldaccountabletointernation-

allawandshouldbedeniedaccesstoEUmoney,research,andmembershipun-

til itadherestothesebasicvalues.Ialsothinkthat it is importantthatthisdis-

cussion exceeds this group and reaches the commission, which will hopefully

implementaprinciples-basedagenda.

Questionfromtheaudience

TheproblemofthePalestinianrefugeeswasnotdiscussedhere,whichisavery

importantissuetosolvingtheconflictbetweenIsraelandPalestine.Myquestion

istotheIsraelis:ifyouhaveonecountrywithaPalestinianminority,whatwillyou

dowhenthelargenumberofPalestinianrefugeeswillwanttocometoIsrael?

Secondly,ifyouhavetwocountries,onePalestinianandoneIsraeli,howwill

the Palestinian government with its already overpopulated territory solve the

problemofthePalestinianrefugees?

Thirdly, we gave the Palestinian people all the social possibilities for a very

good life.But I’mnotsurethattheyhavestoppedorwill stop incitingagainst

Israel.It’samentalityproblemforme,andthismentalitymustbechanged.

InbalArnon

We do not have mentality problems. We actually live in the region with each

otherandIdonotthinkthatthis isamentality issue.And,veryshortly,wedo

addresstheRightofReturn.Wedonothaveafullydetailedplanyet,butthere

are ideas about how that can be implemented in a way that respects us and

doesnotreplaceapastinjusticewithanewinjustice.


HusamZomlot

EventhoughIamnotpartofthispanel,Iamverytemptedtocommentonthat

question.Thisrepresentsarathermainstreamattitude,anditisveryimportant

thatweaddressitintwostages.

First, I would like to address the attitude itself, whereby the Palestinians

arerepresentedashavingbeengivenrightsbyIsrael,allowedtodriveonIsrae-

li roads, allowed tobe on Israelibusses,and paid likenormalpeople,but that,

alas,they(thePalestinians)stillmisbehave.Thisattitudeiscausingalotofgreat

problems and is being translated in the current political system. However, our

originalstrugglestartedinPalestine–wehaveoriginatedinPalestine.

Regardingtherefugees,Iwaseffectivelyborninatentinarefugeecampin

the south of Gaza – in Rafah. My father lost his home in Israel and I grew up

hearingallthenarrativesabouttheNakba,thePalestiniancatastrophein1948.

AndsoIcanclaimtorepresentthemainstreamPalestinianrefugee.Andwhile

someofthemmightwanttocomebacktothePalestinianstate,someofthem

mightwanttostaywheretheyare,andsettleinLebanonorSyria,forexample,

wheretheyhavebeenforthepasttwogenerations.Othersmightwanttoreset-

tleinathirdcountry–theymightfindCanadaorAustraliatobeofferingthem

better economic opportunities – while the rest might want to go back their

originalhomes.

However,allofthemwantonething–afullrecognitionoftheNakba.“Do

notdenyit”;thisiswhateverysingleseriousIsraelischolarhassaidtoo;theNa-

kbahashappened.Israelhasforcedmyfatherandtheentirepopulationofrefu-

geesoutofthatlandatgunpoint.Ifwestartwiththerecognition,ifwerecog-

nise what happened and take responsibility over it, I believe that we would

resolve 70% of the problem already. In my opinion, this is the easiest of all is-

sues. Infact, it iseveneasierthanresolvingthequestionof Jerusalemandthe

settlements.Nevertheless,myfatherhastobegiventheoptiontogobacktohis

homeafterrecognisingtheNakba.

Iwillalsotellyou,andthisisnottomakeyoufeelbetter,thatmostlikelyand

mostpractically,mostPalestinianrefugeeswillnotreturn.For instance,myfa-

thernowlivesinNottingHillinLondon,holdinghandswithmymotherallthe

time.Beingarefugeeforthethirdtime,hewouldprobablynotwanttoreset-

tleagain.IamnotsurethathewantstogobacktoaHebrew-speakingcountry


anyway.However,themomentyougivehimthatrecognitionandtakerespon-

sibilityoverthepast,hewillmostlikelytellyou“Okay,fine,thishappened,and

nowI’mgoingtoliveinLondonandgetonwithmylife”.So,pleasedonotthink

aboutrefugeesasathreat,butratherasanentrypointtoasolution.

SamBahour

Iwouldliketocommentbystatingthefollowing:assomeonewhohasrelocat-

edfromtheUStoPalestineattheonsetofOslo,andhasbeenthereforthepast

20years,thatwhileOsloisafailedparadigm,itsfailureisrecurrent.Ithashad

manychaptersoffailurethatwereeachwritteninadifferentcapital.

ButwhatwasOslo’sparadigmtryingtosolve?Itwasrunningaround,mostly

to European capitals, into your five-star hotels – thank you – trying to find a

single button.The single button was called, and I heard it said multiple times

today, “a final status resolution to this conflict”. What does that single button

represent? The end of occupation, the release of prisoners, applying the UN

resolutionoftheRightofReturn,theresolutionoftheJerusalemquestion,and

theresolutionofthenaturalresources–andthenwewouldallkissandmake

up.But itdidn’twork; itactuallycannotwork.Andifthere isany lessonthat I

learned from living the twenty years of the repeatedly-failing Oslo is that in-

stead of one button, there were two, and that they have to be pushed in the

rightorder.

The first button has a title to it. It’s called “end the occupation”. We have

absolutelynotoleranceto liveonemoredayundertheoccupation.Andifany

ofyouwouldliketoconvincemeotherwise,Iinvitehimorhertocomelivewith

meinmyhouseinRamallahuntiltheoccupationisover.Then,andonlythen,

canPalestiniansnegotiate,asthenegotiationswouldthusbebasedonafuture

arrangementbetweentwofreeandequalparties.Cananyofyouconvinceme

thatthePalestinianside,nomatterhowarticulatetheyare,canactuallynegoti-

ateingoodfaith,whentheycouldgetarrestedontheirwayhome,orwhentheir

watercanbeturnedoffatanytime,orwhentheyarenotallowedtoattendthe

nextmeeting?

We are not idealistic. When I say, “End the occupation”, seeing 80% of the

currentoccupationendcouldsatisfymejustaswell.Forexample,asimplething

thatcanbedone,andwhichwasactuallydoneonlyrecently,wastoallowpasta

intotheGazaStrip.PastawasnotallowedintotheGazaStripforalongperiod


oftime.Now,Iknowthatpastacanbeaweaponofmassdestructionifyoueat

toomuchofit,butittookaUScongressmanfromMinnesotatoflytoGazato

learnthisfact,togobacktoMinnesotatoeffecttheStateDepartmenttoinflu-

enceIsraeltoallowpastaintotheGazaStrip.

I am not telling you anything that you do not already know. European

UnionHeadsofMissionreportsarticulatethosekindsofactionsingreatdetail.

So, how do we take the EU’ Heads of Missions’ reports, which come out on a

monthlyandyear-roundbasis,andtranslatethemintoactiontoholdthepar-

ties,bothparties,accountable?

AnaMariaGomes

S&D Group Coordinator in the Committee on Foreign Affairs

in the European Parliament

I must say that I am fascinated. I came to this conference not really expecting

much,andinsteadIamreallyfascinated.Throughoutmycareerasaformerdip-

lomatIfollowedtheMiddleEastpeaceprocesswithgreatfrustration.

Andmyquestionisbasedonthat:apartfromthemainactors,themainpro-

tagonists,theIsraelisandthePalestinians,Mr.Bashirrightfullymentionedthat

Europetoobearspartoftheresponsibility.However,throughouttheseyears,I

have seena lotofbackstabbing, mainlydone to thePalestinians,bypeopleor

countriesthatweresupposedtobetheirallies,oneofwhichisEgypt.Isawthat

atthebeginningofthepeaceprocessanditcontinuesuntiltoday.

So,first,howisthisexchangebeingimpartedtoamajorplayerliketheUS?

A parallel was drawn here with South Africa.The position of the West was a

determiningfactorinendingtheapartheid.So,howistheUSbeingexposedto

thiskindofout-of-the-boxthinkingthatwehavewitnessedheretoday?

Andsecond,howwouldotherplacesintheregionreacttotheseunconven-

tional paradigms? Do you think that there is a chance they would undermine

them?Istheconflictnowintheareaactuallyanopportunitytoneutralisepos-

siblebackstabbingbyotherplayersintheregion?

BashirBashir

Let me use your example to actually demonstrate that some of this proposed

thinkingisnotonlychallengingfortheZionistmainstream,butalsoforPales-

tinian nationalism. For while some people think that this manner of thinking


ismusictoPalestinianearsandverytroublingtotheZionistmainstream,thatis

notnecessarilythecase.

Therearemuchmoreseriouschallengestothisthinkingthanmeetstheeye.

First,oncewestarttoconceptualiseaformofaninstitutionalarrangementthat

speaks to the ethics of bi-nationalism, an arrangement which would also be-

comeanidentityissueatsomepointaswell,thePalestiniannationalmovement

willhavetoengageandcommunicatewithArabnationalisminaseriousman-

ner.Theircommunicationwouldnotnecessarilyhavetobeclashing;butthere

mightbesomeserioustensionsthatcouldemergefromit.

The second challenge relates to the definitions of Palestinian identity and

thepoliticalthoughtthatinformthesedefinitions.PoliticalIslam,forinstance,

doesnotsharemanyofthesefundamentalissuesthatwementionedinterms

ofbinationalethics.Moreover, thisparadigmmightcompromiseandcontrast

some components of the mainstream narrative in which Palestinians concep-

tualisethemselvesinrelationtoZionismasacolonialmovement.Thestakesare

veryhighforthePalestiniansbecauserecognisingIsraeliJewishnationalismand

self-determinationinHistoricPalestineisnotaneasybusinessforPalestinians.

Nevertheless, speaking of the hope that the Arabs at large will engage dif-

ferently–they shouldbear inmindthat historically the Jewshaveneverbeen

aweirdoraliencomponenttotheexperienceofthisarea.Andcertainly,when

historically comparing their legacy and existence in the Mediterranean, Arab,

andMuslimworldstotheirexistenceandlegacyinEurope,theJewscomeout

doing much better in the former (i. e. the Mediterranean, Arab, and Muslim

worlds).

Another project that the Kreisky Forum has started is one called Arab En-

gagements with the Jewish Question,whichbringsArabintellectualstogetherto

discusstheJewishquestion.Andyouwillhavetoseetheexcitementoffirstclass

intellectualsfromLebanon,Egypt,Palestine,andSaudiArabiawhentheycome

todiscusstheseissues.

So,yes, therearechallengesandtensionstothisapproach,andnotonlyat

thestatelevel.Conceptually,itposesveryseriouschallengestopoliticalIslam;it

posesaveryseriouschallengetoArabnationalismofaparticulartype–which

follows a form of organic, exclusionist and ethnic nationalism. I do not think

that Palestinian nationalism totally subscribes to that side. In fact, Palestinian

nationalismisquitepromisinginthesensethatitislargelyaterritorial,inclusive


nationalism,suchastheonedemocraticnon-sectarianstateadoptedbyFatah

intheearly1970s.Fatah,amongothers,initsownconceptions,asamainstream

Palestinian nationalism, had spoken about an inclusive one state for Muslims,

Christians,andJewsbackinthe1970s.

So,wedohavetheresourcestoengagewiththisquestion.Whilethisthink-

ing(Fatah’s1960s,1970sapproach)isnotnecessarilystillvalidintoday’sworld,

itat leastprovidestheconceptualand intellectual resourcesneededtohandle

thisinamoreeffectiveway,allthewhilekeepinginmindtheotherseriouschal-

lengestobefacedaswell.

LiborRoucek

Ithinkthatthiswasafascinatingpanel.However,insteadofcallingit“Alterna-

tiveApproaches”,Ibelieveweshouldcallitmainstreamapproaches–regardless

ofthetypeofsolution,anyviableandpeacefulsolutionhastobebasedonthe

concept of human rights and civil rights, irrespective of your background, eth-

nicity,religion,gender,andsoon,allofwhicharemainstreamideas.

Europeanhistoryisnotonlyoneofhumanrights,civilrights,enlightenment

anddemocracy,butalsooneofracism,colonialism,fascism,andtheHolocaust.

TheHolocaustwasnotcommittedbythePalestiniansorArabs;butbyEurope-

ans. However, what happened in Europe in the last sixty-five to seventy years

was a process of learning the lessons of the most terrible thing that had hap-

penedonthisplanet–WorldWarTwo.Welearnedthattheorderwewantto

createshouldbebasedontheconceptofcivilandhumanrights,whichIthink

shouldbethemainmassageofthispanel.

Yes, the current situation is changing and developing. I was in Israel-Pales-

tineforthefirsttimein1980asapennilessstudentwhowantedtoseetheworld

andlearnaboutpeople.Ihitchhikedeverywhere.IwenttoEgypt,crossedSinai,

the border at el-Arish, and went all over Israel-Palestine without a problem. I

couldgoeverywhere.IwenttoJerusalem,Ramallah,Bethlehem,Nazareth,and

allthoseplaceswithoutaproblem.Whilehitchhiking,IwaspickedupbyanIs-

raeliandbyaPalestinian,bothtoldmetheirstories.SomehowIunderstoodthat

people were ok living together. But now they increasingly face further separa-

tion.

I think that it is important to insist on the concept of human rights and

civil rights. I fear that if we reach a solution after nine or ten months without


introducingarights-basedapproach,wewillnotmakeanyprogress.Introduc-

ingtheserightsshouldnotonlybethemainmessagefromthispanel,butakey

messagefromtheentireconference.


CleavagesandObstacles

Paneldebate

NouraErekat

Aside from the easy task of preparing Palestinian and Jewish-Israeli society to

live as one and to give up the idea of nationalism and adhere to the guiding

principlesoftheAlternativestoPartitionInitiative,Iseethreemajorobstacles:

1. Abandoningtherhetoricofthetwo-statesolutionasitwillnotremedy

thefacts,therealityontheground.

2. AbandoningtheframeworkofOsloaltogether;Osloisconstitutive

oftheproblem.

3. Makingthestatusquomuchmoreexpensive.

Regarding the first obstacle, the problem is that partition conjures the image

ofseparationwherenoneexists.TheMuslimandChristianPalestinianpopula-

tion,theJewish-Israelipopulation,livingassettlersorwithinIsraelProperalike

are inextricably locatedwithinIsraelProperaswellastheWestBank.Theonly

exceptiontothisisGaza–thelargestghettointheworld.Butthroughoutthis

area,anddespitegeographicproximity,thevastgapthatexistsbetweenthePal-

estiniansandtheirJewish-Israelicounterpartsisonethat’sbasedinlaw,policy,

and decrees that deem the Jewish Israelis as superior to their counterparts.

Thereisnotwo-statesolutionthatcanremedythisstructuralimbalance.

And this imbalance is not exclusive to the West Bank and Gaza, but exists

inIsraelaswell.Considerthe15,000PalestinianJerusalemiteswhoarenowat

riskofdisplacement;the17,000citizensofthestateofIsraelwhowillbeforci-

blydisplacedfromtheirhomesintheNegevandreplacedbyJewishsettlements.

Between 1967 and 1994, 140,000 residency permits of Palestinians in the West

Bank were secretly and quietly revoked in silent deportation. If it were not for

theserevocations,thePalestinianpopulationintheWestBankwouldbegreater

by14%.Butthat’salsothecasewithinIsrael,whereinJanuary2012theIsraeliSu-

premeCourtupheldthebanonfamilyreunification,whichmakesitillegalfora

PalestiniantomarryanotherPalestinianfromanenemystateandlivewithinIs-

raeltobuildtheirfamilythere.AsformerIsraelimemberofKnessetYa’akovKatz

explained:“ThestateofIsraelwassavedfrombeingfloodedby2-3millionArab

refugees”.


This problem is not just one of occupation but also of Israeli settler-colo-

nialismthatseekstodiminishthePalestinianpopulation,toconcentratethem

wherepossiblewithinIsrael,aswellassurroundthemwithacomplexnetwork

ofsettlerinfrastructure.Thisisnoteasilypartitioned.Andthetwo-statesolution

doesnotaddresstheseissues–it’slikeprescribingAspirintocurecancer,killing

ourpatientwithineffectivemethods.AsaresultofOslo,thesettlerpopulation

hasincreasedfrom200,000to600,000between1994andthepresent.Why?As

Sam(Bahour)hasmentionedseveraltimes:Oslodidnothavethetermsofref-

erenceforinternationallaw.Tothecontrary,whenOslowassigned,50%ofthe

settlementsinJerusalemwereconsideredlegalasneighbourhoods.Howwould

thisrealmbeheldtoaccountwithoutareferencepoint?

ConsideralsothatwewouldcreateasinglestatebetweentheWestBankand

Gaza.Besidesthechallengeofhavingtobuildamagictunnelorabridgeorhe-

licopterthatunitethesepopulations,thecultural,political,andsocialdivideen-

trenchedbetweenthePalestiniansthemselveshardlypreparesthemtobecome

partofacivicandnationalpolityofasinglestate.

Considerthatasaresultofnotadheringtotheseinternationallegalnorms

aswell,waternowisasignificant issueandwill remainassuch. Israel’smajor

water resources, theWesternaquifer, the JordanRiver, theLitany,andtheYar-

mouk,arealllocatedintheWestBank.FormerPrimeMinistersArielSharonand

Ehud Barak have said that regardless of the outcome, two states or otherwise,

Israelwillnotrenegeonanyofitscontrolofthesewaterresources.Today,60%

of the Western aquifer is located within the West Bank, from which Israel de-

rives 80% of its yield and leaves the rest to Palestinians.This water appropria-

tion,resultingpreciselyfromthetermsofOslo,hasdiminishedthePalestinian

populationoftheJordanvalleyfromapproximately540,000in1994to50,000,

as the Palestinian farmers were no longer able to access water.This appropri-

ationalsodiminishesthePalestinianeconomyby10%eachyearandcoststhe

Palestinians 110,000 jobs annually. Once more, all this is happening while ad-

heringtoOslo.

Another major problem of Oslo is that it has also neutralised the Palestin-

ian leadership, which once was a national liberation leadership and has now

become an empty vessel. As Israel’s Foreign Minister has said: “Palestinians

must understand that they cannot have it both ways.They can’t enjoy cooper-

ationwithIsraelandatthesametimeinitiatepoliticalclashesininternational


forums”.Andso,ourPalestinianleadershiphasrescindedtheGoldstoneReport

fromtheHumanRightsCouncilandhasnotgonetotheInternationalCriminal

CourttoholdIsraelaccountable.

Iwillendbysayingthattheothermajorchallengethatwefaceistoexamine

how profitable Israel’s economy in the West Bank is for every Palestinian sub-

ject it controls? Right now, the Palestinian economy is bankrupt – it is a char-

ity economy with 160,000 of its Palestinian employees dependent on external

aidanddonormoney.Palestinianscannotmoveforwardintheinternationalfo-

rumsbecausebydoingsotheywouldriskthe160,000jobsoftheirownpeople.

Andso,movingforward,Iencourageparliamentarianstobeginthinkingabout

thisconflictinmorecourageousways,thatweabandonOsloasaframework,as

it isquiteessentialtotheproblem,andthatwebegintomakethisstatusquo

veryexpensivetoIsraelindiplomaticandeconomicterms.

ConcludingRemarksoftheConference

HannesSwoboda

Iwillmentionthreepointsinconclusion.First,astheUSinterestintheMEregion

willmostlikelydiminishsoon,EuropemustseriouslypressuretheAmericansto

promotethepeaceprocess.

Second,asregardstheEuropeanstrategy,weneedtoexplainthemotivesbe-

hindourengagementinIsrael/Palestine,thatis,besidethosemotivesoffight-

ingextremismandstrengtheningdemocracy.

Thirdly,theroadtopeacewillbe longnotonlyforIsraelandPalestine,but

alsoforthewholeregion.Let’shopethatthecurrentGenevatalkswithIranare

successful,astheywouldalsobegoodforthepeaceprocess:Israel’smainargu-

mentregardingtheIranianorSyrianthreatwouldnolongerberelevantthen.

I think that this was one of the best conferences we’ve had on the peace

processintheMiddleEast.Andwhilewecannotchangethingsdramatically,the

willingnesstostayengagedwiththisconflictisimportant.


Onthequestionoftheone-statevs.two-statesolution,Iwillunderlinewhat

hasalreadybeensaid:it’saboutthevalues,rights,andmutualrespect.Onlythe

structuresthatcorrespondwiththesestandardsshouldbeadoptedforapoliti-

calsolution.AsintheEuropeancase,thebasicprinciplesmustbeimplemented,

regardlessofthestructurethatwouldlaterunfold.

ReflectionsonNewParadigmsforIsraelandPalestine 123

ReflectionsonNewParadigmsforIsraelandPalestine

Aone-dayRoundtableundertheChathamHouseRule

March26th,2014inJerusalemattheAmericanColonyHotel

The Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue in partnership with the

S&D Group in the European Parliament held a Roundtable on “Alternatives to

Partition” in Jerusalem. Over 60 men and women, Europeans, Israelis and Pal-

estinians,politicians,scholars,andcivilsocietyactivistsconvenedtodiscussal-

ternativeapproachestoapoliticsdrivenbyseparation,interestandpowerinthe

hopesofintroducingapartnershipbasedonvaluesandrights.

Secretary General of the Bruno Kreisky Forum Gertraud Auer Borea wel-

comedallspeakers,participantsandmoderatorsonbehalfofBKF’sorganising

body. Special thanks were addressed to Hannes Swoboda, Javier Moreno San-

chez,andtheMEPswhojoinedtheconferenceaswellastothesponsorshipof

theDirectorateforSecurityPolicyoftheAustrianMinistryforDefence.

Theroundtablewascomposedoffivepanels.

FirstPanel–AlternativePoliticalThinkingforPalestine/Israel

ChairedbyDr.BashirBashir,thispanelsuggestedreframingtheIsraeli-Palestin-

ianconflictthroughcriticallyexploringtwoalternativeapproaches:“TheAlter-

nativestoPartitionKreiskyInitiative”andthe“OneHomelandTwoStatesPro-

posal”.

ThefirstPalestinianpanelistspokeoftheparadigmthathasbeenfollowed

throughoutthepast25yearsasapoliticalsettlementtrapdrivenbyinterestsand

powerbalances.ThePalestinianleadershipunderestimatedandmisinterpreted

theIsraeliinterestsandhijackedeverythingunderthepremisesofthe“Solution

ofState”,therebysacrificingrightsandrenderingtheleadershipasnolessguilty

of the results. He mentioned the urgent need for a political agency that chal-

lengesandchangesthecurrentstatusquoandquestionediftherewasanIsraeli

partnerforsuchajointinitiative.

BrunoKreiskyForumRoundtableJerusalem 126

The second Israeli speaker read the Alternatives to Partition Principles, fol-

lowedbyaPalestiniancolleague,whosaidhewascommittedtocreatingbusi-

ness opportunities in Palestine but constantly found himself trapped in the

realityofoccupationinstead.Shearguedforre-orientingthepathtowardsrec-

onciliation rather than a deceiving and impossible search for a “final solution

and end of all claims”. Both speakers ended the presentation by reconsidering

thelogicofpartitionandthenecessityofintegrationinsteadofseparation.

SecondPanel–WhyNewParadigmsNow?

The chairman of the panel Avraham Burg indicated that the two approaches

presented in the first panel should be introduced into the current political dis-

cussion, stressing that the paradigmatic reality of separation has not solved

anythingandaskedthepoliticianstoofferothersolutions.

HannesSwobodaunderlinedtheimportanceofvisionsandpragmatismand

theimpossibilityofajustsolutionwithunequalpartners.Heinsistedonthene-

cessity of further EU engagement in the Israeli/Palestinian question, offering

European experience in a gradual, shared institution building as a possible im-

mediatecontribution.

A senior Palestinian politician stated that “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

isnotshortof ideas,butofdecisions”.Heinsistedthatbilateraltalkswerenot

bearing any fruit and indicated Israel’s unwillingness to seriously engage with

the Peace Process, constantly evading serious issues and replacing them with

marginalissuesthatwereneverpartofthenegotiations.

Hebelievesthenegotiationsfailedbecauseofthefollowing:

– Lackofconsistentandsharedtermsofreferenceinthenegotiations.

– Thelackofconfidence-buildingmeasures(CBM)forthisround

ofnegotiations.

– TheUSwasnotanhonestbroker,andneverhasbeen.

– Theasymmetricalsituationwasrenderedevenmoreimbalanced

becauseofthenon-honestbroker’sinvolvement.

– ThesuddenintroductionofIsrael’spreconditiontothenegotiations:

therecognitionofIsraelbythePalestiniansasa“JewishState”only.

Thepressurehasalwaysbeenplacedontheweakerside.

– Lackofunderstandingofthereality.


Heproposedaparadigmshiftforendingthebilateraltalksandforintroduc-

ingmultilateraltalks.Theonlywaytoendingtheoccupationwouldbetorender

itastoocostlyforIsrael.HislastpointtouchedontheimpossibilityofthePAto

continuefunctioningasasubcontractorforIsraelratherthanasabridgeforthe

nationalliberationofPalestinians.UNResolution242mustberenewedandin-

ternationalised.

ASeniorIsraelipoliticianoftheLabourPartybeganbysayingthatthetwo-

statesolutionfailsbecauseIsraelisandPalestiniansdonottalktoeachother.He

suggested returning to the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, leaving the bilateral

track and engaging in a multilateral conversation with the Arab neighbouring

countries.

A member of Meretz Party pointed to the occupation and the settlements

asthemajorstumblingblocks,aswellasthefailureofthetwosidestoengage

witheachother’snarrative.Astherightwinggovernmentsofthepast20years

havebeencreatingrealitiesontheground,apoliticalpowerchangewouldalso

benecessary.

InhiscapacityasaFatahofficial,thenextspeakeraddressedthe“tangibles”,

“intangibles”, and their interconnection. He insisted that negotiations must be

heldwithapartnerratherthananenemy,whichiswhythecurrentframework

hastobereconsidered.

Inhisconcludingremarks,Massimod’Alemaspokeabouttheconsequences

of the failure of negotiations, of a necessary strategy for the Palestinians, and

theprospectofconflictingscenarios.

Avraham Burg underlined that the negotiations should have aimed to end

theoccupationratherthanprovideapoliticalsolution.Amultilateralconversa-

tionwasnecessaryandtheparadigmhastoshiftfrombeingbasedoninterests

tobeingbasedonvaluesandrights;alternativeinstitutionsandagenciescould

facilitatesuchatransition.

ThirdPanel–RevisitingPoliticalArrangements:MeritsandChallenges

Lawyer and legal affairs adviser Diana Buttu chaired this panel and invited the

speakerstofocusonthechallengesfoundontheground.

Thefirstspeakergaveahistoricoverviewofthedifferentinstitutionalarran-

gementsinhistoricPalestine/Israelinthelast100years.


HewasfollowedbyanIsraelischolar,whopresentedthefoundationsforrec-

onciliationandsuggestedarealityof twobi-nationalstateswitha bi-national

reality:openborders,commoninstitutionsandare-balancetotheasymmetri-

calimbalanceofpower.

HesuggestedamodificationtoUNResolution194,wherebyitoffersthePal-

estinianrefugeesachoiceofcompensation,followedbyacommonprocessof

implementation.

Hisdiscussantchallengedthistwo-stateproposalbyarguingthefollowing:

– Thetworealitiesareintertwined.

– Atwo-statesolutionwouldthusbeimposedonaone-statereality.

– SuchaPalestinianstatewouldbeweakandunviable.

– Thetwo-statesolutionwouldfailafteritsimplementation.

– Suchasolutionwouldfollowalogicofethnicseparation.

Thenextpanelistintroducedtheconceptofconfederationastheonlypathfor-

ward.HereferredtotheEuropeanresponsibilitybehindtheBalfourDeclaration

andtheHolocaustasthebeginningoftheJewish-Palestiniantragedy.Therec-

onciliationofJewsandPalestiniansinIsrael/Palestinecouldthereforebringan

endtotheJewishquestioninEurope.

Thefollowingelementsaretherootcauseoftheproblem:

– ColonialismandtheJudaisationofPalestine.

– Theeconomicandcapitalistnatureoftheoccupation,intendedtolast

andtoembracetheentireterritoryinazero-sumgameofcolonialrelations.

Aconfederationwouldthusbringtwosovereignbodiestogether,wherebythe

landissharedwithcommoncurrency,andfreedomofmovementisgrantedto

bothpeoplesandgoods.Hehighlightedtheimportanceofinstitutionbuilding

andgavetheEUasanexample.Hisdiscussantsawthecoreoftheproblemin

theNakba(1948)andunderlinedtheimportanceoffocusingonrights.

Thelastpresentationsupportedthepleafortheone-statesolutionandstat-

edthatthefundamentalproblemstartedin1948ratherthan1967:lackofdignity,

equality,andself-determination,andtheJewishsupremacyovertheentireland.

Hisdiscussantstatedtheimportanceofaprinciples-basedapproachaswell.

Thechairwomanraisedthreeotherissues:

– Howwouldthetwostatesovercomethepowerrelations?

– Thecolonialmodelandthemiserablerealityofthetwo-statesolution

– Shequestionedtermssuchas“Homeland”


FourthPanel–FromPrinciplestoReality:DiscussionandDebate

Sam Bahour, a Palestinian businessman chaired this panel and underlined the

urgencyofthesituation,invitingthespeakerstoaddressthefollowingtopics:

– Adeadlinefortheoccupation:60yearsofoccupationareenough.

– CanIsraelberenderedaccountableforprovidingtherightsofPalestinians?

– WhereisthePalestinianNationalMovementontheground?

– Israelanditsfarright:howdoesoneapproachthedifferentlayers

ofIsraelisociety?

– Theunilateraldiscourseofsecurity.

– PalestinianNationalism.

– Jewishcollectiverights.

– Settlements.

– TheRightofReturn.

The first speaker introduced the existing paradigms within society where the

one-statesolutionhadnotbeen introducedoradoptedbyanyof thepolitical

parties.SheunderlinedthattherewasnodiscussionaboutPalestiniansecurity

andthoughtthesetofprinciplesasfoundationwouldbethesolution.

A young Palestinian-Israeli scholar touched on the difficulty of discussing

topics such as the Jewish collective rights in Palestine and the differences be-

tween the Palestinian and Israeli political theologies. He suggested a joint

agencyaroundthesameprinciples.

He was followed by a young Israeli activist, who spoke about Hithabrut-

Tarabut, a grassroots organisation against occupation in the search for non-

Zionist political alternatives. She said that daily life was already bi-national;

internalcolonialismshouldbechallengedandpressureplacedagainstsocialin-

justicesandinequality.

AyoungPalestinianfilmmakerandactivistunderlinedtheurgencytoending

theoccupationasapreconditiontoanysolution.ShesuggestedJerusalemasan

open,sharedcity,andwonderedhowsuchideascouldbetranslatedtothepeo-

ple. She highlighted the urgency of needing answers now and mentioned the

Palestiniancallforboycott,divestment,andsanctions.

AnIsraelihumanrightsactivistthoughtthathumanrightsandequalityde-

pended on political power and supported the initiative of a “One Homeland –

TwoStates”.


FifthPanel–Summary&Conclusions

Inconclusion,AvrahamBurgasked:“Whatnow?”andinvitedtheEuropeansto

becomepowerfulplayers:“Don’twalkaway.Thisisyourneighbourhood!”.

Dr.BashirBashiraddressedthefourfollowingpoints:

1. Aparadigmshiftandcreativethinkingpavingthewayforanewpolitical

grammarwouldbeapainfulprocess.Itrequiresagentsofchangetochallenge

the hegemony and tyranny of the existing vocabularies and concepts, which

dictate some solutions as permissible and imaginable and alienate others as

impermissible.

2. Despite the asymmetry of power and the oppressive and colonial Israeli

control, Palestinians remain the party capable of licensing and granting legiti-

macy,integration,andnormalisationtotheJewishpresenceintheMiddleEast.

Thisrequireshistoricalreconciliation,whichplacesatitscentrecomingtoterms

withtherightsofPalestiniansandtheirhistoricalinjustices.

3. Integrating and normalising the Jewish presence as part of the Middle

Easthashistoricallocalresourcestobuildon.Europecarriesagravemoraland

political responsibility in the context of Palestine as both the Jewish Question

andZionismstartedinEurope.

4. Aconvincingvisionwouldhavetobe inclusive,empowering,andhope-

fultoallpeople,andfightthecurrentrealityandtransformit.

Javier Moreno Sanchez concluded the Roundtable calling for a greater in-

volvementofEuropetoensurefreedomofmovement,equality,andaccessto

resourcesinIsrael/Palestine.

“AlternativestoPartition”–ABrunoKreiskyForumInitiative:PrinciplesofIsraeli Jewish-PalestinianPartnership

Preamble

Twenty years after the Oslo Accords, forty-seven years of Israeli occupation of

theWestBankandGaza,andsixty-sixyearssincetheinceptionoftheStateof

Israel and the Palestinian Nakba, we reached a political impasse that provides

neither freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people, nor satisfies the secu-

rityconcernsofboththeIsraeliJewsandthePalestinians.Wearenotcloserto

aviableandjusttwo-statesolution,andarelivinginade factosingleregimeof

Israelidominationanddiscrimination.Inanattempttopaveanewpathforhis-

toricalreconciliationandconstructivenormativeandpoliticalengagement,we

believethatthereisanurgentneedtodepartfromthecurrentparadigmofso-

lutionsbasedprimarily/exclusivelyonthelogicofpartitionandwrenchingsepa-

ration as manifested in skewed power relations and interests rather than sym-

metricalrightsandevidentneeds.

We,agroupofIsraeliJewsandPalestinians,representvariousconstituencies

(inside Israel, Jerusalem, West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Diaspora) from differ-

ent socio-political and professional backgrounds, convened in Vienna during

thecourseof2011and2012,undertheauspicesoftheBrunoKreiskyForumfor

InternationalDialoguetoexploretogether“AlternativestoPartition”.Ourdelib-

erations resulted in proposing several principles that would secure the individ-

ualandcollectiverights(includingnationalself-determination), interests,and

identitiesofJewish-IsraelisandPalestiniansalike.

Thisnoveltypeofintellectualandpoliticalengagementisnotmerelyauto-

pianexercise,butonethatconsiderstheunavoidableempiricalrealitymanifes-

ted in the growing intertwinement of lives, rights and identities of Palestin-

ians and Jews in Israel/Palestine, as well as the factual developments on the

ground(inter alia Israel’songoingcolonial-expansionistproject inEast Jerusa-

lemandtheWestBankaswellas inthesouthernNegev/Naqab).Weground-

edourinterventiononthepremisesandimperativesofjustice(e.g.,thePales-

tinianrefugeesproblem,refrainingfrominflictinginjusticestotheagentsofa

previousinjustice)andonaninclusiveandegalitariannotionofdemocracy.

AlternativestoPartition–ABrunoKreiskyForumInitiative 132

The “Alternatives to Partition” project does not name, or imply, a specific

governmental/institutionalformulaormodalityforendingtheconflict. Rather

it focuses on fundamental principles that need to underlie/govern the design

and implementation of any viable solution, and which can be accommodated

and realised in various constitutional and/or institutional arrangements (be it

twostates,federation,confederation,bi-nationalstate,parallelstatestructure,

consociationaldemocracy,etc.). Inotherwords,wehavedevisedasetofguid-

ing principles that transcend the binary predicament of “one state/two states”

oranyhithertotheoreticalinstitutionalarrangementasthepreordainingprinci-

pleorparameterofapoliticalsolution;asithasbeen,timesandagain,factually

andempiricallyrenderedobsolete.

Webelievethatlivingtogetherrespectfullyalongsideeachotherisbothde-

sirableandpossible.Briefly,ratherthansuggestingadetailed,concretesolution,

thisdocument laysthefoundationofanewpoliticalgrammarandvocabulary

thatwillframeadifferentunderstandingofthepossibilitiesandactualitiesfor

a just and durable solution in Israel/Palestine. Our departure point lies in the

belief that fate of the two people is inextricably linked; that Israeli Jews and

PalestiniansarepartoftheMiddleEast,andthatneitherwillbegrantedexclu-

siveprivilegesorsovereigntyovertheentirelandbetweentheJordanRiverand

theMediterraneanSea.

PreambleandGuidingPrinciples 133

GuidingPrinciples

1. Each person residing (or holding residency status) between the Jordan

riverandtheMediterraneanseawillbegrantedequal individual,political,eco-

nomic,andsocialrights,includingtherighttobeprotectedandsecured;tobe

treatedequallyregardlessofgender,race,ethnicity,andreligion;tomovefreely;

toacquireandpossessproperty;tosueincourt;andtoelectandtobeelected.

2. ThecollectiverightsofIsraeliJewsandPalestinians–linguistic,cultural,

religiousandpolitical–willbeguaranteedinanypoliticalframework.It isun-

derstoodthatneitherwillsolelyhaveanyexclusivesovereigntyovertheentire

land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean (including land posses-

sion,accesstonaturalresources,etc.).

3. Theabolishmentofallexclusive Jewishprivileges, including in landpos-

sessionandaccesstonatural resources.All resources–materialandpolitical–

willbedistributedbasedonrestorativeanddistributivejusticeprinciples.

4. The recognition of the Palestinian right of return as embodied in UN

resolution 194.The implementation of this resolution will take into account

thepresentrealityontheground,andthatthemoralandpolitical injusticeof

Palestinian dispossession of the past should not be effected by means of new

injustice.

5. JewsandPalestinianslivingintheDiasporawillbeabletoreceiveimmu-

nityifindanger(accordingtoUNresolutions),andwillhaveaprivilegedstatus

inthisprocesscomparedtoanyotherethnicandnationalgroup.Otherwise,the

new political institution(s) will legislate democratic immigration laws to regu-

latecitizenship.

Webelievethatamutualrecognitionbasedontheseprinciplescanadvance

analternative politicalproject, inwhichthe memoriesofexileandrefugewill

turnintoaninclusiveimplementationofrights,citizenshipandbelonging.

Signed unanimously by the “Alternatives to Partition” group

Vienna, October 2012

This volume brings together the voices and views of leadingPalestinian, Israeli Jewish and European intellectuals, politicians and activists, who propose alternative approachesand “out of the box” thinking on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. More specifically, this unique volume aims to contribute to the emerging efforts of re-examining the current strategies and paradigms through proposing and exploring new per-spectives, visionary discourses and alternatives to partition in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Put differently, it seeks to enrich European public discourse with original and refreshing views and alternative paradigms to settlingthis lingering conflict.

Contributors

Gianni Pittella | Gertraud Auer Borea d’Olmo | Bashir Bashir | Azar Dakwar

Hannes Swoboda | Raef Zreik | Dimitry Shumsky | Inbal Arnon

Leila Farsakh | Avraham Burg |Yonatan Mendel | Sam Bahour | Tony Klug

Noam Sheizaf | Salam Fayyad

ISBN: 978-3-950-0-5

rethinking the politics of israel palestine. partition and its alternatives

Documents

newhorizons inbalarnon

twostatesasapology raefzreik