F.A.Q.
Should we negotiate with the Palestinian Authority without taking the Hamas into account ? What real authority does the PA have?
Should we negotiate with the Palestinian Authority without taking the Hamas into account ? What real authority does the PA have?
11 January 2011
The explosion of fratricidal violence following Hamas’s seizure of power in Gaza created a huge gulf between Hamas and Fatah, both geographically and politically. There have been successive diplomatic failures on the part of Arab (and in particular Egyptian) governments to reunite the Palestinian leadership. Israel can no longer afford to wait for a diplomatic breakthrough that may never happen. On the contrary, JCall calls for a proactive strategy to reach a peace agreement with the democratically elected President of the PA, which would result in the declaration of an independent Palestinian state. The “Big Bang” effect of such a move would strengthen the position of a Palestinian leadership favorably disposed towards coexistence with Israel. It might also represent the first significant setback for Hamas, and the beginning of its political isolation.
Today, the Palestinian Authority provides law enforcement and political control over the largest West Bank cities, but it has a limited power, or no power at all, outside these areas. With the help of the U.S., which has provided training for the Palestinian police force, the security situation has considerably improved in areas under its control, and the Palestinian population has been the first to benefit. Cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians in security matters is now on a par with the pre-Intifada period. At the same time, since his appointment as Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad has been gradually establishing the foundations of a future State: he has prioritized the fight against corruption, and in the past few years, the West Bank has experienced unprecedented economic growth. This political success shows that the spiral of violence is not inevitable and that responsible and efficient political players can lead the Middle East towards peace.
14)What is the difference between the “Green Line”, and the route of the wall or “security fence”, as the Israelis call it?
The term “Green Line” refers to the demarcation line set out in the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and Jordan, and recognized as the border of the State of Israel by the United Nations. The green line is the border claimed by the Palestinians to delimit the future Palestinian State. In July 2000, during the Camp David II negotiations, the Israelis proposed a plan that involved a change in the border and exchange of border territories, to let Israel absorb certain Israeli settlements.
As for the separation barrier or security fence (as the Palestinians and Israelis respectively call it), it does not follow the green line except in a few locations. In a number of areas, the wall makes incursions into West Bank territories to the order of hundreds of meters or even kilometers, to include Jewish settlements built there, representing a de facto annexation of 8,5% of the West Bank territory within a unilaterally imposed border.
Back to summary
Why has there been no progress in negotiations for years? What is the legacy of the Oslo Accords?
11 January 2011
The Oslo Accords were signed on September 13, 1993. They were not definitive peace accords between the State of Israel and the Palestinians, but a temporary agreement. Starting from a position of mutual recognition, they created a reconciliation process that was supposed to have led within five years to the final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to the creation of a Palestinian state.
The basic flaw in this agreement was that it left the most difficult issues for later, and initially focused mainly on procedural problems. In the years following the signing of these accords, each party has blamed the other for the delays, deadlocks and violations of the peace process. The Israelis accuse the Palestinian Authority of a passive response to terrorism, while the Palestinians blame the Israelis for resuming colonization in 1996 (during the first Netanyahu administration) with no meaningful freeze since then.
The signing of these accords had inspired great hope, and their failure has sewn disillusionment on both sides, fatally undermining the confidence of each that it has a reliable partner to negotiate with. Since the outbreak of the second Intifada in 2000, there has been no permanent structure for a peace process and no final accord has been reached.
JCall concludes that Israelis and Palestinians are unable to bring negotiations to a successful conclusion by themselves. On both sides, the leaders are too weak, and the psychological and political difficulties too large. For this reason, JCall supports the ongoing involvement of the U.S. administration, which has given this issue priority, and it also appeals to the European Union for its aid.
Whatever one might think about Oslo accords, they have had at least one valuable consequence: the creation of a democratically elected Palestinian Authority that still supports a two-state solution. It is with the PA that the Israeli government must find a way to reach agreement, before it is too late.
Back to summary
Does Jcall recommend a peace plan ?
11 January 2011
JCall does not recommend a peace plan. We support the solution which benefits from a wide international consensus and is approved of by the majority of both populations, according to all polls : creating a Palestinian state in the occupied territories, side by side with Israel. Once this principle is set, the hard part is turning it into a reality. Without getting into the particulars (which only those concerned have to deal with) we acknowledge the solution negotiated by Israeli and Palestinian representatives and recommended by the Geneva Initiative.
What does this solution mean for Israelis and Palestinians?
For the Israelis :
Evacuation of a large part of the West Bank and dismantling of the settlements, unless an agreement is reached with the Palestinian Authority to allow those Israeli settlers wishing to stay and take Palestinian citizenship to do so;
Retrocession along the Green Line of Israeli land to compensate for the blocks of settlements which would be incorporated into Israel. Any territorial exchange would be done on the basis of mutual consent ;
Recognition of the Palestinian state and of East Jerusalem as its capital ;
Contribution to the Fund set up to compensate for the losses caused to the Palestinian Refugees and their descendants.
For the Palestinians :
Creation of a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital city ;
Recognition of Israel within the borders negotiated by the Parties after potential territorial exchanges ; recognition of West Jerusalem as its capital city
Integration of Palestinian refugees within the Palestinian state or their host countries, except for a few thousand whom Israel would agree to integrate for humanitarian reasons
Permanent end to all claims to the ‘right of return’ and to the status of refugee.
This solution would also render the following measures necessary :
Creation of a motorway to ensure some sort of territorial continuity between Gaza and the West Bank ;
Within the greater Jerusalem, definition of which areas would be under Palestinian or Israeli rule ;
Joint administration of the Old City ;
Dismantling of the ‘security fence’ in the territories under Palestinian rule and recognition of the fence as an international border elsewhere.
This solution is in accordance with international law since it goes by the spirit of the three main UN Council Resolutions on the conflict : resolution 181 (1947) on the creation of two States; resolution 194 (1948) on the refugee issue and resolution 242 (1968) which sets up the “Land for Peace” principle.
It is also in keeping with the UN International Court of Justice (2004) recommendation regarding the layout of the “security fence”.
This solution is a way to reconcile two equally legitimate political projects – Zionism and Palestinian nationalism – by putting a maximum of the Jewish population under the authority of Israel and a maximum of Palestinians under the authority of the Palestinian State.
This solution, which stems from the Camp David II (1999) and Taba (2000) negotiations as well as the (unofficial) Geneva Agreements (2003), is supported by a majority of members of the international community as well as, according to polls, the majority of Israelis and Palestinians.
Back to summary
What kind of Palestinian State does JCall want to see? How would the West Bank and Gaza Strip link up?
11 January 2011
JCall advocates the creation of a single, linked Palestinian State; it would be demilitarized (the Palestinian State undertaking to stop any foreign force from entering the West Bank), but would have a homeland security force. A protected road would connect the Gaza strip to the West Bank. This type of solution was successfully implemented on East Timor’s independence, when its Oecussi enclave was connected to the rest of the country via a protected road. The West Bank territories of the Palestinian State would be contiguous and sustainable.
Back to summary
What about the peace plan proposed by the Arab League? Is it still valid?
11 January 2011
On Saudi Arabia’s initiative, during the second Intifada, the Arab League proposed a peace plan to the State of Israel: a definitive peace with Israel (recognition of the State of Israel, establishment of normal diplomatic relations, trade, etc) in exchange of Israel’s withdrawal from the lands captured in June 1967 (West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem). Refugees would have right of return, the application of which would be subject to negotiations.
This plan cannot be implemented as it was initially presented (any definitive permanent Israeli-Palestinian agreement would now have to include changes to the 1967 borders, plus shared sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem). However, since this proposal included for the first time ever legal recognition of the right of Israel to exist by all States of the Arab League, including those of the Refusal Front, the Saudi peace plan must be considered as an advance toward peace.
Back to summary
How can the problem of the Palestinian refugees and their descendants be settled?
11 January 2011
Although Israel undoubtedly shares responsibility for the flight of thousands of Palestinians from Israeli land in 1948, it is objectively impossible for all refugees and their descendants to return to Israel, as the Jewish Israeli people would become a minority in their own country. Throughout the twentieth century, many wars caused massive displacement of populations. Subsequent return was often impossible, as it would have only created further injustices and problems. For similar reasons, the return of millions of Palestinians to Israel is unrealistic. JCall advocates a solution inspired by the Geneva accords: a few thousand refugees could return to Israel, with Israeli consent, to reunite families. Otherwise, Palestinian refugees would only be able to return to the State of Palestine. However, in recognition of the Palestinian refugees’ suffering since 1948, the international community, the State of Israel and the State of Palestine would create and contribute to an international fund for resettlement and improvement of refugees’ material situation, within Palestine or in their country of residence. The result would be an end to refugee status and the rendering null and void of all future claims by descendants, once the peace agreement was signed. At the same time, the final agreement would take into account the fact that Israel has taken in hundreds of thousands of Jews dispossessed and expelled from Arab countries (particularly Iraq and Libya). A compensation policy would enable long-running historical disputes to be settled.
Back to summary
Some may consider our “Call to reason” as an act of intervention in the affairs of an independent and democratic State.
9 February 2011
We are not outsiders with regards to the State of Israel. We strongly support its right to exist, to defend itself, and its right to a future. Most of us are Zionists, which means that we see the State of Israel as the fulfilment of the national aspirations of the Jewish people. Through our personal commitment and life choices we have participated and supported Israel’s development, in good times and bad. Most of us have family or friends in Israel, and we share Israel’s aspiration to peace and security.
It is argued that Israelis – who experience the conflict on a daily basis, do a demanding military service and remain on call all their lives, and are the potential victims of wars and bombings – are the only ones entitled to express their opinion on these matters.
We are fully aware that Israelis (and Palestinians) are the principal victims of the conflict, but the issue at stake is not a simple political decision on border lines or security guarantees – issues that concern first and foremost Israeli citizens. What is at stake is an historic change that will determine the identity and future of the State of Israel and of the Jewish people.
Either Israel agrees to give up most of the territories occupied in 1967 to allow the creation of a viable Palestinian State, or it will continue the occupation, risking the outbreak of a new intifada. If Israel decides that the occupation must continue, or is incapable of changing the status quo, then it will be compelled to maintain a civil population under its control, leading to a discriminatory regime in opposition to its founding values.
Such a state of affairs would not only drastically alter Israeli society, it would have significant material and moral consequences for Diaspora Jews. For this reason, it is our duty is to get involved in this debate, in full recognition that Israelis alone are entitled to decide their future.
Back to summary
JCall calls for international pressure
9 February 2011
Some criticise our appeal to “the European Union and United States pressure both parties so as to help them reach a rapid and reasonable settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”.
No country likes to be subjected to outside pressure. It rightly sees this as a threat to its sovereignty. This is particularly true of the still young State of Israel, proud of its hard-won independence after many centuries in which Jews did not control their own destiny. However, no negotiations have been successful since the Oslo agreement, which heralded a new era in Israeli-Palestinian relations. The hope which sprang from this agreement has slowly waned, leading to disappointment and fatigue. Relations have descended into distrust, and sometimes hate and fright at the height of the Intifada. Both parties, Israeli and Palestinian, have to face serious internal opposition preventing them from taking painful decisions. On both sides, there is no lack of extremists ready to destroy all hope and reignite the spiral of violence. Both peoples have become prisoners of a hundred-year-old conflict. Each has its own rhetoric: “The indivisibility of Jerusalem, the recognition of the Jewish nature of the State of Israel” on one side, and “The right of return for refugees, recognition of the Naqba” on the other. Each refuses to acknowledge the other’s historical narrative, seeing in it a questioning of its own narrative. In both camps, the leaders are weak. On one side, it is the consequence of an electoral system that discourages stable majorities and imposes restrictive coalitions. On the other, the division into two separate territories, two political forces with opposing national and social ideologies, and dependency on the occupying power, have significantly restricted room for manoeuvre. For this reason, the role of an external mediator is essential to encourage leaders of both sides to take a realistic stance and make the necessary compromises to meet the expectations of their respective peoples. We believe that the goal should not be to impose a solution on both peoples, but to reassure them and support them during this long process.
American and European commitment is key to the restoration of mutual trust. The EU and the US are the only bodies that can offer the necessary guarantees to both parties. Their commitment must be underlined by the support of the entire international community, first and foremost the Arab countries of the region, as they will have to provide backing and material assistance to resolve numerous problems, such as the refugee question. The future integration of both countries, Israel and the future Palestine, into the European/Mediterranean region would offer new prospects to both peoples.
If this issue is not resolved, the conflict risks spreading throughout the entire Israeli-Arabic region (the Arab League proposed a political solution in 2002) or even further into the Middle East (Turkish or Iranian interventions). It is urgent that Europeans and Americans step in to assist Israelis and Palestinians in putting an end to this conflict.
Back to summary
Where is the Palestinian peace camp ?
22 March 2011
In Israel, there are several movements or associations advocating for peace, such as Peace Now, the oldest. Are there any equivalent movements among the Palestinians and why do we not hear their voice?
It is not possible to compare the functioning of Palestinian society with that of Israeli society. For a century, Palestine fell successively under the control of several foreign powers: Turkish, British, Jordanian (for the West Bank) or Egyptian (for Gaza), and finally Israeli. Only since the Oslo accords has it been able to develop with relative freedom, and then only in the Zone A which is under its control. In addition, during the years of Intifada, the Israeli army destroyed much of its infrastructure and many of its leaders were arrested. In response to this situation, Palestinian society stands strongly together. This solidarity is reflected in the existence of multiple associations primarily devoted to social and educational problems. Their purpose is to promote the training of youth or women. But there are also other associations working on issues of human rights, or on education for peace, democracy and non-violence. Unlike Israeli society where political associations can safely state their positions and openly oppose the government’s policies, in the Palestinian territories any public position is potentially more risky. Nevertheless there are initiatives like the one launched in 2003 by Professor Sari Nusseibeh with the former head of Israeli internal security service, Ami Ayalon, whose petition for a two-state solution had collected tens of thousands of signatures in Palestine and Israel, or the association that promotes the Geneva Agreement in the territories which demonstrate the strong desire within Palestinian society for a peace agreement. Polls (see that of May 6, 2010 http://www.lapaixmaintenant.org/art...) regularly show this commitment, but it cannot be translated into political movements like Peace Now in Israel. The reason lies in the fact that many leaders of the Palestinian Authority, starting with its president, Mahmoud Abbas, openly support a solution like the one signed in Geneva in 2003 and therefore there is no need to publicly express opposition to the policy that is conducted by the Palestinian government.
http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/....
The Palestinian Israeli NGO Peace Forum brings together hundreds of associations, half Israeli and half Palestinian. Of these, some openly support solutions like the Geneva Convention. In Palestine, it is The Palestinian Peace Coalition, which speaks for such organisations.
Palestinian Peace Coalition, www.ppc.org.ps
Movements, associations and news agencies exist in the West Bank and even in Gaza that, while denouncing the Israeli occupation, work for human rights by denouncing certain events within Palestinian society. These consist of criticisms of Palestinian society (the Hamas-Fatah conflict, women’s rights, freedom of expression, arbitrary detention, and rare denunciations of the firing of rockets into Israel)
Here are a few examples:
The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue & Democracy http://www.miftah.org/
Palestinian Center for Human Rights, www.pchrgaza.org
Arabic Media Internet Network, www.amin.org
The Independent Commission for Human Rights, www.ichr.ps/ (created by the PLO)
Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, http://www.mezan.org/
The organisations behind these sites are in tune with what’s happening in the territories and closely watch the events in Israeli society, as well as the evolution of international opinion regarding the conflict.
There are also Israeli-Palestinian sites that seek to bring together families and people on both sides of the border, and other sites which, while denouncing the occupation, seek to make sense of daily events.
Here are a few useful examples:
The Parents Circle: http://www.theparentscircle.com/
Ta’ayush Arab Jewish Partnership, www.taayush.org
One Voice, which wants to give the opportunity for the silent majority of moderates in both societies to be heard: http://www.onevoicemovement.org/
All for Peace Radio, which is co-directed by Israelis and Palestinians: www.allforpeace.org
The Palestine - Israel Journal, established by two journalists, one Israeli and one Palestinian http://www.pij.org/index.php
