One of the recent disputes between Israel and the
Palestinians sounds like the discussion about what came first - the
chicken or the egg. The Israelis insist that before negotiations can
commence and before the international fact finding commission can begin
its work, Palestinians must cease their resistance. The Palestinians
insist that the resistance is a natural byproduct of occupation and that
it can't stop unless the occupation ends.
For Palestinians it is
inconceivable that the Israeli army and government can create illegal
facts on the ground in the form of settlements while Palestinians are
asked to stop their resistance. Building and expanding settlements and
roads are akin to the invasion of military forces.
Naturally, the
Palestinian position is not based solely on the premise of resistance
until the end of occupation. Palestinians have for almost a decade tried
another method. In 1991, at the beginning of the Madrid talks,
Palestinian youths presented Israeli soldiers in the streets of Ramallah
with olive branches as a sign of support for the peace process.
Similar
sentiments were reflected in the Palestinian street with the signing of
the Memorandum of Understanding on the White House lawn on September 13,
1993.
But the seven-year Oslo process produced no concrete results. The
so-called fruits of peace never materialized and the Palestinian
nightmare of the continuation of Jewish settlement activity was not
stopped or frozen. Even the request by US Secretary of State Madeline
Albright to take a time out from settlement activity was immediately
rejected by Israeli officials.
So if Israel is unable or unwilling to
stop its illegal settlement activity, why should Palestinians
unilaterally end their legal resistance? In the past, Israeli doves like
Regional Cooperation Minister Shimon Peres and others argued that if the
peace process brings fruit there will no longer be need for a settlement
freeze because it is one of the issues to be discussed in the permanent
status talks.
Had you been sitting in on a briefing by Peres to a group
of Palestinian journalists, you would have watched him deflecting
criticism that settlement activity had continued despite the peace
process. He assured us that this issue will become trivial once the
peace process is completed.
This argument has proved its futility on two
fronts. The Israeli military has continuously responded to all the
demands of the settlers, including their latest demand to add two mobile
homes to the Kfar Darom settlement in the heart of Gaza. Secondly,
Israeli government officials have failed to make a single statement
advising settlers to dismantle their homes and return to Israel. Even
the inhabitants of settlements which the Barak government has said are
most likely to be removed, have received no advice or public statement
in this direction.
Of course, this dovish argument is not the only
argument in town. The hawkish argument has proved much more powerful and
violent in recent months. Proponents of this argument, which include
Barak, use snipers, helicopters, and tanks in an attempt to force down
Palestinian throats the argument that they must stop their resistance or
else.
This violent argument reflects an Israeli policy of attempting to
win an un-winnable military war against a civilian population. But
although senior Israeli officials have admitted that this policy will
not succeed on the battle ground, it has succeeded in planting more
seeds of hatred. As a result of hundreds of recent deaths, thousands of
injuries, and hundreds of thousands of traumatized children,
Palestinians are unlikely to present olive branches to Israeli soldiers
as they did when this process began.
This is the issue that Israelis
must think about, not whether the resistance will or will not stop
before negotiations can begin. If the Israeli government cannot or will
not stop its illegal occupation and the settlement activity before
negotiations begin, it ought not expect the Palestinians to stop their
legal resistance to occupation
Source:
