Abbas Opposes Land-Swap – Do You Want Peace?

By Liam Bailey

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has said that he opposes Israel's proposal to give up areas of Israeli land heavily populated by Israeli Arabs, such as the region around Umm al-Fahm, for the new Palestinian state, in order to keep Israel's settlement blocs in the West Bank while still returning 100% of the land taken in the 1967 war. I just can't believe it, it harks back to the Palestinian pig-headed stick-to-your-gunnery that is usual displayed so well by Hamas and would be so better coming from people who actually had anything to lose.

The Palestinian people want peace, and as it has widely been agreed for decades the best chance of that comes from a two-state solution where Israel returns the land it took in 1967. For Abbas now to say he opposes an Israeli offer to do just that makes me ask, and from what I know of the situation, the Palestinian people will also be wondering: does Abbas want peace?

The proposal Abbas was talking about was formulated by Shimon Peres while he was still Israel's vice-premier. The proposal was brought to light in a Haaretz article. Although I am bemused that Abbas has come out opposing the proposal, Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has denied the existence of such a document anyway.

Returning the land taken in 1967 including East Jerusalem to form a Palestinian state, is one of the set-in-stone Palestinian demands for any peace deal, right of return for all refugees is another. But the main thing Palestinians want is an end to the occupation, removal of checkpoints, life-restricting Israeli security measures, and control over their own lives.

A land swap has long been thought necessary to allow Israel to return the land it took in 1967, because of the settlements it has built on the occupied land. If this document does exist, then this being the first time Israel has actually stated what land it wishes to swap for me is a big step. Another big step is Israel putting on paper a proposal to return 100% of the land taken in 1967. For Abbas to oppose such a huge step towards a massive concession from Israel, makes me wonder for the first time if those people are right, who say the Palestinians are as much an obstacle to peace as Israel. But let's remember this is not the Palestinian people, it is a Palestinian leader long-known for not putting his people first.

Many people in the analytical community, the major players in the international and Israeli political scenes are currently -- on paper at least -- touting that peace is closer than it has been for years. Shimon Peres stated Aug. 26 his belief that peace could be agreed before the international summit later this year.

UN special advisor for the Middle East Michael Williams, who is set to become Britain's Middle East representative next month, said that Israel hasn't done enough to strengthen moderate Abbas, which suggests he will follow the same old policy. That is the very policy that I believe still leaves peace a long way off; strengthening Abbas, while isolating and excluding Hamas from negotiations. This leaves the peace process open to being de-railed by the militant group staging a campaign of terror attacks. There is already talk of Hamas leaders in Damascus calling on Hamas militants in the West Bank to launch a massive suicide attack in Israel to torpedo chances of a deal between Israel and Fatah.

There is also the possibility that any agreements will be rejected by the Palestinian people as a whole who doubt Abbas' credibility and voted for a Hamas government for that reason. That of course all assumes Abbas can reach agreement with Israel. If Abbas is going to oppose every attempt Israel's makes to compromise then he is not as moderate as everyone seems to think, and nor is he likely to be the best person to achieve a Palestinian state through negotiations.

Michael Williams also said the situation is better than it has been for seven years, so as he and many other prominent people are hopeful that peace is closer than it has been for years, I will keep an open mind and see how things pan out. But until the top tier of world powers realize that all Palestinian groups and people must be behind a deal in order to offer Israel any real chance of security; a must for any deal, I just don't hold out much hope.

An Offer for Peace: Disarming Hamas and Fatah

By Liam Bailey

Fresh hope for Middle East Peace lies in the revitalization of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, offering Israel normalized relations with all Arab (League) states.

In return: Israel is expected to withdraw from and create a Palestinian state on the territory taken in the 1967 war, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and offer "a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem."

Through the years both populations have come to miss-trust the other side. Most Israelis will not accept their government sacrificing part of their sacred Jerusalem without firm guarantees that the violence from the Palestinians, most notably, the rocket fire will end. Not to mention the substantial settler movement within Israel who balk at the prospect of giving one inch of land, even for peace.

Outsiders will say that the above is a small price to pay for peace -- but why should Israelis pay, for something that their military's reputation for disproportionate retaliations and collective punishment has practically gained already?

The Arabs need to offer more for Israel to accept the initiative -- disarmament could well be the answer.

Currently, the biggest threat to Israel comes from within the Palestinian territories. I believe U.N. peacekeepers could verify the decommissioning of, for arguments sake, 10% of Hamas and Fatah's arms for every 10% of land returned, both processes completing on an agreed date. After Hamas and Fatah were disarmed and the withdrawal was complete, the U.N. force could maintain the peace from parties outside the agreement, such as Islamic Jihad, to allow the creation of the new Palestinian state.

Setting up P.A. police and security forces when Israel has gained trust in the unity government's commitment to the agreement would be the U.N forces' next task.

The new P.A. force's first job: disarming all Palestinians, starting with Islamic Jihad. In an independent Palestinian state, free from Israeli forces, settlements, controls and restrictions, I can't see why anyone would refuse to give their trust and their arms to the new state's security forces.

The issue the initiative fails to deal with, the peacekeepers could: ensuring the Israeli security wall is torn down after a suitable period of Israeli security.

Israel and the Arab League both seek to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons and dominating the region, suddenly peace may not be so distasteful to governments on both sides. The Arabs offering disarmament in conjunction with Israel meeting its commitments would allow Israel to sell peace to its understandably cautious population.

Hamas Shooting: Senseless Violence

By Liam Bailey

This article was originally about a glimmer of light shining on my hope that the new Palestinian unity government could bring a brighter Palestinian future. Unfortunately before I began writing an Israeli utility worker was shot and seriously wounded near a Gaza/Israel crossing. Hamas claimed responsibility for the shooting and two mortar attacks causing no casualties. Whether this has extinguished the light completely or not remains to be seen, but it has certainly slowed the momentum which seemed to finally be swinging in the Palestinians favour.

Firstly, there is hope in the fact that the new unity government is giving birth to the first real signs of disagreement between Israel and the Bush administration. Israel is advocating the new Palestinian Authority unity government receive the same treatment as its Hamas predecessor, i.e. financial strangulation and literal starvation in the form of an aid embargo and Israel withholding tax revenues. In short, financial sanctions that usually only the U.N. Security Council can impose but as usual, Israel and the U.S. can do what they want. The embargo will continue until the Palestinians succumb to the three demands and therein surrender the little dignity they have left. The three demands are to renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist and adhere to interim peace agreements, none of which are reciprocated by Israel.

The U.S. advocates a continuance of the policy enacted before the Mecca unity deal was reached, i.e. excluding Hamas completely from any negotiations, meetings or peace process, and dealing only with members of the more moderate Fatah party within the unity government. This is still the wrong track but the Bush administration disagreeing with Israel for the first time over dealing with the Palestinian government suggests that peace may be becoming more of an administration priority than keeping Israel sweet.

Israel's pressure for the world to maintain the financial force-field around the Palestinian Authority has continued since the new unity government was announced and amplified since the government was formed. The force-field is struggling to hold. The world knows how long the Palestinians have tried and failed to reach unity and refuses to ignore, or worse, as Israel wants, continue to punish them for what can only be viewed as a step in the right direction.

If the blockade were a wall, the foundations would have shook when Norway's deputy foreign minister Raymond Johansen ended Europe's diplomatic blockade by visiting the P.A. During the visit he announced that his country was also lifting the financial blockade and resuming normal relations with the P.A. under the unity government. The icing on the cake: Norway's decision came after meeting, not with a moderate Fatah member of the cabinet, but "an unreformed terrorist" as Israel calls Hamas leader and P.A. Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.

When I read about Norway's decision it got my hopes up that such a move could make it easier for others to follow suit, and may create a domino effect capable of bringing down a sizeable chunk of the financial blockade wall. However what is really necessary is normalization of Israel/Palestine relations, most notably because of the 100's of millions in tax revenues Israel has withheld from the Hamas government and will continue to withhold from the unity government. It is possible that such a domino effect could have prompted a change in U.S. responses and in turn bring Israel/Palestine relations closer to normalization.

We will never know, because the Norwegian minister hadn't even left the PA when all the hope his announcement caused was dashed by Hamas militants acting against their own interests, their own government and their own people. All Hamas' first attacks against Israel in months did was strengthen the financial wall and weaken the potential for Norway's bold move to become a significant turn in European opinion in the Palestinians favour.

It is more than possible that other states would have followed the Norwegian precedent, especially given the recent U.N. report on the devastating poverty Palestinians are enduring because of the blockade. It would have been in the PA unity government's best interests to maintain the ceasefire thus making such transitions far easier for the states involved. In other words non-violence could potentially have harmed Israel far more than violence. Therefore Mar. 19's shooting and mortar attacks were definitely senseless violence.