16 July 2003
On June 4, a threeway summit between Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and President Bush, hosted by King Abdallah of Jordan was held in Aqaba, to start the talks about the Quartet “road map” to peace, which was published on May 1, 2003. The “road map” is a performance-based and goal-driven plan, the success of which requires and depends upon the good faith and efforts of the parties and their compliance with each of the outlined obligations. The parties are expected to perform their obligations in parallel unless otherwise indicated. The Quartet, consisting of the EU, USA, UN and Russia, is meant regularly, at senior level, to evaluate the parties’ performance and implementation of the plan.
What is the WCC’s general perception of this “road map”?
We welcomed the road map as a new initiative to bring the two parties back to the negotiation table. It provides a new – albeit very small – window of opportunity for a two-state solution.
Most importantly it is the first time that Israel openly recognizes the need for a Palestinian state. Furthermore, it makes clear that the resolution of the conflict would be based on UN resolutions 242, 338 and 1397, which would mean putting an end to “the occupation that began in 1967” and the emergence of an “independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbours…” In addition, the “road map” mentions the Saudi Arabian initiative endorsed by the Beirut Summit of the Arab League which called for “ the… acceptance of Israel as a neighbour by the Arab states.” However positive these steps are, the text states only that negotiations within the framework of the road map will be based on the UN resolutions concerned, not on their implementation, as is the normal raison d’être of UN resolutions.
Another positive aspect of the “road map” is the recognition by Israel of its occupation of Palestinian territories. The road map goes further than the Oslo agreement, laying out a firm “declaration of principles” with performance-based and goal-driven phases, timelines, target dates and benchmarks aiming at progress through reciprocal steps by the two parties in the political, security, economic, humanitarian and institution-building fields, under the auspices of the Quartet. In addition, it is the first time that Israel has agreed to a specific date (2005) for the establishment of a Palestinian state that is sovereign, viable, independent and democratic. While we welcome this initiative to create a viable Palestinian state, we are concerned about the lack of attributes to sovereignty and the repeated reference to provisional borders, that are to be negotiated at the end.
Thus, despite a number of encouraging elements, the “road map” is far from ideal. There are many vague and disturbing elements in it, as well as significant gaps that need clarification.
The “road map” has met criticism from many sides, including Israeli, Palestinian and international. Israelis and Palestinians both claim the other side can’t be trusted to fulfil their obligations, while many international organizations are sceptical about substantial parts of the content. What are the most significant shortcomings of the “road map”?
There are many important problems linked to the road map, as well as issues that are not dealt with at all. Most importantly, as in the case of the Oslo agreement, it fails to incorporate human rights and international humanitarian law into the agreement. This creates the risk of making the basic obligations under humanitarian law, such as the obligation to protect civilians, subject to negotiation or political expediency, which should not be the case. This applies, as mentioned, both to the issue of protecting civilians on both sides, to the dismantling of settlements that are illegal according to the IV. Geneva Convention and international law, as well as to the issue of the right of return of refugees. WCC has repeatedly stated that no agreement can be durable unless based on the respect for the fundamental human rights of all. In the pursuit of a “peace and security” formula the human rights of Palestinian and Israeli victims cannot be neglected.
When referring to settlements, the road map only makes clear mention to those built after March 2001 in phase 1, leaving the issue for negotiation between the parties in the last phase. This approach, however, is in direct contradiction to the Israeli obligation to abide by international law, including as mentioned, the IV. Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from settling its civilian population in occupied territory.
On the issue of refugees, the road map aims at reaching an agreed, just, fair and realistic solution to the refugee issue. There is, however, no mention of UN resolution 194 or the acceptance of the principles of the right of return, a key element for the solution of this issue, according to international law.
The status of Jerusalem is another extremely important element that the road map only briefly mentions, stating that the negotiations on the status of Jerusalem are supposed to “take into account the political and religious concerns of both sides and protect the religious interests of Jews, Christians and Muslims worldwide”. However, along with other permanent status issues such as borders, refugees and the remaining settlements, the fate of Jerusalem is to be negotiated only in the third and final phase of negotiations. There is no mention as to whether Jerusalem is going to be shared in terms of citizenship and sovereignty and remain an open and inclusive city, as envisioned by the World Council of Churches. Postponing the most sensitive issues to the final negotiations was one of Oslo’s great failures, and one that the road map should avoid repeating.
The road map also fails to take note of the separation wall being erected by Israel on the West Bank, in most places far inside the ‘green line’, thereby silently annexing large areas of Palestinian land while a peace deal is being negotiated. Again, it is critical that we not repeat the failure of the Oslo process, where Israel, whilst negotiating a “land for peace” deal, was building new settlements behind the back of the negotiations, thereby creating new "facts on the ground". The Quartet needs to deal with the separation wall, as reference to it is clearly missing in the road map.
Finally, the road map is unclear on monitoring mechanisms for progress as well as on the role for third parties. There is no mention of who will monitor the implementation and who will decide whether the two sides are fulfilling the commitments. We expect and hope for a stronger involvement of the European Union, the UN and Russia, in this process, as some of the core issues have international implications and should not just be left to the two parties and the US mediators.
How have the Heads of Churches of Jerusalem reacted towards the road
map and what are their greatest concerns?
While welcoming the initiative to bring the parties together to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, the Heads of Churches have expressed concern regarding the lack of mention of the right of return of Palestinian refugees, as well as concrete steps to resolve the problem of the Israeli settlements and the settlers that occupy them. The Heads of Churches emphasize that only a peace built on justice and the respect of human rights will bring about security for both parties. They believe the road map would be meaningful if people were not afraid, if they were not harassed at Israeli military checkpoints and if their homes were not demolished.
The monitoring and enforcement mechanism envisioned by the road map, is another area of their concern. Already in March 2001, the Heads of Churches called for an international presence to serve as “protection for all our people in order to assist the re-establishment of mutual trust and security for Israelis and Palestinians”. This is an area where the churches hope the international community will deliver.
Since the official launch of the road map at the summit in Aqaba, where
both Palestinian and Israeli Prime Ministers in their speeches promised to fulfill
their obligations according to the plan, the situation in the area has taken
a dramatic turn. What is the WCC’s assessment of this development?
There are two dimensions to this development; a political and a humanitarian dimension.
The aftermath of the Aqaba summit saw a sharp increase in violence. An Israeli attempt to kill senior Hamas leader ‘Abdul ‘Aziz al-Rantisi extra-judicially on June 10, a week after the summit, led to the death of two bystanders while 30 others were injured. Hamas retaliated by sending a suicide bomber who blew himself up on a Jerusalem bus, killing 16 and wounding another 80. This started yet another vicious spiral of violence, with the Israeli army conducting more extra-judicial killings of wanted Palestinians, and the Palestinian groups responding with attacks on both military and civilian Israeli targets. A total of around 80 people were killed and many hundreds wounded in the course of the month following the Aqaba summit.
In accordance with its obligation under the road map, the Israeli government on June 15 started to dismantle Israeli settlements in the West Bank. However, the dismantling of one settlement led to the erection of four new ones. A statement issued by Yesha Council Chairman Bentzi Lieberman stated that for every outpost removed by the government, the Council would put up another two. The dismantling of illegal settlements was significantly delayed because of massive and sometimes violent resistance from settlers as well as by petitions filed in the High Court to prevent dismantling.
Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas, heavily backed by the Egyptians and Americans, negotiated a general cease fire agreement with Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian factions. It was announced on June 29, to coincide with the visit of American security adviser Condoleezza Rice. A few hours later on the same day, Israeli troops pulled out of Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza strip, and three days later, on July 2, they also pulled out of Bethlehem. The second Israeli obligation according to the first step of the road map, namely the release of Palestinian prisoners, was approved by the Israeli cabinet on July 7. However, the release of some 350 prisoners included in this deal has still to be executed.
On the humanitarian side unfortunately not much has changed since the Aqaba summit. In terms of the daily life of Palestinians, which has dramatically deteriorated during the past two years and has created a serious humanitarian crisis, no changes have occurred as a result of the road map. The local churches still report extensive closures of towns and villages, students who can’t attend schools, patients who can’t reach hospitals, workers who are unemployed or can’t reach their work places and humanitarian workers who are prevented from assisting the most needy as well as denied access to certain areas, including the entire Gaza Strip. Thus, the measures to be taken by Israel to improve the humanitarian situation, as stated in the road map, have yet to be taken. With 50% of the population unemployed and the poverty rate exceeding 60%, steps to ease the situation of the Palestinians are, however, of utmost importance and necessity.
People need to see facts on the ground that give them hope. If the road map does not deliver concrete results that give people hope, there will be difficulties to muster the much-needed political will.
Following the increased violence and the general development in the
area after the summit in Aqaba that you have just outlined, Kofi Annan expressed
his support for an armed peacekeeping force, or what he calls a “buffer”
force, in Israel/Palestine. What is your opinion on that and the role of the
UN in general ?
While we welcome the initiative from Kofi Annan to post a peacekeeping or “buffer” force in the area with more enforcement authority and powers to prevent violence, we would like to see a more active and comprehensive role for the UN. The resolution of this occupation should be well rooted in the framework of the United Nations and based on the resolutions related to this conflict (242, 338, 1397, 194 and others). The UN is a member of the Quartet and it needs to take a lead role within it as a representative body of the community of nations in the entire process of conflict resolution and not just in peacekeeping.
The churches and international and local NGOs have repeatedly called for international human rights monitors to be sent to Israel and the Occupied Territories, but the international community has failed to act in the face of Israel’s rejection of the proposal. Therefore, as a response to the call for an international presence made by the Heads of Churches in March 2001, the World Council of Churches launched the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel, the prime goal of which is to send people to accompany Palestinians and Israelis striving for peace, as well as to observe and monitor human rights violations in the area. This programme was initiated to address the lack of response from the international community to the local call for the presence of international monitors.
The WCC Central Committee in 2002 launched a campaign to “End
the Illegal Occupation of Palestine: Support a Just Peace in the Middle East”
at a time when the conflict was at its highest and bloodiest. Will the WCC continue
this campaign to end the occupation of Palestine now that peace talks are underway
between the parties again?
As stated above, the initiation of the peace talks have so far brought no relief to the life of the Palestinians, nor the end of the occupation. Therefore it is of utmost importance that we continue to put pressure on Israel as well as the third parties involved, to ensure the implementation of UN resolutions that call for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.
Do you believe the “road map” will eventually lead to peace
in the Middle East?
The “road map” can be the road to peace and security if it is intended
to give Palestinians their fundamental rights, while recognizing and affirming
the right for Israel to exist within a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement.
As previously mentioned, the road map needs to give hope back to people. Those
Palestinians that welcome the road map need to be convinced that it is genuinely
going to deliver, so that they are then able to change the mood on the streets.
However, if the intention is to put more limitations on the Palestinians, it
will not lead to peace. So, while we welcome the initiative, we believe that
the durability of peace is dependent on the fundamental rights of both peoples
to exist side by side and a commitment to the protection of civilians from its
very inception.
Back to the Israel-Palestine page
Ecumenical Acompaniement Programme in Israel-Palestine
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|