Download PDF Version
Printable Version
Tell a friend
Israel’s Right-wing Government and the Prospect for Peace with MK Said Naffaa
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Edited Transcript of Remarks by MK Said
Naffaa
Transcript No. 314 (25 June 2009)
Transcript No. 314 (25 June 2009)
There are three main bases to a viable peace in the Middle East: an end to Israel’s occupation of Arab land and the return to the 4 June 1967 border so that a Palestinian state is established on the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem; the recognition of the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees; and Israel’s right to exist with security and peace. However, the current Israeli government lacks the political horizon to seize the opportunity for a comprehensive peace with the Palestinians and Arabs.
To view the video of this briefing online go to
http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/5964/pid/3584.
The Palestine Center
Washington, D.C.
23 June 2009
Mr. Said Naffaa:
Ladies and gentlemen, salamu alaykum. I am going to speak, as I guess you know that, about the prospects and roadblocks on the path of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I am, unfortunately, afraid that I am going to disappoint all those who are willing to see peace in the near future in the Middle East. The only path to just, comprehensive and lasting Arab-Israeli peace and Israeli-Palestinian peace is the ending of the occupation of the Arab land and establishing a viable Palestinian state.
The main issue is which state are we talking about? We have to know that there is a wide distance between the Arab point of view and the Israeli point of view. Objectively, there are three main bases to a viable chance of peace in the Middle East. First, ending the Israeli occupation of Arab land and returning to the borders of the 4th of June 1967 and the establishing of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with Arab Jerusalem as its capital. It is important to know that we are speaking about only 22 percent of historical Palestine. Second, recognizing the refugees' Right of Return according to the U.N. resolutions. And third, recognizing Israel's right of existing with security and peace. The question is what is the position of each side towards these bases?
The Arab position is derived from the Arab Initiative, Beirut 2002. For the complicated issue of the refugees' Right of Return, this Initiative took a wide step ahead in speaking of an "acceptable solution," meaning giving Israel a right that it does not originally have; a right to veto any solution of the Right of Return. The Palestinians are obliged and committed to the Arab position, at least officially. The negotiating bases of the Palestinian Authority are the principles of this Initiative.
The main roadblocks in the way of the Initiative are the Israeli refusal of such a generous initiative and the absence of Arab strategy against such an Israeli position. Another roadblock, which is more important than the aforementioned, is the division on the Palestinian front and the conflict about the "Palestinian National Program" between the Palestinian Authority and the other factions, especially Hamas. The continuing failure to establish an internal Palestinian unity has given Israel a fantastic opportunity to avoid any commitment under the following argument: "Absence of partner or absence of the Palestinian Authority's ability to retain its commitments or to retain any lasting solution."
The Israeli position concerning these peace bases is the absolute denial of the Right of Return and the rejection of any compromise in this issue while also refusing to withdraw from all occupied lands, especially from Jerusalem. Its argument is the impossibility to assure its security and the un-reality of full withdrawal because of the demographic changes caused by the settlements and settlers' right of growth, all of that according to the Jewish historical rights on the land and in Jerusalem. This is an official and public Israeli position, and the differences between the political forces, right and left, and between the public ones are not substantial. Therefore, the declaiming Israeli readiness for peace negotiations is only lip service said actually as common public [knowledge] for the international community. This Israeli position stands as the main roadblock and obstacle on the path of peace in the Middle East. Israel, no matter which party is in power, knows well that the international community cannot bear this position forever or at least for a long time. Therefore, it declares again and again its desire and readiness to negotiate peace. But the question is which negotiations is Israel referring to?
Israel puts a lot of excuses in front of peace hoping to avoid any serious engagement like demanding the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state or the right to deal first with the issue of lran and the so-called Iranian armed allies or the demanding from Syria and Lebanon to first define the kind of relationship they will have with other countries, namely Iran. Israel does that intentionally to put the carriage before the horse as though these excuses are the source of the problem and not the outcome of it.
We can summarize that the current Israeli government is distinguished as one without horizons--neither in the Palestinian-Israeli issue nor in the Arab-Israeli one--ideologically and practically because of the parties who are sharing in the coalition. For example, it is no longer a secret that unofficial Israeli-Syrian communications have taken place for a long time ago. And then, as known, public indirect negotiations have taken place between the two sides in Turkey.
According to information which had been brought to light by Israeli sources who took part in these communications, the parties made good progress. This information has recently been indirectly confirmed by the Syrian ambassador to the U.S. who stated, "The two states were so close to signing a peace agreement twice." The Israeli unofficial sources say that the communications between the two countries made important progress in all the issues. First, full withdrawal from the Golan Heights to the 1967 borders within ten to fifteen years while one third of the territory beginning in the Sea of Galilee to Mount Harmon remains as a national park under a Syrian administration and sovereignty but with full free access to the Israelis. Second, farmland and factories remain as Israeli investments, at least in the area between the mandatory 1923 borders and the 1967 borders. Third, water is to be regulated according to the international laws. Fourth, establishing a security arrangement and normal, or at least regular, relationships.
Such bases seem to be reasonable and should be acceptable. The question is why the delay?
The Israeli Prime Minister [Benjamin Netanyahu] had declared, before the recent election and after, that withdrawal from the Golan Heights is not an option. His Foreign Minister [Avigdor] Lieberman had said, in the first occasion after his entrance to his office, that withdrawal from the Golan Heights will not take place as long as he is in charge. Any withdrawal from the Golan Heights means withdrawal of Lieberman and other parties from the coalition, which means the end of the government. Therefore, and based on the above, the horizon here is blocked.
Full withdrawal from the West Bank is unacceptable neither to Netanyahu’s party or to his allies. According to the position of the rigorous parties, even negotiating on Jerusalem is totally unacceptable. So, any step Netanyahu takes on this issue also means the end of his government. Therefore, the horizon here is also blocked. Netanyahu knows very well the reality of his political situation. And at the same time, he knows that his internal situation is not the international community's concern. Therefore, he tries to make maneuvers by putting preconditions and using excuses such as the Iranian threat or requesting recognition of Israel as a Jewish state before renewing any negotiations or making any progress in them or for the Palestinian Authority to first show its ability to control the situation in Gaza. Netanyahu does that while he depends on the international community, especially the U.S. understanding the Israeli demand for full security first. And he depends on [former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon’s letter, which had been consigned in the hands of the U.S., concerning the Road Map as a condition to endorse it.
The real and hidden reason behind the Israeli position is a mental one. It is the suspicion which is deeply planted officially and publicly in the minds of the Israelis that Arabs’ and Muslims’ real intention towards Israel and the Jews is antagonistic. Meaning, Arabs and Muslims would never accept not only the Jewish state but the Jewish existence in the area. And whereas Arabs and Muslims cannot understand but the language of force and more force, and with that way of using force, they, the Jews, have to deal with them. So, they have to maintain the upper hand so that they could impose the solution they want because any solution with Arabs and Muslims is perceived as temporary and, at the end, they will be forced to accept the Jewish existence as a fact.
The U.S. role. Because of the absence of any Arab strategy against this situation, the only open horizon left is the one held by the West, especially the U.S. Everyone in Israel knows very well that they can defy the whole world but not the U.S. stance. The Israelis know that without the backing of the U.S. they can't even survive. Therefore, all political parties in the current government, from Netanyahu's party to the most extreme right, will fall back and accept the U.S. stance. As long as the Arabs are unable to manufacture a key to move forward with their peace initiative and to open another horizon to face the Israeli refusal, the only existing key is that which is in the hands of the U.S. And it is the only one which can cause Israel to officially and publicly change its mind and its position.
There is no doubt that the president of the U.S.A. in his speech in Cairo two weeks ago sent an important message about this issue. Even he added that "We can't impose peace." But the message was so clear. Although, the true testing of the visions included in the speech will be the results. But Israel should realize that there is a new reality on the ground and she has to behave accordingly. Otherwise, it will find itself in a problematic situation. The Israelis should know that the key to the solution cannot be forever in the hands of the U.S. if it continues to repudiate every initiative or proposal for a just solution in the Middle East, especially a just solution for the Palestinians. The outcomes from the 2006 Lebanon War and the war against Gaza 2008-09 show that they did not contribute a bit to Israel's security and that the key began to move out from the hands of the U.S. In addition, Israel and the U.S. together should realize that the Arab regimes cannot tolerate this arrogant Israeli policy for a long time knowing that the Arab masses will not be quiet for a long time.
What is Netanyahu’s and his allies’ real position? Recently, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) has published its annual enumeration showing that the numbers of Israelis and Palestinians west of the river will be equal in 2016 while the Israeli CBS showed that it will happen in 2020. Whichever, continued Israeli policy denying the Palestinians any rights and ignoring all initiatives will bring the solution of two-state to its end, and the only option left on the table is the one-state solution. This is the worst nightmare for Israel, but it is marching towards it anyway. Israel thinks that through activities, such as building new colonial settlements or surrounding Palestinians in isolated cantons, she can avoid this fate, i.e. the one-state solution.
Israel is well aware of what she is doing. She is knowingly planning to create a disconnected Palestinian entity with self administration on about 60 percent of the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinians can call it whatever they want--a state or even an empire. In fact, the end game for these Israeli practices is--and let's call the baby by its name--an apartheid deluxe. Netanyahu's recent speech emphasized that this is the direction.
Finally, can the international community allow that to happen? Can the world afford another South Africa in the 21st century? Can the Palestinians submit to such a fate? I do not think so, but the future will tell.
Thank you.
Mr. Said Naffaa was reelected to the Knesset in the recent Israel Parliamentary Elections. He is one of the leaders of Arab Party "National Democratic Assembly". Prior to serving in the Knesset, he held various public positions including mayor of Beit Jann in the Upper Galilee.
This transcript may be used without permission but with proper attribution to The Palestine Center. The speakers' views do not necessarily reflect the views of The Jerusalem Fund.
