Download PDF Version
Printable Version
"Settlement Freeze is a Means to an End, Not an End in Itself" by Yousef Munayyer
Friday, September 25, 2009
Palestine Center Brief No. 180 (25
September 2009)
By Yousef Munayyer
In recent months, the debate over the need for a freeze in Israeli settlement construction has dominated the discussion about the future of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and U.S. policy in the region. In fact, this one facet of a long and volatile conflict has been so dominant in the recent debate that the bigger picture begins to get lost. For this reason, it is important to put a settlement freeze in an appropriate context to understand both its immediate necessity, and what must ultimately succeed it if a genuine and lasting peace is to be reached.
There is no doubt that many challenges make the restarting of negotiations between the parties difficult. Perhaps chief among these challenges is the continued growth of Israeli settlements.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas faces a difficult domestic political climate. Palestinians are politically and geographically divided today more than any time in their history. Public opinion polling conducted in the Occupied Palestinian Territories has shown that a majority of the voting population questions the legitimacy of President Abbas after he extended his term this January. For President Abbas to engage in negotiations with the Israelis while they continue to build settlements may amount to political suicide.
A right-wing Israeli government elected this February complicates the matter. The Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu parties, running on a pro-settlement platform, owe much to the zealous constituency that elected them into office. Hence, this tension between two seemingly irreconcilable positions, undergirded by domestic political dynamics on both sides, has generated the debate over a settlement freeze today.
A settlement freeze is just the first step of many. Certainly, settlements must stop growing before they can disappear and Palestinians cannot negotiate with their occupier while they usurp more land. A freeze must be followed by the return of all land taken by Israeli settlements to their rightful owners and a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories.
In recent years, Israel has worked hard to create de facto borders, deep within the 1967 armistice line, on internationally recognized Palestinian land. Each checkpoint, roadblock and separation wall must be torn down. Every inch of land within the 1967 borders must return to full Palestinian sovereignty regardless of which structures have been placed atop it.
But an end to the Israeli occupation alone will not amount to peace. Peace between both sides can only come when a sense of justice can be felt by the occupied party for the hardships it endured.
Some might argue that there can never be justice for the ethnic cleansing of 1948 or the scores who have perished or struggled under the brutality of the Israeli occupation. And, if we are to assume retribution as central to the concept of justice, then these critics may very well be right.
Outsiders have often characterized the conflict as a “struggle for statehood” or a “struggle for peace”. Yet, the best way to understand the justice Palestinians require for a peaceful settlement is to think about the terminology Palestinians use in their native tongue when talking about this issue. Palestinians refer to the conflict simply as the qadiya or the “case”. The legal connotation is no coincidence. Since the days when George Antonious penned The Arab Awakening Palestinians have always pointed to the simple principles of legal justice to make their “case”.
A lasting peace would be best served by achieving justice through the fair application of law. In this case, there is a plethora of international laws and human rights laws that can approximate the concept of justice for Palestinians. A complete withdrawal from all territories occupied by Israel in 1967, the release of all political prisoners and the human right of refugees to return to their lands is the minimum Palestinians can accept.
It is worth repeating that these demands comprise the minimal acceptable notion of justice for Palestinians. The Palestinian people have never acted as aggressors. Instead, they have suffered the unjust usurpation of 78 percent of their historic homeland, wallowed in refugee camp and endured the 42 year occupation of the remaining 22 percent of their country.
For these reasons, any agreement in which Palestinians perceive Israel to have failed in meeting their minimum obligations under international law can never be thought of as just and will be fatally flawed from its inception.
A settlement freeze is a necessary first step, but it must be followed by an end to the illegal occupation. All rights afforded to Palestinians under international law, including the right to return, the return of all occupied land and compensation for damages must be granted. Then Palestinians can feel some sense of justice.
Then, and only then, can there be peace.
Yousef Munayyer is the Executive Director of the Palestine Center. This policy brief may be used without permission but with proper attribution to the Center.
The views expressed in this information brief are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Jerusalem Fund.