Palestine: Hudna and the Road Map to peace

Anyone who has covered this conflict for any length of time and has any knowledge of Sharon's track record in politics will not be surprised either. Last week, the Israeli army in two separate incursions killed four Palestinians, two of them leaders of the Palestinian resistance. If Sharon thought that these targeted killings and incursions would go unanswered, he was mistaken. Within hours, the Palestinians carried out two suicide bombings sending a clear message that every Israeli terrorist action will produce a similar reaction from the Palestinian side. The Israeli action even provoked the Hezbollah to fire rockets at Israeli towns from across the Lebanese border.

Although the so called "road map" to peace is a heavily biased plan in favour of Israel, Sharon is defaulting even on the few commitments Israel is required to carry out. Let us have a look at the plan. Cessation of terrorist activities (I suppose, terrorism perpetrated by both sides) and a halt to all settlement activities are the primary requirements under the first phase of the plan. Leaving aside the overall military occupation of Palestinian territories, we have just seen that Israel is continuing with its policy of targeted assassinations. As I write, news of another targeted assassination is coming in, which I am afraid, will trigger further retaliatory actions from the Palestinian side.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

According to Prof. David Newman of the Ben Gurion University of the Negev, "the settlement network is not simply a few temporary outposts like those evacuated by the Israeli government in the past few months as a means of gaining some international support. It is a collection of small towns, industrial and commercial areas, schools and colleges, roads and public services. When one travels around the settlements, it seems they have put down roots for good." The Israeli government has not only not dismantled any of these settlements but also according to Ethan Bonner of the New York Times, on July 31, "approved 22 more housing units in Gaza in violation of the American-sponsored peace plan." It should be pointed out that this approval only refers to Gaza. Now the question is: How many more housing units are being built in the West Bank and how many more troops and tanks being deployed to protect them and the by-pass roads?

The second phase of the road map envisages the creation of a temporary Palestinian entity (I must emphasise the word "entity" because it is not a state) with provisional borders. Sharon has shown great interest in this phase of the plan, hence his rush to build a wall (known as the Apartheid Wall) along these provisional boundaries, chalked out, of course, by himself. What is the ultimate objective of this wall? The objective is territorial annexation by making these provisional borders as permanent political boundaries... According to Prof. John Dugard of the University of Leiden, Netherlands, " it (the Wall) is manifestly intended to create facts on the ground." If the wall were built along the Green Line (pre- 1967 borders), one could accept Israel's rationale for building this wall, i.e., security. This wall, built on Palestinian territories, when finished, will be more than 650 kilometres long. It delves deep into Palestinian territories and snakes through the West Bank to include many Israeli settlements. The Palestinian villages and farmlands falling between the Wall and Green Line will, in effect, be annexed. Therefore, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living in these towns and villages (Qalquilia will be completely surrounded) will either be forced to move to the other side of the Wall (Palestine) or live in virtual prison camps with high fences and Israeli checkpoints, which would look more like cages. Even Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State recently commented, " The fence is developing in a way that will make it very difficult to reach the next stage of the road map." Needless to say that all this goes against the Fourth Geneva Convention, the United Nations resolutions and the international law.

What is the third phase of the plan? The third phase provides for the creation of a viable (meaning more or less along the Green Line) and independent state for the Palestinians by the end of 2005. Here lies the crunch of the issue. Sharon's strategy is to complete building the wall which will include many important settlements on the Israeli side of the Wall (thus, in effect annexing almost half of the occupied territories) and declare the Palestinian side of the Wall, which will be reduced to a rump as the Interim Palestinian state. Needless to say that he hopes this emaciated interim Palestinian state, perpetually dependent on Israel for its survival, will eventually become the de facto permanent one. Sharon hopes that in this manner he will complete his grand design: re-create the biblical state of Greater Israel with the whole of Jerusalem as its capital; keep a good number of his beloved settlements on conquered land; give security to his people; maintain the Jewish character of Israel by getting rid of the Palestinian population, which is growing at a much faster rate than the Jewish population and last but least in importance, be hailed in the United States as the great statesman who was able to push the vexing and often embarrassing Palestinian problem out of international limelight.

Now the crucial question is: Will the United States allow Sharon to get away with all this? Although recently some encouraging signs have come out of Washington indicating a mild change in the Bush administration's policy towards the Palestinians, I am rather sceptical about it because Bush's peace plan is built on wrong premises. It focuses on Palestinian resistance to occupation but not on the 36-year Israeli occupation itself. According to this plan a complete cease fire (Hudna) on the Palestinian part is not good enough. The Palestinian Authority or whatever is left of it must also disarm and destroy the Palestinian resistance groups ( a civil war will be inevitable), thereby eliminating the possibility of organising armed resistance again. Once it is achieved, as John V. Whitbeck, an expert on Middle Eastern affairs ironically points out, "then (and only then) Israel will choose, of its free will, to end the occupation, withdrawing to pre-1967 borders, vacating the settlements, sharing Jerusalem and agreeing to a just settlement of the refugee issue." One would be a fool to believe a word of it and I think the Palestinians are not fools. I agree with John V. Whitbeck, when he writes, "they (the Palestinians) recognise that the real American objective is not peace, but at best simply quiet--Palestinian acquiescence in the occupation and acceptance of whatever terms Israel may wish to impose on a defeated and demoralised people."

If the president of United States, even at this late stage does not change tack and address the fundamental problem, i.e. the 36-year occupation of what is left of the homeland of a humiliated people and not their resistance to this occupation, he will be perceived as someone who was simply beating about the bush and not really sincere about bringing peace to this battered region of the world. It is simple to understand that once occupation is ended under an international treaty guaranteeing the pre-1967 boundaries, the casus belli will disappear and therefore, the resistance will cease automatically. The United States certainly has the power to make it happen but has its president got the courage and conviction to take such a bold decision?