Congratulations are raining as friends of the
Palestinians respond with delight to the United Nations' resounding
"Yes!" to Palestine's non-member observer state status as of November
29, 2012. But before giving free rein to their excitement, the
Palestinian people - and their allies - should read the actual text of
the resolution.
Many Palestinians did not read the Oslo Accords Israel and the
Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) signed in the 1990s. If they
had, they might have noticed that the Accords did not mention
international law and human rights, did not provide for a state and did
not even mention the "occupation". Plus, the accords tied the
Palestinian economy into knots that Israel could tighten or loosen at
will.
The same leadership that signed those accords now believes the UN
upgrade will put the Palestinian struggle for self-determination,
freedom, equality and justice back on track.
Perhaps. There may be some openings yet the reasons for apprehension are legion, as is shown by a reading of the text.
The resolution itself is a messy text (based on the penultimate copy
of the document circulated the day before submission) stuffed with
references to past UN resolutions, statements and peace processes. But
that is not so worrying in and of itself.
Arab peace initiative
What is truly alarming is that, despite repeated assertions by the
Palestinian leadership that they are determined to protect the rights of
Palestinian refugees, the brief reference to the cornerstone UN
Resolution 194 (III) is buried in the preambular paragraphs. In the
operative paragraphs, "the Palestine refugees" are just one of the core
issues that must be resolved, along with Jerusalem, settlements, border,
security and water.
|
Latest analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict |
Resolved, how? The resolution enshrines the 2002 Arab peace
initiative, which speaks of a "just and agreed upon" solution for the
Palestinian refugees, in operative paragraph 5. This effectively
reaffirms Israel's control of any solution, an Israel that has never
allowed the refugees to return and that continues to this day to
dispossess the Palestinians in pre-1967 Israel and the occupied
territory. Thus, the UN resolution gives ever-more formal sanction to
disposing of the majority of the Palestinian people.
Another worrying factor is the repeated references to a peace process
so discredited that it is long past time to bury and not to praise it.
Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the operative paragraphs make no
direct reference to the Oslo Accords. Rather, they refer to the
"relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference,
including the principle of land for peace, the Arab peace Initiative and
the Quartet Roadmap".
Is this a positive sign? Perhaps.
Another potentially positive sign is the affirmation, in operative
paragraph 2, that the new status would be "without prejudice to the
acquired rights, privileges and role" of the PLO at the UN. Many
Palestinians feared that the UN bid would come at the expense of PLO
representation of the entire Palestinian people, under occupation,
refugees and in Israel.
Yet in practice can Palestinians be represented by both a state and
the PLO? Despite the careful wording of the resolution, a Palestinian
negotiator said in private exchanges that "state representation
(entity)... overrides the PLO representation" and that an ambassador
would be representing the state of Palestine. The negotiator also said
the PLO is "the interim government representing the state and not the
entity represented that is Palestine".
Clear? Not so much. It seems that the ambassador of Palestine would
represent those Palestinians in the state of Palestine, that is, not all
Palestinians, with the PLO's position unclear.
The Palestinians' political reality is even more worrying than the
resolution's language. Not only did this same leadership sign the
disastrous Oslo Accords, it stood helplessly by as Israel more than
doubled its illegal settlers since 1993 with no signs of stopping its
rampant colonisation.
Freedom from occupation
In addition, the Fatah-Hamas 2007 split has greatly weakened the
Palestinian national movement. Even if they reconcile, as they seem
determined to do in the wake of Israel's assault on Gaza this month,
this is not necessarily cause for celebration. There is nothing
democratic about either faction. Although Hamas does hold internal
elections, both have brutally oppressed dissent rather than encouraging
true Palestinian representation.
"If
Israel cuts aid to the PA, it will have to manage its own occupation.
If the US cuts aid to the PA, it will lose its clout over the
Palestinian agenda." |
In the final analysis, it boils down to a question of trust. True,
the PLO did not bend to British demands that, among other things, it did
not agree to join the International Criminal Court for a "Yes" vote
(Britain abstained.) But it has squandered the huge resources at its
disposal to lead civil resistance to the Israeli trampling of
Palestinian rights. It did not make use of the International Court of
Justice Advisory Opinion to hold other states accountable for their
support of Israel's occupation.
It tried to torpedo the Goldstone Report after Cast Lead. It adopted a
weak, limited boycott of Israeli settlement goods only after the rest
of the world responded powerfully to the Palestinian civil society 2005
Call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS); and the Ramallah-based
Palestinian Authority (PA) took on the role of Israel's policeman.
Can such a leadership really lead the Palestinians to freedom from
occupation, justice for the refugees and equal rights for the
Palestinian citizens of Israel? Can it take advantage of the ICC and
ICJ, and other UN conventions and bodies to protect its waters, airspace
and people? The jury is out.
The biggest ray of sunshine on the horizon is the virulent opposition
to the UN bid by the Israeli and American governments. In fact, they
have been boxed in. If Israel cuts aid to the PA, it will have to manage
its own occupation. If the US cuts aid to the PA, it will lose its
clout over the Palestinian agenda.
Furthermore, the PLO/PA's apparent interest in reviving itself
provides opportunities for Palestinian civil society and its allies to
hold the leadership accountable for Palestinian rights. But first, it
would be good to read that document, to know just what to hold it
accountable for.
Nadia Hijab is the director of Al-Shabaka, The
Palestinian Policy Network. She is also a public speaker, writer and
media commentator.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment