One of the Palestinians' greatest problems is that they have trusted the words of politicians. For over 40 years, presidents and kings, diplomats and peace envoys have said things that gave encouragement and hope. Inevitably a harsh reality has followed.
Probably the worst has been the lip service of Arab leaders. Believing they had support from their own, Palestinians have stood up to the better equipped Israelis time and again, only to face defeat after defeat.
Giving up on Arab promises, Palestinians believed that Western leaders would not so easily dismiss their own statements. They clutched at Ronald Reagan's plan, at the first George Bush's promises to stop settlement activities, at Bill Clinton's handshakes, only to find each time that the promises of Western leaders also evaporated into thin air.
In principle, Palestinians should not complain about President George W. Bush's latest call for an international conference, one that is supposed to give birth to a viable independent Palestinian state with territorial contiguity.
Bush has finally admitted that the Palestinian conflict is important to the region and the world. He even used the word "occupation" when referring to the Palestinian territories. He spoke of the removal of "illegal" settlement outposts in the West Bank and the need to stop the expansion of settlements.
In short, the president's speech was perfectly acceptable in Palestinian eyes. But the same can be said of all the American speeches, initiatives and declarations since 1967.
The problem, then as now, is to find a way of implementing the fine words that can penetrate the political and physical obstacles that Israel, and Palestinian extremists, will throw in their way.
Through all the past initiatives and speeches, Israel has quietly and steadily continued building illegal settlements and ensuring that future efforts would collide with even harder realities on the ground.
The latest such reality in Gaza has come about in part as a result of a misguided Palestinian belief that the world community - if not Israel - would respect the results of free and fair elections.
As it worked out, when President Bush talks about a two-state solution, Palestinian black humor now understands him to mean a Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip and a Fatah-controlled West Bank. Similarly, talk of a potential confederation with Jordan has been replaced among wags by talk of a West Bank-Gaza confederation.
So the United States and its allies are getting serious about a two- state solution (Israel and Palestine, that is) at a time when Palestinian support for one is eroding.
Palestinians are losing interest in more peace negotiations unless there is a road map to genuine independence from Israeli occupation and a truly sovereign state. And Bush never even mentioned two of the central hurdles in any settlement - Jerusalem and the status of Palestinian refugees.
Another major problem is that every step-by-step approach has proven vulnerable to sabotage by extremists.
A radical Israeli Jew assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to put an end to the Oslo process. Radical Islamic organizations have timed their attacks to occur just before major events, whether Israeli elections in 1996 or planned Israeli redeployments. And instead of recognizing the motives behind these attacks, leaders on both sides have regularly allowed the radicals their victory by suspending whatever peace process was under way.
Seeing so many Jewish settlements dotting the West Bank, some Palestinians want to focus their struggle now on a single, bi-national state.
Others, who believe the Israelis are unlikely to accept any plan that will weaken the Jewishness of their state, are simply opting for a total withdrawal from the charade called the Palestinian Authority.
What we need is a reversal of the traditional peace process. If a new process is going to work, it must begin with the end game and then work its way toward implementation.
After 40 years of occupation, the idea that progress can be achieved with goodwill gestures such as tiny prisoner releases and the removal of a few checkpoints is misguided.
The Arab peace initiative and a score of unofficial Israeli- Palestinian plans have focused on outlining what the end game should be and then creating the process to suit the solution.
The 1967 borders as the natural borders of the Palestinian state, with some land swaps equal in size and quality, is a logical framework for the parties to accept. If the planned international conference does reach such a clear-cut agreement, then the Bush administration may yet break the pattern of sweet words and sour realities.
* A Palestinian columnist and the director of the Institute of Modern Media at Al Quds University in Ramallah.
Add Comments