Home  Publications News from Within News from Within Vol. XXI No.5 (Jul/Aug 2005)
|
News from Within Vol. XXI No.5 (Jul/Aug 2005) |
|
|
|
Written by Webmaster
|
|
Thursday, 01 September 2005 |
|
Page 5 of 7
Gaza Disengagement
Adnan Ateyah
August 2005?Disengagement from Gaza, twelve years after the signing of the Oslo Accords, which stated in Article 14 that Israel would withdraw its military and illegal civilian populations from the Gaza Strip. As the date approaches, the Israeli settlers are intensifying their media campaign. The Israeli government does little to damper these internal frictions, and, alternatively, emphasizes the ?sacrifices? which Israel is making. At the same time, however, other illegal settlements are expanding throughout the occupied West Bank, and international law and human rights continue to be denied by virtue of the extended Occupation. The following overview warns that disengagement should be viewed neither as a sacrifice nor as a bargaining chip for yet more Palestinian concessions.
Historical Overview
In order to contextualize the disengagement, three main points must be emphasized. Firstly, the establishment of the Jewish State was an international project and an expression of neo-colonialism, which served the goals of Western dominance (globalization). Secondly, the establishment of the state of Israel has placed the Middle East in an extended conflict, which has had a destructive impact on the surrounding areas. Thirdly, the international project of Israel, and the conflict it activated, was disastrous; it has made millions of people refugees from their homeland for more than 57 years.
The Failure of Oslo: What it meant for Gaza
Attempts to resolve the conflict?presented in the form of the Oslo Accords?were based on the balance of power. As a result, these attempts have reached a dead end and only worked to exacerbate the conflict:
- Oslo failed to address the three issues at the heart of the conflict?Jerusalem; Refugees; and Borders.
- Oslo did not put an end to Israeli colonization, which aims to transform Jerusalem and the West Bank into Jewish territories, and to fully control the Palestinian natural resources.
- Oslo allowed the obsession with Israeli security to be the main negotiating issue. Consequently, all other aspects of the conflict, including Palestinian security, economic viability, and civil and human rights, were subject to Israel?s will. In practice, this translated into de facto Israeli control over the entire Oslo process, resulting in forced reinterpretation, renegotiation and delayed implementation of the Accords.
- The prominence of Israeli security in the Accords led to the establishment of the Wall in its current form. Areas defined as ?A? and ?B? became the basis for the route of the Wall, creating permanent Israeli control over these areas despite other contrary agreements.
- On-the-ground developments which emerged from Oslo led to an internal debate amongst Palestinians about the viability of a Two-State solution and the nature of a future Palestinian state. This caused internal strife and division among the Palestinian people.
Oslo has also made it clear that the Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian people are not always in agreement about the direction of the movement. It is important to note that the Palestinian leadership does not always represent the interests of the people. The leadership has often reached agreements and taken actions based on their own personal interests. There is now a discussion taking place among Palestinians about rebuilding the Palestinian leadership and determining the interests of the Palestinian people. As we look towards the Gaza disengagement, the failure of Oslo offers many lessons for current negotiations.
The Gaza Disengagement
The talk of disengagement from Gaza is considered by some to be a positive development towards finding a peaceful and just solution for the Palestinian issue. However, there is a genuine concern that this may not be the case. A closer examination of some key developments supports these concerns.
Firstly, the way in which Israelis have proceeded with disengagement expresses the continued desire for Israeli control over the Palestinian people. It betrays a desire to isolate and ignore the Palestinians, with no regard for their human dignity or freedom. Secondly, despite claims of withdrawal, Israel?s plan to control the borders, airspace, natural resources and the import and export trade of Gaza, clearly demonstrates Israel?s intention to maintain its occupation of the Palestinians. The Israelis expect the Palestinians to interpret this withdrawal as a step towards a peace settlement, when in reality it is simply a change in military tactics. If the Palestinians fail to accept the Israeli interpretation, they will be deemed unreliable and untrustworthy. Finally, many warn that the disengagement from Gaza is a trap to distract from what Israel is doing in parts of the West Bank and Jerusalem. Others argue that in exchange for the disengagement, Israel is going to demand more land from the West Bank, or acquiescence on other major issues such as the Right of Return or Jerusalem. Despite the rhetoric from Israel regarding their ?courageous step,? it is important to stress that, from the beginning, the settlements in the Gaza Strip have been a violation of international law and should have been removed long ago. It is also important to note that a large part of the area taken over by ?settlements? in Gaza, are actually Israeli military bases. Moreover, most of these settlements were built after the Oslo Accords, when settlement activity was supposed to have ended. Indeed, the continuation of Israel?s settlement activity significantly led to the failure of the Accords.
The disengagement from Gaza is only a disengagement from international pressure, disguising a purely tactical redeployment as a major withdrawal in order to gain political support. It will leave Israel with all forms of real control. The Israeli government will lay siege to the land and the sea. They will control water resources and transportation. Ultimately, the Palestinians in Gaza will remain under the mercy of the Israeli military and drown under internal divisions rising from the shadow of Oslo?s failure, the siege of their physical space and isolation of their ideological space.
Accordingly, we draw the following conclusions; firstly, the Palestinians will not refuse what is called the ?Disengagement plan.? We will not ask the Israelis to remain in the Gaza Strip. But there cannot be any expectations placed upon the Palestinians for concessions in exchange for the disengagement, unless it is a process reached in cooperation with the Palestinian people. The struggle for the end of the Occupation and the realization of full rights for Palestinians will continue. Secondly, one must warn that the expense of disengagement in its current manifestation, may be the implementation of the Wall, the Jerusalem issue, full disengagement from the lands that were occupied by Israel in 1967, and the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees. Thirdly, talk of ?development? under the circumstances of Occupation and siege are immature even for Gaza. The plan for disengagement, which, as stated above, includes no real sovereignty for the Palestinians, does not make Gaza an attractive place for investment and development. Therefore, the discussion of economic rehabilitation in post-disengagement Gaza is worthless. Alternatively, it is imperative to concentrate on the individual humanity of the Palestinian and their daily needs. In order to do so, there needs to be a renewed focus on the youth, who account for more than 65 percent of the Palestinian community, especially in Gaza. This can be facilitated through increasing job opportunities, reevaluating the education process in schools, colleges and universities, prioritizing children?s projects, and enhancing the role of local bodies concerned with youth. It is particularly important to concentrate on networking, promoting the marginalized, ensuring the application of law, and developing a society of democracy, participation and communal justice.
The Role of the International Community
Finally, it is important to address the role of the international community, and highlight the existing responsibilities to apply pressure on Israel to implement international resolutions, commit to the execution of political agreements, and prevent the negotiations from being driven by powers that favour Israeli concerns. The international community must ensure that the disengagement from Gaza will mean full Palestinian control over Gaza and ensure that Gaza will be connected to the West Bank. Israel must not be allowed to impose a Palestinian territory of isolated and disconnected cantons. International help is also essential to develop and maintain a formal presence as a monitor and guarantor against Israeli control of Palestinian territorial contiguity. It must assist in ensuring safe passage for Palestinians between Gaza and the West Bank, assist in funding the rebuilding of Gaza as well as the economic opportunity and educational processes and finally, assist in activating practical tools for Palestinian democracy and developing Palestinian community associations.
Active international political support is essential; without such external support the post-disengagement future of Gaza will continue to degenerate. Moreover, it will do so with no alternative gains for the remaining areas of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Adnan Ateyah is head of the Joint Advocacy Initiative at the Beit Sahour branch of the YMCA
|
|
|
