The first decade of the twenty-first century has proven to be disastrous for Palestinians. Negotiations efforts resulted in a dramatic blow as historic leaders and emerging leaders were killed, assassinated and imprisoned. Worst of all, the scourge of internal strife returned to Palestinians in the form of the destructive Hamas-Fateh division.
The 1980s and 1990s witnessed a first, relatively non-violent Palestinian uprising and a breakthrough mutual recognition between the PLO and Israel; however, the first ten years of the third millennium were violent and destructive. It seems that the decades of hard work and sacrifice exhibited by Palestinians, Israelis and international supporters of peace evaporated overnight.
One year after the first intifada broke out on November 15, 1988, PLO delegates at the nineteenth session of the Palestine National Council supported Yasser Arafat's declaration of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza to live alongside Israel. Five years later Arafat shook hands with the hard-line Israeli prime minister, Yitzhaq Rabin in a gesture that many thought was the beginning of a serious peace process.
At the time, President Bill Clinton, who observed that handshake, spent the last days of his two-term presidency fruitlessly pushing for an agreement at Camp David. A final effort to reach an agreement in the Red Sea resort of Taba brought the parties closer than ever to achieving the goal, but again to no avail. At that point, violent confrontations had erupted and since then, talks and negotiations have been replaced by failed attempts to resolve the conflict through violence. Perhaps the biggest failure of the politicians was that they were unable to provide hope to their people and as a result were unable to stand up to those who tried to take violent shortcuts to resolve the conflict.
The reasons for the breakdown of the Camp David II talks have been discussed ad nauseam during over the past decade. Jerusalem, and not the right of return was the reason for the summit's failure. Indeed, if there is one issue that has permeated and defeated all efforts to achieve peace, it is Jerusalem.
It was because of Jerusalem that then Israeli leader Ariel Sharon made a provocative visit to al-Aqsa mosque in 2000. His visit was met with angry protests but, unlike the prevailing Israeli narrative, it seems the intifada did not start because of this visit. It is arguable that the intifada broke out because of the brutality that Israeli security personnel used on angry demonstrators. Seven years after the famous White House handshake and 13 years after the eruption of the first intifada, Palestinians were angry at the absence of a clear path toward an end to occupation and an ever-expanding Israeli settlement effort. Then tens of Palestinian demonstrators were gunned down simply because they protested Sharon's visit.
Jerusalem continues to be a stumbling block. As the first decade of the twenty-first century comes to an end, the eastern part of the city has been surrounded by an eight-meter high concrete wall and the number of demolitions of Palestinian homes in the city has increased sharply. Over 4,000 Palestinian Jerusalemites have been denied their birthright to reside in the holy city.
Meanwhile, Israel seems to be attempting to Judaize East Jerusalem, especially in the Sheikh Jarrah area, moving Jews in and non-Jews out. The settlement freeze issue, which has become the major impediment to the return to peace talks, is now stuck on the Israeli refusal to accept its application in occupied East Jerusalem.
The decade has certainly not been positive for Palestinians and with its violence, the absence of negotiations and the special focus on East Jerusalem, many more problems are likely to arise. This will be unavoidable if the issue of Jerusalem is swept under the carpet.
Ironically, while the issue has been the major obstacle to a breakthrough in this intractable conflict, a number of efforts have and continue to be exerted to find solutions. The latest of these efforts is led by a number of veteran Canadian diplomats and researchers who have correctly zoomed in on the need to resolve the status of the one square kilometer Old City.
Whether their hard work bears any fruit will depend on the political will to find non-violent solutions to address the conflict. Whether it is borders, Jerusalem, the right of return, settlements or security arrangements, all parties involved in the conflict must know that there is no military or violent solution to the issue. Non-violent solutions require empathy and sympathy as well as justice and fairness. If we have learned anything in this past bloody decade in Palestine and Israel, it is that violence only begets violence.
Published 4/1/2010 © bitterlemons.org
Follow Daoud Kuttab on Twitter: www.twitter.com/daoudkuttab
“Palestinian maps, on the other hand, while they do show the entire map of British Mandatory Palestine as their historic patrimony, also clearly delineate the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a possible site of the new Palestinian entity.”
FOUAD MOUGHRABI is director of the Qattan Center for Educational Research and Development, Ramallah, Palestine.
In another words-- No Israel. Only " British mandate Palestine" and "new Palestinian entity."
NY times piece Published , December 18, 2004 where he refutes these arguments
While Jerusalem is venerated in both the Chritian and Muslim religions, it remained as an important sideline; never a focus of worship, never a center of pilgrimage; never made a capital, nor built up in glory by any, over the last 2000 years.
From 1948 to 1967, in violation of agreements and U.N. regulations, Jews were again barred from worshipping at their holy sites. But eastern Jerusalem, although cleansed of Jews for the first time in history, was not declared the capital of a Palestinian state, was not revered by the Jordanians, or Syrians, or Malaysians. Under Jordanian occupation, it was not a stumbling block preventing peace from 1948-1967. The goal was to keep it out of Jewish hands. And that goal failed, in 1967.
Only now, that the Jews have returned to the heart of their religion, has it become a major obstacle. Why? Could not everyone, in the context of a peace agreement, visit and worship at their holy sites if the Jews had sovereignty?
Is that not really the crux of the question over Jerusalem? ABJ! Anyone but the Jews.
At the political level, a U.S. Senate subcommittee on Palestinian education and the Political Committee of the European Parliament have both held hearings on the matter. No country's textbooks have been subjected to as much close scrutiny as the Palestinian.
The findings? It turns out that the original allegations were based on Egyptian or Jordanian textbooks and incorrect translations. Time and again, independently of each other, researchers find no incitement to hatred in the Palestinian textbooks.
The European Union has issued a statement that the new textbooks are free of inciting content and the allegations were unfounded. (from the article in NYtimes by Roger Aventrup Dec 18, 2004
Despite your usual detractors, you continue to have the courage to speak out on behalf of the Palestinian people by countering the defamers, their accusations, mockeries & fabrications. Good work, & thank you for taking the heat & turning the tables with your commentaries.
Israelis are appropriately concerned about their security, and most sincerely believe that the goal of the Arabs is NOT a Palestinian state, but the destruction of the Jewish one. It is difficult to understand why a Palestinian state cannot be established under temporary limitations to its sovereignty regarding control of borders and airspace, etc which would set the Palestinians on the road to full nationhood while assuaging Israeli concerns. It is difficult to understand why the Palestinians need sovereignty over the parts of Jerusalem that sit at the heart of the Jewish religion, and from which Jews had been barred for 2000 years, to establish their Palestinian state.
It is difficult to understand why even you, Daoud, refer to the "provocative" visit of the Jew Sharon to the Jewish holy site of the Temple Mount (NOT as you say, Al Aqsa mosque), and why you ignore Palestinian leadership statements clearly saying that they had prepared for the 2nd intifada well in advance of Sharon's visit, using it only as an excuse.
"After being shown the English translation of textbooks used by the Palestinian Authority (PA), Armin Laschet, a German representative in the European Union Parliament threatened to halt all EU funding of PA educational institutions."
No-Partisan Study of Palestinian textbooks sponsored by U.S. Congress.
Executive summary quotes:
"No map of the region bears the name of "Israel"... "Israeli towns with a predominantly Jewish population are not represented on these maps."
"Curriculum asserts a historically dubious ancient Arab presence in the region, while ignoring any Jewish connection.
"The Jewish connection to the region, in general, and the Holy Land, in particular, is virtually missing. This lack of reference is perceived as tantamount to a denial of such a connection..."
1,2,6 and 7. none name Israel.
In 17 of the 27 maps Israel's place on the map is marked Palestine, 10 carry no name at all although five of these give unnamed contours of the West Bank and Gaza.
Maps of the region that indicate the countries, name Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Palestine, but not Israel.
This contravenes UNESCO's criteria ["are illustrations, maps, and graphs
up-to-date and accurate?"],
If anything Israel has erased Palestine and Palestinians from its maps and from its policies instead what we are experiencing is a long brutal foreign military occupation of Palestinian lands.
The only countries that have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization are:
Canada, USA, Japan, Australia, Israel and 27 EU countries.
So, only 32 out of 200 countries of the world agree.
I don't know why that is, but it probably explains why we hear boths sides of the issue...from just the side of 32 countries....all but Japan, being white.
Go ahead and jump on me...I like it....but stating inconvenient facts....isn't necessarily a defence....except for those who think reacting...is the same as thinking.