Barnes in Common

the magazine of Churches Together in Barnes
March/April 2005

Home
Current issue
Previous issues
Noticeboard
Discussion board
About CTiB

After Arafat

by David McDowall

The Wall under construction at Abu Dies. For scale, note the figure

One must hope that with the election of a new Palestinian leader, there is a real possibility of peace. Arafat took the blame for the failure of the Camp David peace offer in 2000 by Prime Minister Barak. The Barak offer of '95 per cent' of the territories omitted to mention that, while ceding technical sovereignty, Israel would continue to control the Jordan valley and every single Palestinian land border for the indefinite future. In reality Arafat was offered three cantons in the West Bank, divided by two settlement wedges. This Palestinian 'state' would have been substantially smaller than Lincolnshire. Had he accepted, he would have had a revolt on his hands.

The question therefore remains whether Mahmud Abbas, his successor, will succumb to such a deal and if so, whether the people will accept it. In this the story of the Gaza Strip may offer a hint of the bloody path that may lie ahead if an acceptable deal cannot be reached. Israel has proposed to withdraw from the Strip not to be nice but because the inhabitants have demonstrated that their capacity to endure suffering is greater than Israel's capacity to inflict it. The suicide bombings, etc., are a terrible by-product of that suffering.

It is over 37 years since Israel occupied the Territories. During that period it has progressively colonised the bits it wants, wedges of settlement, high ground that overlooks indigenous villages and two concentric circles of housing around Arab Jerusalem. It has also stifled the economic development of the Territories, in order to render Palestinians dependent on the Israeli economy for products and employment.

What will happen now? Hardship in the West Bank may continue to get worse. The illegal wall and the network of checkpoints has created large ghettoes. Palestinians no longer have free movement. They never know if they will be stopped at a checkpoint and turned back. They must sometimes queue for hours. Meanwhile a system of 'settler' highways makes movement for Israelis very easy.

It should not of course be like this, but Britain and its allies have ducked their undertakings. In 1949 Britain was one of many states that signed the Fourth Geneva Convention, designed to prevent any power from behaving as Germany had done in Europe. The Convention strictly forbade collective punishment and also the settling of civilians in occupied territory, two things Israel has done routinely since 1967. By Article 1 of the Convention, signatories promised to 'ensure respect for the present convention in all circumstances.' The legal commentary indicates that where one signatory, in this case Israel, fails to respect the Convention, all other signatories must use all possible means to 'persuade' it back into line with the Convention. So what has Britain done? It may have condemned Israel's violations but it has never taken material action, graded sanctions for example, to show it means business. By refusing to protect the Palestinians as we promised to do, we are accomplices to the crime. Palestinians are currently excluded from about 60 per cent of the land area of the Territories. Having been failed by the international community, it is not surprising that some young men wreak terrible vengeance. Our sin is one of omission. We are guilty of moral and political failure, and should be ashamed.

Only a prophet can foresee the endgame. But it is important to remember some vital facts. In 1947 the Jews were offered a state of some 54 per cent of mandate Palestine although they constituted only 35 per cent of the population. At the end of the 1948 war, they controlled 78 per cent and this became the State of Israel. The irony is that if we applied international law it would guarantee Israel this 78 per cent of Mandate Palestine in perpetuity.

As Israel's leading expert, Professor Benny Morris, confirms 1948 was a war of ethnic cleansing: approximately 725,000 Arabs were rendered refugee. Because of immigration, by the 1960s Palestinians inside Israel constituted only 11 per cent of the population. Today, despite immigration, they have grown to 20 per cent. If you look at Israelis under 5 years of age, no fewer than 29 per cent are Palestinian. One may reckon that within about 40 years' time, these Palestinians could be the majority inside Israel, quite apart from the Territories. Israeli planners are well aware of this, but we must be aware also.

Although allowed to vote, these Arabs have been systematically excluded from functional participation in the state. In 1985 the Knesset introduced Amendment No 9 to the Basic Law (or constitution). It defined Israel as 'the State of the Jewish People', a definition that relegated the then 18 per cent Arab minority to subsidiary status compared with Jews who, wherever they live in the world, have the automatic right to Israeli citizenship. One can see the implication immediately if Britain were defined as the state of the Anglo-Saxon people, regardless of where they lived. The Knesset refused to add a suggested inclusive phrase 'and all its citizens' onto the Amendment. It did not want to include its non-Jewish citizens.

Ethno-religious exclusion thus remains a fundamental characteristic of Israel with profoundly tragic implications. How can that exclusion continue if the Arabs are increasing proportionately? How do we square it with the Wests democratic principle of inclusion of every citizen regardless of religious or racial origin? Will Israel get rid of more Arabs to head off the demographic threat? There is a real danger they will unless they accept the principle of inclusion.

This danger should spur us to harry our own government to insist on Israel's respect for the rule of law in the Territories and also to remind Israel that it must include its Arab minority functionally in the life of the country, so that demographic change does not pose dangers for one community or the other. If we fail to preach values of inclusion and international law we shall see greater bloodshed in future. This is not about backing one tribe or the other but about doing our best to ensure that Arab and Jew are one day able to sit under the same fig tree in amity. If we fail in that, we fail in our duty to both.

(David McDowall is author of Palestine and Israel: The Uprising and Beyond (IBTauris, 1989), The Palestinians: The Road to Nationhood (Minority Rights Publications 1994) Losing Ground: Israel, Poverty and the Palestinians (Christian Aid, 2002)

Back to the top