About Palestine: an Open letter to Barack Obama

THE RIGHT FOR PALESTINE TO EXIST ALONGSIDE ISRAEL

As we all know, the creation of a Jewish State on the land of the British Mandate of Palestine was decided with the United Nations’ resolution 181, in 1947. The plan was not accepted by the indigenous population and most of all by the surrounding Arab States, but passed anyway. Immediately after, the existence of the Jewish State was threatened by those same states, motivated mostly by land greed. In all this chaos however, one element was - and has since ever been - forgotten: the Palestinian people. It is also often forgotten that resolution 181 called not only for the creation of a Jewish State, but for a partition of Palestine in two states (as well as for the International Administration of Jerusalem). It is unfortunate however that the United Nations did not follow its plan through and put as much energy protecting the integrity of this second state as it did for what had since become Israel. One can say that the indigenous people of Palestine should have accepted the plan in order for this protection to be applied. But one can also understand the continued resentment felt at the time and for the previous 50 years by the indigenous people seeing the arrival of Jewish settlers on their land. Although the plan was probably the best possible, much more care should have been considered when executing it as this resentment and opposition were highly predicable. However, as a result of this lack of care and consideration and until this day, Palestinians have been refused the same right for independence that was granted - rightly - to the Jewish community on the other part of this piece of land. Especially after the horror of the Holocaust, defending the rights of the Jewish settlers to a state was definitely the right, but unfortunately not the only, thing to do. It took 3 years after World War II to concretize the right for Israel to exist. How many more than the 64 years that separate us from the end of WWII will we need to live to see the same right for a Palestinian state to turn into reality?

During the 1948-1949 events and after, countries that supported the creation of Israel rightly protected it, providing it with weapons that, at that time, were indeed necessary to ensure its survival. Israel had, and still has today, a non-negotiable right to exist. What ensued however on Israel’s side just as its power grew is a progressive shift from a defensive position to a stabilizing and then an expansionist one. Time passing by, filled with the same arrogance showed by Arab countries in its early days, Israel eventually grabbed more pieces of land, culminating with the 1967 6-day war with massive annexions in Palestine and in surrounding countries such as Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. Although these wars were initiated by Arab countries, except the 1967 war - presented by Israel as pre-emptive - , it is surprising to see a country claiming to only defend its right for survival pursuing such territorial expansion. Some will argue it was for security reasons. But I do believe as recent history again shows us that the use of the terms “pre-emptive war” and “security reasons” in the same sentence generally constitute a warning sign. Interestingly this change in Israel’s attitude was something that, as a military, the General De Gaulle himself understood when he removed most of France’s military support to Israel after the 1967 war. If Israel was today fighting for its survival, I would be the first one to advocate its defense.

During the post 1973 period, realizing that everyone was fighting for their land but not for their right to rule it, some Palestinians chose the worst option: terrorism. The PLO initially took this route, confusing resistance to occupation with murdering innocent civilians. In parallel, Israel then having the military upper-hand and realizing that threats were coming from neighboring countries more than from the Palestinian people themselves started to normalize diplomatic relations with its neighbors. But in 1987, the Intifada forced the whole conflict to be refocused on the Palestinians. The images of a popular uprising using stones against a military occupation helped public opinion around the World realize that there was simply something not right there. In family homes everywhere in the World, these images had the same impact as the ones of Chinese students rising against their regime in Tiananmen Square in 1989, or of the popular destruction of the Berlin Wall that same year. A popular uprising of that scale targeted at a military occupation and not at civilians was nothing more than the expression of the people for more democracy, and remains so now.

After 6 years, the Intifada prompted the US leadership to pressure Israel and launch a peace process, culminating with the historic Oslo Accords in 1993. As part of this agreement, almost 15 years ago, Israel promised to withdraw its military forces, and the newly created Palestinian Authority (PA) promised to abandon the struggle and recognize Israel. But while the PA initially did initially honor its promises, Israel did continue occupation in a renewed form as it continued a soft expansion through colonization, an obvious infringement to the spirit of the Accords. It is now estimated that over 200,000 more Israelis have settled in the West Bank, East-Jerusalem and the Golan Heights between 1993 and 2007. This represents a 70% increase in 14 years. This whole process subsequently started to form a threat to the viability of any future Palestinian State, especially as it concerned some of the most fertile lands of Palestine. In the meantime and as a result of this partial land confiscation, as well as the PA’s limited actual powers and corruption, the situation of most of the Palestinian population worsened. Israel had finally found in the Palestinian Authority the perfect tool to continue expand while rejecting allegations of formal occupation or colonial ruling, and to point at a scapegoat to reject the responsibility of any further attacks. Although the PA bears a responsibility in the failure of the peace process, notably missing further opportunities with Ehud Barak in 2000, it is clear that Israel never intended to give back the land that was slowly grabbed unless... unless the US leadership applied enough pressure for it to happen. In any way, I don’t think the Palestinian and Israeli people should pay neither for the incompetence of some of the rulers of the PA, nor for the policies of the Israeli Government.

Today, we are all focusing on Israel’s right to exist as if it was in danger of immediate elimination. Although it is always good to be ready to protect it, the reality of the last few decades show something radically different: Israel has militarily been not on the defending but on the attacking, expansionist side for some time now. It has not been at risk of military destruction for all these years: it is a strong, modern military and most of all it is the sole nuclear power in the region. This, let’s use the right word, paranoid stance is however something that Israeli’s far right likes to exploit. But we all know that like any far-right in the world it only thrives out of the exploitation of people’s fear.

The right for Palestine to exist was acknowledged in 1947 by the International Community. But today, if there is one state whose right to exist is severely threatened, it is not Israel, it is Palestine.

THE DANGERS OF TODAY’S SITUATION AND THE NEED TO REFOCUS THE DEBATE

Today’s situation is extremely worrying. The more we wait to find a solution, the more unstable the geopolitical situation will be, with opportunistic actions taken from regional powers trying to expand their influence and improve their image in the Arab world. We all seem to realize now, as we are trying to retain Mahmud Abbas in power, that the erosion of the Palestinian Authority is no good news. But then, why don’t we help it to regain popularity by supporting actions that will actually improve the life of Palestinians? The Hamas - and its foreign financers - understood this too well. They eventually won the 2006 democratic elections after having provided healthcare and education through underground social projects for years, just as 1933 Nazis managed to win elections by promising - and delivering - jobs to an atone Germany. We let this happen by filling the PA’s road with hurdles all the way, making it look like nothing more than a joke, a puppet, in the eyes of most Palestinians. And as a result, once again, Palestine has become the centerpiece for a geopolitical game without any consideration for the Palestinian people themselves. Does this really enhance the region’s stability? Does the more and more obvious incursion of foreign regional powers in Palestinian society really ensure Israel’s security in the longer term? Please allow me to doubt it. Everyone now seem to fear what could happen if Mahmud Abbas left his position but all those years the same people didn’t give him the real support and tools to improve Palestinian lives. It does feels frustrating sometimes that we are led by a group of politicians without any long term vision. But I know you are different, and like so many people in the World, I have faith in you.

I really think that instead of pointing at the failures of the Palestinian Authority or Israel, we should refocus the debate on the real important subject: the people. We need to find solutions to improve the lives of Palestinians and give them real rights that any human being deserves, as well as to allow the Israelis to live in peace and security. This cannot be solved through military power, although Israel’s governments have always liked to think so, forgetting Vietnam, Algeria, USSR’s war in Afghanistan, all examples of greater military powers failing to maintain an inacceptable status-quo or invading a country in the long term. We have to think like the people, and as JF Kennedy said so well: «What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not […] enforced on the world by […] weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build a better life for their children».

 

This spirit is what animated settlers to find a better life in Palestinian territory without consideration to the land and water being diverted and the subsequent impoverishment and civilian deaths caused on the other side. This is what animated Palestinians when they voted for Hamas without consideration of this organization’s support for terrorist attacks on civilians in Israel. Although everyone is trying to aim for a better life, no one should do it at the expense of others. But we have to remember that talks about finding a better life are on very different scales on each side. The Palestinians are fighting for food and water, while Israeli settlers are looking for a better comfort. The civilian impact (and deaths) on the Palestinian side, although less spectacular and catching less the attention of international media in their hunt for sensational events, is undoubtedly much more severe. For those reasons, I think the priority should be given to solve the most immediate and life threatening concerns, obviously on the Palestinian side.

WHY IT IS RIGHT AND WISE TO ASK FOR A FREEZING OF COLONIZATION AS A PRE-REQUISITE

In Palestinian lives today, the one single issue that has the most devastating impact, that makes this possibility of building a better life for their children more and more remote, is colonization. In my opinion in order to durably solve the conflict the dangerous spread of colonization must be stopped: it must be a pre-requisite. Why so? Because of what colonization really means day to day for Palestinians, for which there are two very adequate terms: one is "confiscation of resources", the other is "Apartheid". 

It is a confiscation of resources because in its process, colonization does indeed acquire the most fertile lands and diverts water: two key resources in this part of the World. Indeed, in a Palestinian society heavily relying on agriculture for its own subsistence, such a confiscation has a catastrophic effect and increasingly threatens people’s subsistence. A recent report from the Israeli Civil Administration admits that a third of Israeli settlements are on land that was seized for «security purposes». Other confiscations result from arguing about the absence of modern, written land titles from the former owners, a now widely condemned technique well used in the past on your own Continent by European settlers to oust the indigenous Indian populations. For some other settlements such as Jerusalem East, Israel went even further, integrating the territories and ruling them under regular Israeli law, while the indigenous population was only being given residents passes. Everyone agrees a future Palestinian State should be viable but how can it be now the best lands are continuously given to Israeli settlers, under Israeli state control, without hope of redistribution to the Palestinian population? How can it be when the only possible capital for such a state - Jerusalem East - has de facto been annexed? I do think however there is a solution to this, which I will discuss later.

Secondly, while not adopting all aspects of it, the situation shows many common points with an Apartheid system. Indeed, from the Palestinian point of view, settlers are the only minority protected by the laws of the country that effectively rules on the most important aspects of their lives and subsistence. They are de facto not able to elect the authority that exerts critical powers, including the right to expel them from their land and push them into deeper misery, for «security reasons». Adding to this are the obvious differences in infrastructure between the settlements and the rest of the territory, as well as a system of checkpoints targeted only at the indigenous population. Although the PA does indeed give them the impression of a rule of law, the reality is that this should only be seen for what it is: a sub-law, not dissimilar to the ones that made second class citizens of the black majority in South Africa, or of Jewish minorities in pre-19th century European ghettos.

These two aspects of the problem are in my opinion extremely dangerous, as shown by History. A striking example of what the consequences of the confiscation of resources is given by the aftermath of the 1919 Versailles Treaty, in which the coal rich and industrial German Ruhr region was confiscated by the winners, as war reparation. Although foreign troops eventually withdrew from the region, the lasting effects on the German economy were disastrous, contributing to catastrophic hyperinflation and a growing image of weakness for this young democratic Republic of Weimar in German’s eyes. The fragility of the economy was finally overcome with heavy borrowing to the US, which unfortunately made Germany the worst hit country in the 1930’s recession. We all know what ensued. What the Versailles Treaty tells us is that although from a military point of view if you have the power to confiscate you can do so; from a stabilization point of view long-lasting peace never works with a spirit of revenge or impunity.

In the same way, possible consequences of an Apartheid rule can be seen throughout History. There is one lesson that is always true however: this kind of rule can never last indefinitely, be it 5 years, 50 years or 150 years, it always comes to an end (unless the indigenous population is «eliminated»). But the way the exit is handled can vary considerably, and is arguably almost always depending on the duration and the depth of the regime, as well as the goodwill of the former ruling class in sharing its power. In South Africa for example, such goodwill proved a wise move although this is still a long and difficult road. In Algeria and Zimbabwe however, things didn’t end-up that way, with military-backed attempts to keep the Separation regime in place that both eventually failed. In both cases, and because not enough had been accepted by the ruling elites in time, revenge meant that these settlers lost everything. Sadly too, the indigenous population also lost key skills and technology plunging them into an economic black hole. These were «lose-lose» situations.

It is interesting finally to observe that Israeli colonization has been condemned for a long time by the United Nations, in constant opposition with Israel or the US by proxy. Ironically, over the years, this has contributed to severely damage the image and ridicule the very institutions without which Israel wouldn’t have existed or survived its first year.

A POSSIBLE WAY FORWARD FOR A MODERN PALESTINIAN STATE

The situation seems desperate but I do believe there is a way out, at least in the West Bank and East-Jerusalem. Some will say it is impossible, that all Palestinians are terrorists; some others will claim that all settlers are religious extremists. The reality is that the extremists are the people who are saying these things. And unfortunately, too much attention has been given to them on both sides for many years while refusing to listen to the quiet majority, the majority that wants this better life for its children. So, moving on to a framework for resolution and as for the aforementioned reasons, freezing colonization is of course a pre-requisite, but such action would not solve the underlying problems already in place. And again, I think South Africa gives us a key word for a possible exit: reconciliation.

Of course, reconciliation can be done as part of a one-state or a two-state plan. For obvious demographic reasons, Israelis would never accept one country with equal rights for all the population covering the current Israel and Palestine territories. This is why I will only explain my view on a two-state resolution, within demarcation lines inspired from the aftermath of the 1967 6-day war.

There is now a situation that one cannot deny in the West Bank, including East-Jerusalem, with a minority of settlers occupying the best available lands. One must understand why these settlers are here. Are they fanatics? No. Are they extremists? No. Of course there are a few "ideological" settlements, but generally these people only wanted the same thing JF Kennedy tells us: a better life for their children. They were looking for opportunities, just as American settlers moving towards the West Coast did. But the problem is that this land was not empty. In order to find a solution, I think one must directly eliminate the idea of expelling these settlers, both for moralistic and pragmatic reasons. Morally because this country is also slowly becoming theirs. Pragmatically because, as the white farmers of Zimbabwe, they bring a knowledge, technology and jobs that would be extremely useful for Palestinian people if their benefits were more widely shared. It therefore means two possibilities: leaving the colonies under Israeli control, which would deprive the Palestinian state of critical water resources and of some of the best lands and therefore make it non-viable; or incorporating the settlers into a new, modern and secular Palestinian State, with settlers having equal rights as the indigenous population. Such a solution is ambitious and very difficult to implement as it would mean for Palestinians to renounce reacquiring all the lands and accept Israeli settlers to remain in their country. It would also mean for Israeli settlers to accept being ruled by a new law, under which their political weight would be equivalent to their demographic representation, and accept some agrarian reforms.

In order to prevent bloody revenge from happening in either side like it happened in Algeria, such a Palestinian state would have to be ruled under the authority of a UN supported body, but without Israel representation, such as what was done in the past for Kosovo. The Palestinian Authority should be involved in this process of course, but I do believe that it would have to remain mainly under the direction of this International Authority. It is nothing less than an ambitious, costly, difficult nation building exercise, similar to the ones that were orchestrated by your country after World War II. Also, in order not to repeat the same inequalities in effect inside the new State, a limited but still consequent agrarian reform would have to be put into effect, in order to lift more Palestinians out of poverty with a better land redistribution (actually, giving some of the land that was illegally seized back). This means no settler should be expelled from their lands, but at the same time that they would have to give parts of them to be redistributed. A system of compensation funded through International Institutions and donors such as the US, Japan and Europe, but also Middle-East countries could be put in place. This would also have to come with a period under which ex-settlers would not be able to buy back the land that would have been redistributed. Some will say it’s unfair for settlers to have to give some land back, but on the other side some will say that it is unfair for Palestinians not to get all the land they were initially expelled from back. This is the problem with long-lasting solutions: they never fully please anyone. But as South Africa again shows us, these difficult concessions are the most difficult, the longest, but probably the only way to achieve real long-lasting peace.

Furthermore, in the same nation-building exercise, education and health should be organized by the new UN supervised authority. This would support the ultimate goals of containing extremism, increasing workers productivity, lowering birth rate and encouraging the further development of an educated Palestinian middle-class.

Incorporating settlers into a new nation would also mean eventually putting them in front of a choice: keeping a status of foreign resident in the Palestinian state, with all the implications notably in terms of participation to the public debate; or adopting the new citizenship... and abandoning the Israeli one. There will come the era of pragmatism.

This is a long and hard road that is likely to fail, and it obviously only points out at suggested guidelines for resolution. I know already that I will get many comments highlighting the lack of details, the utopist ideas, and the impossibility of implementing it altogether. Critics will always attack vision because they are stuck into details that, although they are important in the end, are still to be discussed after a vision has been set. Allowing technicians to resolve issues without vision led us to the Versailles Treaty, the arbitrary borders drawn in Africa or Yugoslavia, the use of an indigenous minority to rule over the majority in Rwanda and Burundi, all that because it was «technically practical».

I do believe that this is the only real way to achieve a positive result, acceptable for both sides, not for both authorities but for both populations. However, I do also believe that a failure to push for such a solution will inevitably lead to catastrophic consequences. At «best» a Zimbabwean-like situation will destroy hope for everyone for a long time. At worse, the situation will give a regional power the perfect excuse for further destabilizing moves and an improved image in the Arab world. And I’m afraid that this second situation has already started taking place, which is not in the best interests of the US, Israel and the World in general.
 

Mr. President, I am convinced that what is needed is nothing less than a Marshall Plan for Palestine. This relies firmly on hope, vision and leadership, all qualities that so many - including me - think you have in your blood. My only hope is that you will not let us down.