The Middle East Road Map - an analysis

By

Stuart Yates

The so-called Road Map which is supposed to lead to peace in the Middle East is biased. Nothing unusual about that, this article is also biased, except that a document that is intended to be the basis for a settlement of a long-standing international dispute needs to be even-handed if it is to have any chance of success. Let us look at the ways in which it is weighted against the Palestinians.

Hard/Soft Requirements

"In Phase I, the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence according to the steps outlined below; such action should be accompanied supportive measures undertaken by Israel"

Note the hard, explicit requirement of the Palestinians versus the phraseology applied to Israel which is capable of an infinite number of interpretations. Just what constitute "supportive measures"? "Unconditional cessation of violence" is a pretty explicit requirement. These two sentences run together in the text: their juxtaposition is almost wilfully blatant.

"Palestinians undertake comprehensive political reform in preparation for statehood, including drafting a Palestinian constitution, and free, fair and open elections upon the basis of those measures. Israel takes all necessary steps to help normalize Palestinian life."

Would you like to define "all necessary steps"? Unless this sort of phrase is explicitly defined, Israel can claim that any action (like opening up Gaza when Colin Powell was there and closing the border again when he had left for Eygpt) as meeting this 'requirement'. On the other hand, "free, fair and open elections" can be measured, a constitution has to be explicit and can be judged against standards (whose?). Again the Israeli 'requirement' immediately follows the Palestinian requirement .

There are other 'soft' requirements of the Israelis.

"IDF [the Israeli Defence Force] withdraws progressively from areas occupied since September 28, 2000" Note the absence of any timetable or target date.

"GOI [Government of Israel] facilitates Task Force election assistance..." What a wonderful word 'facilitates' is! Once more it can mean anything to anyone.

Pre-emption of the start point

The Israeli-Palestinian dispute is fundamentally about land. Israel has an internationally recognised right to the land that was acquired in 1948. Since 1948, Israel has acquired further land from her neighbours, especially from Jordan (which Jordan has renounced), but has occupied and increasingly settled land, especially in the West Bank, that the 'world powers' in 1948 envisioned for Palestinians. The Palestinians could be reasonably expected to claim land up to the 1948 borders, but there is also a case for limiting a Palestinian state to the 1967 borders as Israel, not without justification, says that land was acquired as a result of a defensive war.

The Road Map however does not choose either 1948 or 1967: "Israel withdraws from Palestinian areas occupied from September 28th 2000". So the Israelis are allowed to keep all land seized illegally since 1967, let alone since 1948. Given the nature of negotiations (if it ever comes to this) Palestinians are likely to end up with even less than this.

There is also another dimension to this: Israeli settlements, many of which are regarded as illegal by the world community and by all Israelis except the most hard-line Israeli extremists who believe the West Bank and Gaza belong to Israel anyway and Palestinians should go and live in Jordan. "Israel also freezes all settlement activity" and further on in the Road Map: "GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)". There are two interesting points here. Firstly Israel is granted right from the start a significant presence in Palestinian areas and I do not believe that anyone can see Israel willingly allowing such settlements to be part of a Palestinian state. The second point is the difference between the two statements in the Road Map. The phrase "including natural growth of settlements" is a nonsense. If such or any settlements were allowed, natural growth would occur. Does this phrase mean that Israelis living in such settlements would a)live in increasingly cramped conditions, no building being allowed b)the surplus leave and live in Israel or c)the surplus leave and live in other areas of a Palestinian state. None of these alternatives is viable. It is likely that Israel had a hand in drafting the Road Map: the 'natural growth' phrase perhaps got left in accidentally.

The selection of the start point of September 2000 implies that the Palestinians are to be punished for rising up against their occupiers and that the occupiers are to be allowed to keep their illegally-gotten gains. This impression is strengthened by the statement later on which says "GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001", thereby casually granting Israel another year's worth of land grabbing.

Why such specific requirements of the Palestinians?

It is striking that there are so many very specific requirements of the Palestinians which amount to a disregard for any autonomous way in which the Palestinians might conform to the requirements in their own way.

"All Palestinian security organizations are consolidated into three services reporting to an empowered Interior Minister". Why three? Why such detail?

"All donors providing budgetary support for the Palestinians channel these funds through the Palestinian Ministry of Finance's Single Treasury Account". I would be amazed if any such requirement has been made of Israel relating to the $97 billion aid provided to Israel by the US alone. Aid which has enabled Israel to become one of the most heavily armed states on earth with a nuclear arsenal equal to that of the UK.

Israel, incredibly, is even give a role in the internal Palestinian election process. "GOI facilitates [that word again!] Task Force election assistance, registration of voters, movement of candidates and voting officials". The only facilitation that Israel should provide is simply to stay out of the way and let Palestinians, with international observers, get on with their own election process.

Involvement of other states

The Road Map is supposed to be about resolving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, which has proved intractable enough on its own. Whilst acknowledging that there are wider issues, the inclusion of obligations on other states seems capricious at best and at worst raises suspicions of comprehensive Israeli involvement to include as many reasons for failure as possible. Thus we read:

"Arab states cut off public and private funding and all other forms of support for groups supporting and engaging in violence and terror". Which Arab states? How are they to be party to the process? What if just one refuses or just does not conform?

"Arab states restore pre-Intifada links to Israel (trade offices etc)". Why should this be a condition? Are sovereign Arab states not entitled to decide for themselves with which states they have trade links etc.?

"Arab state acceptance of full normal relations with Israel and security for all the states of the region in the context of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace". Again, does not each Arab state have a right to decide how it conducts its foreign affairs?

These conditions seem far too ambitious, especially in the absence of any indication of just how other states will be involved in the process.

Lack of specifics in vital areas

The issue is essentially about land, security, borders, refugees, the status of Jerusalem and on these issues there is a sad lack of specific aims or guidelines. So it is left in the air on how "regional water resources, environment, economic development, refugees and arms issues" are to be progressed except through "multilateral engagement". Similarly it is expected that "Parties reach final and comprehensive permanent status agreement....that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and includes an agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution to the refugee issue, and a negotiated resolution on the status of Jerusalem that takes into account the political and religious interests of Jews, Christians, and Muslims worldwide ['worldwide' - ambitious or what?], and fulfils the vision of two states, Israel and independent, democratic and viable Palestine, living side by side in peace and security". Any reasonably informed child could write this as a vision for the future, the problem is how. How can 'multilateral engagement' be fairly carried out between two states, one armed with nuclear weapons and the latest land, sea and air devices, already occupying the other's territory and the other, armed with stones and small arms, whose borders are totally sealed, without an independent mediator and enforcer (cue the UN?) to ensure fairness which in the end is the only way to a lasting solution?

Hidden Agenda

There is no way of proving this but there are two other interesting aspects within the text which point to a hidden agenda/Israeli involvement in the drafting.

"Continued appointment of Palestinian ministers empowered to undertake fundamental reform. Completion of further steps to achieve genuine separation of powers, including any necessary Palestinian legal reforms for this purpose". This really reads like a thinly veiled requirement to 'separate' Arafat from the Palestinian government. A reflection maybe of Ariel Sharon's personal agenda.

There are seven references, each using identical words, to "an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders" (my italics). It is as if either a bureaucrat has carefully remembered to include the phrase, or is it too fanciful to speculate on the phrase being inserted on the insistence of Israel? In any case, it means that the Palestinians are expected to carry out their part of the process for the next two years or so without any firm expectation of quite where the borders are going to be finally drawn.

There is also the statement that "Quartet members promote international recognition of Palestinian state, including possible U.N. Membership". Possible. If you are really really good you might just be allowed to join. How insulting. Why not just state it as an intended outcome or aim.

Conclusion

The words we use, and I include mine here, always betray in some way what motives lie behind them. This is why I have focussed on the wording of the Road Map, in how the type of wording varies depending upon which party is being referred to and how particular words, such as the 'possible' betray an attitude that underlies the general meaning of the content.

There are other ways of analysing the Road Map, e.g. in terms of its viability and the chances of success. In this regard I would like to make a point which has a different perspective to what has been written above. It is this. How can the Palestinians be expected to control and eliminate terrorist activities before they have an infrastructure with which to do it - an infrastructure that the Israelis have systematically destroyed. Phase I includes the requirement for "confiscation of illegal weapons". We know from the situation in Ireland that such confiscation is in practice very difficult to achieve. The setting up of insuperable hurdles only plays into the hands of the hardliners on both sides.

I have to conclude that the Road Map, in its present form, is likely to fail.

May 2003