At 1996 U.N. Meeting on Palestine, NGO Delegates Mourn Halt in Peace Process

by Don Betz

This year’s United Nations International NGO Meeting on the Question of Palestine took place in Geneva amid the swirl of news in early September of the American missile strikes on Saddam Hussain’s Iraq, and the initial, politically correct, meeting and requisite handshake between Binyamin Netanyahu and Yasser Arafat in Gaza.

This 14th annual United Nations gathering drew speakers from the Palestine National Council, the Israeli Knesset, and the European Parliament, as well as legislators from Ireland and Greece. They were joined by a formidable list of academic talent from the University of Chicago, Hebrew University and Harvard, and representatives of the global NGO network. The plenary sessions focused on updating the participants on the latest developments related to Palestine and the lagging “peace process.” Other sessions highlighted the critical issues deferred to the permanent status negotiations the settlements, refugees, Jerusalem and the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

There were several memorable exchanges between the panelists and the participants. During the session on refugees, Hebrew University philosophy professor Avishai Margalit observed that the “peace process” was marked by “too much process and not much peace.” He characterized the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbor states as “about defined interests, borders, resources and those issues which generate conflict between states.” But he characterized the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as “an intercommunal strife.”

“It is about history and identity,” he explained. “It cuts deeper.”

Margalit noted the “inner tension” in the repeated mantra of “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” With respect to the refugees, can there be both justice and peace? he asked. A negotiated peace inherently involves compromise, with the parties unable to achieve all their goals. At its core, Margalit said, “this conflict is about honor and humiliation and in its strongest sense the refugee issue, especially in the camps, involves humiliation.”

Professor Rashid Khalidi of the University of Chicago extended this line of thought by noting that time cannot be reversed for the refugees of 50 years ago. So perhaps justice, meaning the return to the status quo ante, may not be feasible, he said. He added, however, that the suffering of the Palestinian people must be honored by acknowledging publicly that injustice had been done.

A life-long resident of Jerusalem declared that the city is more divided than ever.

Margalit soberly predicted a peace process of “endless talks and gesture just to keep it going.” The general discussion of the current attitudes of the new Israeli government confirmed a conference-wide pessimism that peace based on United Nations resolutions (which serve as the committee platform for NGOs working with the U.N. on Palestine) was not imminent.

Last year’s conference in Vienna concluded with a communiqué calling for the U.N. to hold the 1996 meeting in Gaza or the West Bank. The U.N. Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the 22-member-state body which includes collaboration with NGOs as part of its program of work, was unable to secure this option and in midsummer returned to the 13-year pattern of rotating the International NGO Meeting between U.N. facilities in Geneva and Vienna.

The Jerusalem session reinforced fears of the continuing deterioration of the Palestinian presence there. East Jerusalem remains isolated from its natural cultural, social and economic environments in the West Bank. No one seemed certain just how extensive Jerusalem has become due to the steady Israeli government campaign to extend its boundaries further and further into West Bank lands. One speaker offered information that it is five times larger than it was in 1966, before the Israeli seizure of East Jerusalem. Speakers further pointed out that with Israeli closures and multiple controls, the West Bank is de facto divided. New bypass roads linking Jewish settlements in the West Bank with Israel and Jerusalem while avoiding Palestinian populated areas reveal clearly that the Israeli government is planning for a long-term presence in the West Bank.

Professor Albert Aghazarian of Bir Zeit University, a life-long resident of Jerusalem, declared that the city is more divided than ever. “There are separate education systems, bus companies, utilities and cosmic views,” he said. “There is no real connection between them.”

The Israeli Plan

The inflated Jerusalem now exceeds 100,000 dunums, of which 44,000 dunums is land confiscated from Palestinians, he reported. He contended that part of the Israeli plan for Jerusalem has long been that Christian and Muslim Arab residents should become a minority in East Jerusalem.

“At present, the count in East Jerusalem is 157,000 Jews and 148,000 Palestinians,” Aghazarian said. “Mission accomplished!”

Aghazarian told conference participants that the key elements in Jerusalem’s distinct character are its pluralism and its inclusivity. Archeologists reveal a staggering 57 layers of history within the city. However, the Israelis are attempting to impose exclusivity on the city and, thereby, destroy its fabric. The call for one city encompassing two capitals was echoed throughout the meeting.

Dutch geographer Jan de Jong offered fascinating satellite views of the impact of the settlements and the expansion of the bypass road system. De Jong’s sequenced snapshots from space left little doubt as to the future of Jerusalem and the settlements unless purposeful action is undertaken by the international community to foil current Israeli initiatives.

An equally compelling visual presentation on water was offered by Sharif Elmusa of the Institute for Palestine Studies in Washington, DC. Israeli settlers consume a disproportionate amount of water in a region where it is a precious resource. However, Geoffrey Aronson of the Foundation for Middle East Peace in Washington, DC characterized the settlements as an impediment but not an insurmountable obstacle to peace. He reminded conference participants that from 1992 to 1996 the Israeli Labor Party allowed more than 50,000 new settlers to move to the West Bank and Gaza. He said he could not imagine Binyamin Netanyahu and the Likud moving in a greater number in the coming four years. He hypothesized that the settler population would average an annual 8 percent increase.

Aronson said that the question is not whether the settlements are an obstacle to peace, but what kind of peace can be established without the removal of the settlements?

The NGOs present concluded the conference with a statement and four workshop reports on settlements, refugees, Jerusalem and the creation of the Palestinian state, all designed to reach out and activate their membership. The U.N. Committee and Division for Palestinian Rights pledged its continued cooperation with NGOs to increase international awareness of the issues and to promote the implementation of U.N. resolutions calling for a genuine peace rooted in Palestinian self-determination.

One of the conference panelists captured the spirit of the NGO participants when he commented that “this intractable situation, known on U.N. agendas for decades as the question of Palestine, has always been about control and freedom, about security and self-determination, about independence vs. ‘creating facts on the ground.’ Given these challenges before us, we NGOs must continue our work and do it in revitalized cooperation with the United Nations. The Palestinian people and our own inborn sense of right demand no less from us. We must never allow the world to forget that these seemingly complex issues impact real people: generations of men, women, children, students, professionals and farmers, and extended families. In the name of those who have struggled for so long and for those not yet born, we must resolve never, never to be silent.”