The headlines have been awash in recent weeks regarding the referendum in the Palestinian-controlled areas of Israel. In short, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has declared that there will be a referendum in the upcoming future (the date keeps moving forward, but it looks like it will happen sometime soon). Hamas has been opposed to this referendum since day one. As Hamas and Fatah continue to move towards all-out war, this referendum has been seen by many as a means of ending the violence in Gaza, and restoring some semblance of unity among the different factions involved.
The referendum has also been cited as a very positive development in terms of the relations between Israel and the Fatah/Hamas organizations. People are generally optimistic that it will pass and that it will prove to be an overall positive step in the so-call “peace process” as well as in helping to change the economic situation in the PA. Reuters referred to it as “a statehood proposal that implicitly recognizes Israel”. The AP say that it “calls for a Palestinian state alongside Israel, implicitly recognizing the Jewish state”. The New York Times seems to give a more well-rounded explanation, saying that it is
based on a plan drafted in May by prominent members of both factions who are serving prison sentences in Israel, does not explicitly recognize Israel, but it does call for a Palestinian state and a negotiated peace settlement if Israel withdraws to the borders that existed before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war
But what does this referendum really say? The Washington Post has printed a translation of the full text of the 18-point plan, “drafted by senior Palestinian militants imprisoned in Israel.”. I urge you to read it fully in order to see exactly what it proposes. Though I will not cover the entire document, I would like to highlight some points of the text which stood out for me.
The New State
The referendum document calls for:
- Establish an Independent State
- Jerusalem is the capital
- State will be on all lands occupied by Israel in 1967
- All “refugees” will be allowed entrance
“All lands occupied in 1967″ include: the entire Old City of Jerusalem, Maaleh Adumim, areas including more than 100,000 Jews in established cities and homes. This calls for Jerusalem to be divided and for Israel to be placed in a very precarious position in terms of security: Its capital will be almost entirely cut off to the North and South, and its most vulnerable section – the coastal area between Tel Aviv and Haifa will be only eight miles wide at its narrowest.
For many reasons I pray that this situation never comes to pass. However, let’s say that this proposition is mean in good faith. In that case, in order for Israel to be secure, it would be important that the millions of new residents coming into the new state would need to have economic security, a government that fully accepts the State of Israel and honestly proclaims that hostilities are over. This document makes no statement to that affect. It proclaims that a State should be established in the West Bank, but does not make any clear acceptance of Israel’s right to any of the land east of the Mediterranean.
The Resistance
3. The Palestinian people’s right to resistance and upholding the choice of resistance by all means, and concentrating the resistance in territories occupied in 1967, alongside political action and negotiations and diplomatic work, and continuing popular resistance against the occupation in all its forms, places and policies, and giving importance to expanding the participation of all sectors, fronts, groups and public in this popular resistance.
10. Working to form a united resistance front called the “Palestinian resistance front” to lead and carry out the resistance against occupation and to unify and coordinate the resistance action and form a unified political reference for it.
In short, the referendum calls for all forms of “resistance” against Israel to continue. No distinction is made between attacks against IDF soldiers, Kassam missiles fired against Power Stations, attacks against checkpoints, or suicide bombers blowing up cafes and buses. And this should be “concentrated…in territories occupied in 1967″. In other words, it is legitimate to use violence against Israelis and Jews anywhere.
Democracy & Unity
11. Upholding the democratic path, holding general and periodic free, democratic and fair elections according to the law, for the president and the legislature, and the regional and local councils; and respecting the principle of peaceful rotation of power; and pledging to protect the democratic Palestinian experience and democratic choice and their results; and respecting the rule of law, the necessary and public freedoms, freedom of the press, and equality between citizens in rights and duties without discrimination; and protecting the gains made by women, promoting and strengthening them.
14. Rejecting all forms of disunity, division and what leads to strife (sedition), condemning the use of weapons regardless of the justifications to settle internal disputes, banning the use of weapons between the children of the same people and reaffirming the sacredness of the Palestinian blood; and committing to dialogue as the only means to resolve disputes, expressing opinions by all means, including opposing the authority and its decisions according to the law; and the right of peaceful protest, organizing rallies and demonstrations and strikes provided they are peaceful, clear of weapons, and do not transgress on people and their property or public property.
This is what I see as the most positive note: a call for people to actually abide by the rules formed in a democratic government, allow freedom of the press and demonstration, and all of that other good stuff.
Yet, beyond an affirmation that this is what people want, how will such a goal be accomplished?
My Thoughts
In short, the referendum calls for an affirmation of the same terms that PLO negotiators have been yelling out for the past fifteen years. It does not make any concessions at all to any of the points that Israel has expressed worry over. On the acceptability of the overall plan, the NY Times has a good quote:
Israel has said the program is not a basis for negotiation because its version of the Palestinian state would include East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank that Israel says it intends to keep, and because it demands the right of Palestinians and their descendants to return to homes in what is now Israel.
But beyond these specific points that ignore what Bush has called “the facts on the ground” and render those parts of the document into nothing more than a wishful fantasy, I am more troubled by the reception that this has received. This document calls for continued violence against Israel. It calls for the different groups carrying out that violence to become more united in their resistance.
Although many have made a big deal out of the “implicit” recognition of Israel that is made here, that is all there is. There is nothing explicit. There is no mention that should Israel acquiesce to all of their demands, that Israel’s right to have a state would be formally recognized and that hostilities would be over. There is nothing in here to say that the liberation of the West Bank does not refer to the entire West Bank (ie: all of the land west of the Jordan River).
So I do not really see anything here to get excited about. If the referendum vote is held and it passes, there will be talk of Nobel prizes, or increased international aid, of lowering sanctions and for Israel to make a return gesture of expelling more of its citizens and handing over more land. Actions of this nature would be foolishness. This (non-binding) document does at best is return the situation to the status-quo before Hamas took over. It’s “implicit” recognition of Israel undermines Hamas and strengthens Abbas. But it does nothing at all in moving closer to any of Israel’s requirements, nor does it do anything that could lead to a cessation of violence.
In section 14, the referendum calls for “banning the use of weapons between the children of the same people”. As it is used, “the same people” refers to Arabs and Muslims. It is a shame that people have forgotten that this term could also be applied to Jews and Muslims – the sons of Abraham – as a whole. As long as recognition of this historical truth is absent, I fear that violence and terrorism will be familiar to inhabitants of this region for some time to come.
This article was cross-posted on Newsvine.