by Corinne Whitlatch
Churches for Middle East Peace

From the vantage point of Americans, it would seem that Israelis and Palestinians must be exhausted by the violence, the stress and the deprivation of the last three years. Surely, there should come a point when the utter failure of the tit-for-tat violence is undeniable. Instead, it seems that both Israeli-Jews and Palestinians are convinced that their very existence is at risk. Fearful of appearing weak to the enemy, each feels compelled to take revenge against the other.

The inequalities between those in the state of Israel and the Palestinian people living under occupation could hardly be more pronounced. Israel's vaunted military, which has secured the tiny state from attack by armies, is being used against civilians and the militant fighters in their midst. Weak by every measure, Palestinians have assumed the mythic proportions of monsters by the horrendous acts of suicide bombers. Meanwhile, both Israeli and Palestinian children are traumatized by what they see and hear, their young men and women are stripped of compassion, those who can, leave — and tourists are nowhere to be seen.

As the conflict rages, their political leaders and our political leaders seem to be inadequate for the task of peacemaking and unwilling to take the necessary risks. The time-out afforded American politicians in a presidential election year is a frustrating yet unavoidable reality.

Into this political vacuum have flowed a number of proposals and initiatives. Following a review and assessment of these peace plans is guidance for advocacy in opposition to Israel's building of a separation barrier on Palestinian land.

Dead End for the Road Map?

The Bush Administration insists that the United States is fully committed to the Road Map even though the Phase 1 steps remain undone and the target date for creating an independent Palestinian state passed with little notice in December. Formally released after U.S. delays on May 1, 2003, this plan was developed in 2002 by the United States, the Russian Federation, the European Union and the United Nations, and endorsed in March of 2002 by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC Res. 1397). It laid out a three-year timeline toward a final and com- prehensive settlement by 2005.

The onus remains on the Palestinians. "We have been waiting for the Abu Ala government [of the Palestinian Authority] to take definitive steps with respect to condemnation of terror," Secretary of State Powell said. "If they do, then they'll see us fully engaged. If they don't, then I think the situation will just continue to drift and not improve." Yet, Martin Indyk, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel, said that "The Palestinian Authority does not have the capability to act against terrorist groups."

Lacking progress on the Road Map, other initiatives are gaining attention: the Geneva Accord, the Peoples' Voice petition, the possibil- ity of an updated resolution from the Arab League, and Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.

Geneva Accord

This unofficial "virtual" agreement was negotiated under the auspices of the Swiss government by high-profile Israelis and Palestinians. Though acting as private citizens, many were involved in the Oslo peace process. While the Palestinians are considered to be representatives of the Palestinian Authority, their Israeli partners are generally in the political opposition. The 25-page document puts on paper many of the agreements reached at the Camp David Summit of July 2000 and the Taba negotiations of January 2001.

The Geneva approach is the reverse of Oslo's confidence building during interim phases that culminate in final status negotiations to resolve the toughest issues (i.e. Jerusalem, settlements, borders and refugees). By contrast, in the Geneva Accord, solutions to the final status issues are laid out in detail that were met with considerable criticism and praise. The Accords have restored some hope that there is a partner for negotiations and that it is possible for compromises to be reached. Clearly, it is healthy and necessary for those tough issues to be openly and broadly debated.

The Peoples' Voice

Using an approach like those involved with the Geneva Accords, Palestinian luminary Sari Nusseibeh and Ami Ayalon, a former chief of Israel's Shin Bet security service, have laid out a vision of a final-status agreement, with solutions for settlements, borders, Jerusalem, refugees, and security.

The two-page Statement of Principles is formulated as a petition that Israelis and Palestinians are asked to sign. Confronting the situation that both leaderships lack the power and/or the will to move forward, this effort focuses on building a grassroots movement that pressures their leaders and the international community.

Neglecting to build public support is considered to be one of the shortcomings of the Oslo process. As of March 9, the petitions have been signed by 169,500 Israelis and 120,000 Palestinians. By going first to the Israeli and Palestinian publics, Nusseibeh and Ayalon strive to pave the way for "a historic compromise based on the principle of two sovereign and viable states existing side by side."

Arab League Relaunch Initiative

The Arab League will be meeting in Tunis in late March. The Associated Press reported on March 2 that the draft Arab League document calls for "relaunching the Arab peace initiative adopted in the Beirut summit of March 2002, which entails a comprehensive settlement to the Palestinian and Israeli conflict and makes use of unofficial, popular initiatives (confirmed to be the Geneva statement) offered along with other official peace initiatives, including the Road Map and President George W. Bush's vision."

When the Geneva Accord was launched last year, Egypt and Jordan welcomed it as an effort to revive stalled peace talks, while Syria said it made too many concessions and regional commentators denounced it, especially for its position on Palestinian refugees. The 2002 Arab League document reaffirms Israel's "legal, political and moral responsibilities for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem," but does not insist the refugees return to their homeland.

Former Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo, who led the Palestinian side of the Geneva talks, has recently visited several Arab countries trying to convince them to back the document with a 2004 Arab League summit resolution.

Sharon's Unilateral Ploy

Israel's Prime Minister Sharon has sidestepped hints from U.S. diplomats that he stop settlement building and start evacuating settlement "outposts" as required by the Road Map. Turning the tables, Sharon announced in February that he might unilaterally withdraw Israeli settlements from Gaza. At this writing in mid-March, U.S. envoys are scurrying to bring a Gaza withdrawal under the framework of the Road Map and are dealing with Israel's requests for U.S. funding the withdrawal and for U.S. approval for keeping major West Bank settlement blocks.

The objective of Sharon's plan is widely believed to create a Palestinian entity on about half the territory predetermined for a Palestinian state, composed of Gaza and disconnected West Bank population centers. The New York Times, on February 4, asserted that "This [truncated entity] will not do. For a Palestinian state to be viable, it will have to be made up of the entire West Bank and Gaza, with small adjustments." Taking a similar position, The Washington Post editorialized on February 7, "Mr. Sharon's Gaza withdrawal is merely the tip of a far broader and still secret plan for unilateral action he is preparing, one that could fundamentally change the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the coming months — and not necessarily for the better."

Yet, Dr. Ziad Asali, President of the American Task Force on Palestine, advised in the Arab News (UAE) on March 12, that "All concerned parties must not be intimidated by the accusations that this is an Israeli trap." Further, he writes "The Palestinian political establishment has to take its responsibilities seriously in putting its own agenda on the table. It can begin planning, within the framework of the road map, to administer Gaza according to acceptable stan- dards of law and order, with both accountability and transparency."

The current unilateral action by P.M. Sharon is the building of a foreboding separation barrier that seemingly annexes large parts of the West Bank and settlements to Israel and severs the West Bank population and economy from Jerusalem.

Fence or Wall? Security or Land Grab?

Both the terminology and the intent are disputed, but Israel's construction of this twisting complex of roads, fences, walls and ditches is foremost in the minds of Israelis, Palestinians and the inter- national community. Advocacy by Presbyterian congregations and individuals must continue.

The separation barrier has much support on Capitol Hill. It is essential that your message not become bogged down in the fence vs. wall debate. "Separation barrier" is recommended.

The barrier is destroying Palestinian civil society, farming, economic and family life, education, health care, governance, and infra- structure - and making everyday life for some nearly unbearable. It is also important to remember that Israel's security is the primary lens through which most members of Congress view this issue.

Therefore, an effective argument must be cast in terms of security: Not only is the barrier hurting the Palestinian people, it is destroying prospects for developing long-term security and peace. Many Palestinians are now talking about giving up on a two-state solution; the formula for a just and durable peace solution that is supported by international law, U.S. policy and the member churches of Churches for Middle East Peace. The barrier is destroying trust among Palestinians that Israel will ever be a fair partner in negoti- ations; thus, Palestinians have less reason to find a solution and make peace. Barriers may prevent particu- lar attacks (as do other methods that governments take), but this barrier is building intense resentment toward Israel that will lead to more violence against it. It is not in the long-term security interests of Israel to build this barrier.

A second point involves where the barrier is being built. Whether we believe that barriers should ever be constructed between nations and peoples or not, Israel does have a right to construct it — but only on land recognized as its own. Much of this barrier is purposely being built on Palestinian land in the West Bank and represents a land- and water-grab, a provocation that no nation (or people) would ever tolerate on its own land. Furthermore, the separation barrier in and around Jerusalem effectively isolates East Jerusalem from the West Bank, preventing it from being the capital of a Palestinian state and the hub of Palestinian life and economy. We continue to repeat the churches' and the international community's call for Jerusalem to be a city shared by two peoples and three faiths.

The barrier as it is being constructed is dividing the West Bank into several non-contiguous geographical areas — reminiscent of the U.S. reservations for native Americans. The barrier being constructed around Bethlehem, for instance, will have a devastating effect on the Christian community. The manner in which Palestinian communities are being isolated is rendering impossible the existence of a viable Palestinian state.

Unless Israel were to build solely on land recognized by the international community to be its own (on or within the Green Line), the Israeli government must be persuaded to cease construction and dismantle the separation barrier.

Suggested Action

Congressional legislative efforts to endorse current construction of the barrier must be resisted. Congress should instead find legislative means to encourage a halt to the construction, and, at a minimum, ensure that U.S. funds are not used for these purposes.

Call your Representative and two Senators' offices. You can be connected to them via the Capitol switchboard, (202) 224-3121. Ask to speak with the staff who handles Middle East issues for the Senator or Representative. Tell them your name, where you live, and your church affiliation. State that you are calling about this issue because of your religious conviction that peace in the Middle East must be found and that Israelis and Palestinians can and must live side-by-side in secure nations at peace with one another.

Additional to your advocacy with your Members of Congress: Consider engaging your congregation, adult education program or peace and justice committee. Educational resources on the separation barrier, including a compilation of quotes from various church leaders, are posted on CMEP's Web site along the December newsletter "The Holy Land Needs Bridges, Not Walls." Letters on congregational letterheads to the respective Representative and Senators would be effective communications. (Because this action is not directed toward a specific piece of legislation, it is not officially considered "advocacy.")

State that:

1. We firmly support a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that ends the occupation, establishes a viable Palestinian state and a secure Israel, paving the way for a comprehensive peace and a mutually-secure region.
2. The separation barrier being built by Israel on Palestinian lands is destroying the possibility of peace.
3. Israel has a legitimate right to protect its citizens, particularly from horrendous suicide bombings.
4. However, the barrier ultimately hurts:
   • Long-term security for Israel;
   • Land, livelihood, and governance for the Palestinians;
   • Trust between the parties; and
   • The possibility for a negotiated, two-state solution in the future.
5. Ask the Representative or Senator to encourage efforts by the U.S. government to persuade the Israeli government to end construction of the separation barrier, unless it is built solely on Israeli land.

General Assembly Policy: The 215th Assembly "Urges the Israeli government to end its expansionist policies of confiscation of land and water resources and the building and enlarging of settlements." (Item 12-01 — Resolution on Israel and Palestine, B3)