-Analysis-
CAIRO — I still remember clearly that day in May 1994, when Yasser Arafat, smiling broadly, stood before journalists, raised a large black file into the air and said with supreme happiness “This is the agreement, finally.”
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
A difficult and exhausting round of negotiations had produced the Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area (also known as the the Gaza-Jericho Agreement or the 1994 Cairo Agreement), which established self-rule in the Gaza Strip and the city of Jericho in the West Bank as part of the Oslo Accords. It detailed the terms for the Palestinian autonomy in these two parts of the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. And it was a preliminary test for the transfer of more powers to the Palestinian Authority led by Arafat in other areas of the West Bank.
Of course, the agreement included the number of Palestinian forces that would be allowed to enter Gaza and Jericho; their type of arms (pistols only); their powers; the locations of their deployment; Israel’s prior approval of the names of all Palestinian police personnel; and even the clothes that they would wear.
The agreement’s precise details would later give Israel a pretext to invade, arguing that the Palestinians did not adhere to its pledges. Israel’s reasons were not limited only to security matters; they included demands such as combating the culture of terrorism and violence, changing education curricula that did not recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel, and of course confronting armed Palestinian groups.
Too many details
In all subsequent rounds of marathon negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis, which ended with agreements similar to the Cairo Agreement, Israel adopted the same tactic: drag out negotiating; delve too far into too many details; claim to seek “creative solutions” to overcome differences; and then announce the agreement at 95% of the controversial issues the Palestinians refuse to give concession in the remaining 5%.
But in all of these “creative solutions” usually supported by the United States, Israel did not make a single concession on its principles. There is no division of the city of Jerusalem; no return of Palestinian refugees; and no end to illegal settlement in the West Bank — which has turned into a piece of Swiss cheese, to borrow a comparison made by former U.S. President George W. Bush.
The Oslo Accords stipulated the Palestinians’ recognition of Israel in exchange for Israel’s recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organization as the representative of the Palestinian people.
The “final stage” issues — the borders, Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees — were set to be discussed in a final agreement within five years. But by then, Israel’s intention to renounce its obligations was confirmed. “There are no sacred dates,” Former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said boldly.
The irony of this 30-year-old path is that its logic has always been upside down.
This practically meant fulfilling the promise of his predecessor Yitzhak Shamir when he attended the Madrid Peace Conference. Shamir said that he would negotiate with the Palestinians and the Arab countries for 10 years, and then give them nothing in the end.
Worse than the failure of the negotiations, is that the situation on the ground has not remained the same. Israel is expanding the construction of settlements, annexing occupied East Jerusalem and considering the entire city its “eternal” capital, then annexing the occupied Syrian Golan, and considering itself a state for the Jewish people only, which means further deprivation of the rights of Palestinians inside Israel.
The Middle East has seen many changes since then: the September 11 attacks; the death of Yasser Arafat in 2004; and the Arab Spring revolutions that contributed to the marginalization of the Palestinian cause. Since 2014, the negotiation process between the Israelis and the Palestinians has been stalled. That is despite hopes that Barack Obama would revive them during his presidency, and achieve a breakthrough thanks to his progressive ideas and African origins.
It’s happening again!
The irony of this 30-year-old path is that its logic has always been upside-down. The Palestinian side, which suffers the bitterness of the hateful racist occupation with all its inhumane measures, is the one required to make concessions. While Israel, the occupying power, violates international laws. The priority of the negotiations was always to give Israel guarantees and reassurances out of fear for its security and continued existence, not to end the occupation and the suffering of the Palestinians.
I remembered all of this today, as I watch it being repeated in the ongoing ceasefire negotiations.
High-level officials have taken part in these negotiations, including the Qatari Prime Minister, the intelligence chiefs of Egypt and the United States. As usual, Israel’s negotiators have immersed them all in the smallest details to meet Tel Aviv’s aim of liberating Israeli hostages. Meanwhile they are pushing other issues to later negotiation stages, and constantly searching for loopholes that would allow it to violate the agreement and resume the killing of Palestinians.
Israeli forces have almost completely destroyed the Gaza Strip, including its basic infrastructure of electricity and water. People are starving, children are dying of malnutrition and diseases are spreading again.
The dire situation has not prevented the negotiations from focusing on the minute details.
Israel has also occupied the Palestinian side of the Rafah crossing: a flagrant violation not only of the agreements signed with the Palestinians but also of its peace agreement with Egypt. U.S. President Biden swallowed his previous warnings against invading Rafah. And Palestinians were forced to flee again, even though there is no suitable place left for them to shelter.
Loyalty test
But the dire situation has not prevented the negotiations from focusing on the minute details, with the same inverted logic: seeking to protect Israel’s security under American sponsorship and to meet all its demands, instead of ending Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians and holding accountable those who are responsible.
As long as this approach — of allowing Israel to be excluded from international laws and treaties — continues, there will be no end soon to the crimes of the Zionist occupation. That is especially true as the United States nears a very heated presidential election, during which the tragedy of the Palestinian people has become, perhaps for the first time, a major electoral issue.
The two candidates — President Biden and former President Donald Trump — will outbid each other in absolute support and complete loyalty to Israel. Same old song.
