Annapolis/Demands of a Thief

In the lead up to the conference in Annapolis, there is a certain tension in the air here in Ramallah. It's a little bit difficult to describe, but I'll try to illuminate the situation--with the caveat that a Palestinian who has been here for past peace process negotations might have a different take on the vibe.

First of all, the bar for Annapolis is low. Most people seem to think it's either a bad joke or a slap in the face, an insult to the intelligence of the people. You would be hard pressed to find someone who really expects the Annapolis conference to change anything. Israel and the leaders in the PA have not come to an agreement on terms before the conference, and that isn't expected to change in the next few days. I have heard some people suggest that the pattern in the past when negotiations have failed, there have been uprisings in the aftermath. However, in the past, there was hope for change. That isn't the case now. The general consensus is that none of the leaders have any political capital or leverage to create change, and the expectation seems to be another photo op with a lot of lip service.

What has changed is the police presence. There are twice as many PA police everywhere, and twice as many Israeli soldiers at checkpoints. They all seem to be a little edgy--especially the Israelis. Today, Ma'an News reported that thousands of Israeli troops will be dispatched to the urban areas in the West Bank tomorrow and for the duration of the conference. That will surely ratchet the tension up even higher.

Another change is movement control. There are more flying checkpoints, wait time at the regular checkpoints are increasing and closures are more frequent, and a couple weeks ago, barricades were installed to control the movement of people at Manara Square here in Ramallah. The barricades remind me of the temporary barricades that the NYPD uses to prevent large groups of people from gathering. Supposedly these are intended to keep the traffic moving, and I'm sure they will help, but they also will conveniently prevent organized protests at a popular gathering spot in Ramallah.

There seem to be a lot of crackdowns in the West Bank on Hamas in the last few weeks, and it is creating an internal tension to go along with the Israeli-Palestinian tension. It seems like every day, I hear about Hamas members being arrested. This, to an average American, sounds like a good thing--they're the "bad guys." However, here it's a bit more complicated. Hamas has popular support and has been democratically elected, and arresting its members creates divisions between Palestinians that could become explosive.

Then there is the "what happens if/when Annapolis fails" question. I don't really want to speculate, but it really can't result in anything good. An unscientific poll from Ma'an News seems to think that will mean increasing violence between Israelis and Palestinians. I don't want to even imagine that scenario.

It all makes me think that perhaps rather than letting leaders decide their fate, the people need to take matters into their own hands. If only it could be worked out under the olive trees over tea.

I'll leave you with an article by Gideon Levy in today's Haaretz. Powerful stuff, Gideon.

Demands of a thief

By Gideon Levy

The public discourse in Israel has momentarily awoken from its slumber. "To give or not to give," that is the Shakespearean question - "to make concessions" or "not to make concessions." It is good that initial signs of life in the Israeli public have emerged. It was worth going to Annapolis if only for this reason - but this discourse is baseless and distorted. Israel is not being asked "to give" anything to the Palestinians; it is only being asked to return - to return their stolen land and restore their trampled self-respect, along with their fundamental human rights and humanity. This is the primary core issue, the only one worthy of the title, and no one talks about it anymore.

No one is talking about morality anymore. Justice is also an archaic concept, a taboo that has deliberately been erased from all negotiations. Two and a half million people - farmers, merchants, lawyers, drivers, daydreaming teenage girls, love-smitten men, old people, women, children and combatants using violent means for a just cause - have all been living under a brutal boot for 40 years. Meanwhile, in our cafes and living rooms the conversation is over giving or not giving.

Lawyers, philosophers, writers, lecturers, intellectuals and rabbis, who are looked upon for basic knowledge about moral precepts, participate in this distorted discourse. What will they tell their children - after the occupation finally becomes a nightmare of the past - about the period in which they wielded influence? What will they say about their role in this? Israeli students stand at checkpoints as part of their army reserve duty, brutally deciding the fate of people, and then some rush off to lectures on ethics at university, forgetting what they did the previous day and what is being done in their names every single day. Intellectuals publish petitions, "to make concessions" or "not to make concessions," diverting attention from the core issue. There are stormy debates about corruption - whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is corrupt and how the Supreme Court is being undermined. But there is no discussion of the ultimate question: Isn't the occupation the greatest and most terrible corruption to have taken root here, overshadowing everything else?

Security officials are terrified about what would happen if we removed a checkpoint or released prisoners, like the whites in South Africa who whipped up a frenzy of fear about the "great slaughter" that would ensue if blacks were granted their rights. But these are not legitimate questions: The incarceration must be ended and the myriad of political prisoners should be released unconditionally. Just as a thief cannot present demands - neither preconditions nor any other terms - to the owner of the property he has robbed, Israel cannot present demands to the other side as long as the situation remains as it is.

Security? We must defend ourselves by defensive means. Those who do not believe that the only security we will enjoy will come from ending the occupation and from peace can entrench themselves in the army, and behind walls and fences. But we have no right to do what we are doing: Just as no one would conceive of killing the residents of an entire neighborhood, to harass and incarcerate it because of a few criminals living there, there is no justification for abusing an entire people in the name of our security. The question of whether ending the occupation would threaten or strengthen Israel's security is irrelevant. There are not, and cannot be, any preconditions for restoring justice.

No one will discuss this at Annapolis. Even if the real core issues were raised, they would focus on secondary questions - borders, Jerusalem and even refugees. But that would be escaping the main issue. After 40 years, one might have expected that the real core issue would finally be raised for honest and bold discussion: Does Israel have the moral right to continue the occupation? The world should have asked this long ago. The Palestinians should have focused only on this. And above all, we, who bear the guilt, should have been terribly troubled by the answer to this question.