With Ariel Sharon's election (February 6, 2001) pointing to a
prolonged pause in any progress toward peace, one constructive
activity which could be pursued while waiting for Mr. Sharon's
successor as prime minister would be a concerted effort by
politicians, negotiators and commentators to adopt a new "language
of peace." The words which people use, often unconsciously, can
have a critical effect upon the thoughts and attitudes of those who
speak and write, as well as those who listen and read. Dangerously
misleading terminology remains a major obstacle to
Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Imposing Favorable Terminology
It is normal practice for parties to a dispute to use terminology
that favors them. In this regard, Israel has been spectacularly
successful in imposing its terminology not simply on Israeli
consciousness and American usage, but even on many Arab parties and
commentators. It has done so not only in obvious ways like use of
the terms "terrorism," "security," "Eretz Israel," or "Judea and
Samaria," but also in more subtle ways, which have had and continue
to have a profound negative impact on perceptions of matters of
substance.
There is much talk of "concessions" being demanded from and offered
by Israel. The word suggests the surrender of some legitimate right
or position. In fact, while Israel demands numerous concessions
from Palestine, Palestine is not seeking any concessions from
Israel. What it is insisting upon is "compliance" - compliance with
agreements already signed, compliance with international law and
compliance with relevant United Nations resolutions - nothing more
and nothing less. Compliance is not a concession. It is an
obligation, both legally and morally, and it is essential if peace
is ever to be achieved.
The concept of "compliance" is well entrenched in Iraq's case.
Partial Iraqi compliance with United Nations resolutions is rarely
hailed as a "concession" - "painful," "far-reaching,"
"unprecedented," or otherwise. In Iraq's case, anything less than
full compliance is deemed "defiance" - at least by the United
States. Notwithstanding Israel's long-delayed but eventually full
compliance with United Nations resolutions on its Egyptian,
Jordanian and Lebanese borders, most Israelis still believe, with
the encouragement of successive American administrations, that
peace with Palestine can be achieved without compliance. This is
most unlikely, but how many more, on both sides, will die before
the logic of "compliance" replaces the false generosity of
"concessions"?
'Occupied' Not 'Disputed'
The Palestinian territories conquered by Israel in 1967 are
frequently referred to as "disputed." They are not. They are
"occupied," illegally so. While sovereignty over expanded East
Jerusalem is explicitly contested, none of the world's other 192
sovereign states has recognized Israel's sovereignty claim.
Palestinian sovereignty over the Gaza Strip and the rest of the
West Bank is, in both literal and legal senses, uncontested (even
if not yet universally "recognized").
Israel has never even purported to annex these territories. Jordan
renounced all claims to the West Bank in favor of the Palestinians
in July 1988. While Egypt administered the Gaza Strip for 19 years,
it never asserted sovereignty over it. Since November 15, 1988,
when Palestinian independence and statehood were formally
proclaimed, the only state asserting sovereignty over those
portions of historical Palestine which Israel occupied in 1967
(aside from expanded East Jerusalem) has been the State of
Palestine, a state which, even though it continues to operate
within its own territory through a transparent Trojan horse named
the "Palestinian Authority," now meets all the customary
international law criteria for sovereign statehood, and is already
recognized as a state by over 100 other sovereign states.
Commentators on all sides speak of Israel "ceding" territory to
Palestine (or to "the Palestinians" for those who refuse to admit
that Palestine exists). The word suggests a transfer of land by its
legitimate owner. Unless there are reciprocal exchanges of
territory in a final peace agreement, the issue of Israel's ceding
territory to Palestine does not arise. Israel can withdraw from
occupied Palestinian territory, or hand over administrative control
of such territory, but to "cede" property one must first possess
legal title to it. Israel can no more cede title to occupied
Palestinian lands than a squatter can cede title to an apartment
that he has illegally occupied. In reality, it is Israel that
continues to insist that Palestine cede to Israel indisputably
Palestinian lands forming part of the meager 22 percent of
historical Palestine that Israel did not conquer until 1967. How
fair, reasonable and genuinely peace-seeking is this?
Jerusalem: A Life-or-Death Distinction
Misleading language has been particularly destructive with respect
to Jerusalem. For years, Israeli politicians have repeated like a
mantra that "Jerusalem must remain united under Israeli
sovereignty." Understandably, Israelis have come to believe that
Israel currently possesses sovereignty over Jerusalem. It does not.
It possesses only administrative control. While a country can
acquire administrative control by force of arms, it can acquire
sovereignty (the state-level equivalent of title or ownership) only
with the consent of the international community.
The position of the international community is clear and
categorical: Israel is in military occupation of East Jerusalem and
has only de facto authority over West Jerusalem. The refusal of
virtually all countries (even including the United States) to
recognize West Jerusalem as Israel's capital, supported by the
maintenance of all embassies other than those of Costa Rica and El
Salvador in Tel Aviv, vividly demonstrates the refusal of the
international community, pending an agreed solution to the status
of Jerusalem, to concede that any part of the city is Israel's
sovereign territory.
During the recent election campaign, Ehud Barak publicly pledged
never to sign a document transferring sovereignty over the Haram
al-Sharif/Temple Mount. Indeed, as Mr. Barak no doubt recognized
when he spoke, there can be no question of Israel relinquishing or
transferring sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem, for the simple
reason that Israel currently possesses no such sovereignty. Indeed,
the only way that Israel will ever acquire sovereignty over any
part of Jerusalem is by agreeing with Palestine on a fair basis for
either sharing or dividing sovereignty over the city (or doing a
bit of both) which is recognized as fair and accepted by the
international community.
This distinction is of fundamental intellectual and psychological
importance for Israeli public opinion. There is a world of
difference for an Israeli leader between being perceived as the man
who achieved Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem for the first time
in 2,000 years and being perceived as the man who relinquished some
measure of Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem. It could be a
life-or-death distinction.
A Measure of Justice
One word which has been too rarely used in connection with the
"peace process" (and which should be invoked more often) is
"justice." For obvious reasons, it is never used by Israeli or
American politicians as a component of the "peace" they envision.
Yet a true and lasting "peace," as opposed to a mere temporary
cessation of hostilities, is inconceivable unless some measure of
justice is both achieved and perceived, by both sides, to have been
achieved.
Palestine is not seeking concessions from Israel, only compliance.
The Palestinian territories conquered in 1967 are not disputed,
simply illegally occupied. Israel is not generously offering to
cede its land to Palestine, but insisting that Palestine cede
indisputably Palestinian lands to Israel. The only way Israel will
ever acquire sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem is by agreeing
to share or divide the city with Palestine. Any true peace requires
some measure of justice.
It is high time for all involved to recognize and speak clearly
about these fundamental realities. If a new "language of peace" can
be propagated and take root during the Sharon interlude, the
difficult months ahead will not be wasted, and a true and lasting
peace may finally be achievable when this interlude ends.