Special to Times of Oman
While reviewing polling data on Israeli and Palestinian attitudes toward the current US-led peace effort, what comes through quite clearly is not just the obvious disconnect between the views of both groups, but also the extent to which this disconnect is driven by the Israeli-centric language used in framing many of the issues covered in these polls.
The same is true of US policy discussions about the prospects for Middle East peace. For example, when American commentators and analysts present the issues to be addressed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they often use terms and accept assumptions that, simply because they have been used so often, have come to be seen as part of the natural order of things. I am speaking of terms like "settlement blocs", "land swaps", "incitement", references to "Jerusalem neighbourhoods", and "the Jewish state".
While Israelis and Americans simply see this language as descriptive of "givens", Palestinians see them as loaded and biased terms that serve to mask injustice. And then when Palestinians reject these terms and assumptions, it is unfairly interpreted as evidence of their lack of commitment to peace.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said as much recently when he noted that Palestinians "said this week that they will never recognise a Jewish state and will never give up the right of return... I will not bring an agreement that would not cancel the right of return and the Palestinian recognition of a Jewish state. These are basic justified conditions as far as the state of Israel is concerned."
Netanyahu concluded that because the Palestinians would not accept his terms, they are "showing no sign that they intend to reach a practical and just agreement." In other words, in Netanyahu's mind "if you want peace you will accept my terms and assumptions and reject your own. If you insist on adhering to your own narrative and reality, then you aren't serious about peace."
In this same vein, look at another generally accepted element of any discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process — namely, that Israeli "settlement blocs" in the West Bank are now "accepted realities" which Israel will retain in any peace agreement and in exchange for keeping these blocs Israel will provide "land swaps" to the new Palestinian state.
This notion of a "trade-off" is no longer even debated. It has become a "given" with all that remains to be decided being how many "blocs" will Israel insist on retaining and how much (and which) land will they offer as a swap.
This notion of a trade off may sound logical and fair to Israelis and Americans, but to many Palestinians, especially those whose lands have been confiscated to make way for a settlement, the idea of "land swap" is nothing more than a term designed to make legitimate what is illegitimate.
Take the example of the Israeli settlement of Har Homa. It was built 15 years ago on land Israel confiscated from Bethlehemites over the strenuous objections of then President Bill Clinton. As a result of this Israeli colony and a string of other similar settlements that Israel has built on Bethlehem's land, that little city can't grow and is cut off from Jerusalem.
By now 17,000 Israelis live in Har Homa and Palestinians are asked to see the settlement as an "accepted reality." In return for this injustice, Palestinians are to be offered a "land swap" somewhere else. But the land that will be swapped does nothing for Bethlehem or the families who lost their land, nor does it resolve the injustice done to an entire community by severing their physical connection to Jerusalem.
To them, it's not fair. It amounts to rewarding land theft and violations of international law. Multiply this story by the hundreds of villages and towns who have had land confiscated for settlements, roads, or the "barrier/wall", and the magnitude of the sense of injustice becomes clear.
For Palestinians, the bottom line here is that Israel decides what's a "given". They decide what they keep and what they swap. All the Palestinians can do is say "no"— in which case they are portrayed as "hostile to peace." Then there's oft-used term "neighbourhoods" to describe the settlements in what the Israelis call "Greater Jerusalem". Using "neighbourhood" instead of "colony illegally built on occupied and confiscated land" may convey a cozy "down-home" image to Americans, but to Palestinians the monstrous concrete settlements that snake up and down the hills around Jerusalem and surround and strangle a dozen tiny ancient Arab villages represent an ugly story of dispossession and denial of rights.
I don't know what magic tricks President Obama or Secretary of State Kerry have up their sleeves. We are getting close to the deadline when Kerry will put a framework document on the table to guide Israelis and Palestinians through the next phase of the peace process. I think that we can be reasonably certain that in framing the proposal, attention will be paid to avoiding language that will be insensitive.
We should also insist that in shaping US proposal, care will be shown not to frame its language in ways that will be rejected by Palestinians as unjust to the Palestinians.
The author is the President of Arab American Institute. All the views and opinions expressed in the article are solely those of the author and do not reflect those of Times of Oman.