Discussing the Final Status Issues

One of the subjects I have taken at Birzeit University is called the Palestine Question – a political science subject exploring the issue of the establishment of a Palestinian state. For our final class we were split into Israelis and Palestinians and brought together around a table to discuss the final status issues – a talk that is, in reality, almost ten years overdue.

My group was to take the Israeli position. When we were told this we all groaned, sure that we’d been given the harder task. After all, we were in a class that had spent the whole semester exploring the Palestinian position and yet now we would have to argue the other side. I think it was because we anticipated difficulty that most of us put in the effort to try and set out our position. We discussed among ourselves what we were willing to compromise on and what things we considered non-negotiable. By the time we sat down at the table we felt prepared – though still expecting to be vilified and set in our place as occupiers. And yet, that’s not how it happened.

The dynamics of the room were set right from the beginning. Over twenty minutes before the talks began, all the Israeli side were seated side by side facing the door and ready to go. While we waited, the Palestinian side slowly trickled in, taking their seats, and then wandering about again.

When the talks began, it was clear that there was a power imbalance. We, as the Israeli position, immediately took on the position of power – setting the agenda and making clear what could be discussed and what we refused to compromise on. The Palestinian side was obviously poorly prepared. It happened a number of times that one of them offered us something and then another immediately objected to that being offered. It also happened a number of times that we managed to make them angry and upset. Many a time they responded to our proposals by becoming furious and emotional – falling back on accusations of our cruelty but failing to build up any strong arguments to turn the tide of the negotiations.

How did it happen? How did it happen that even in a room in which everyone fundamentally agreed with the Palestinian position did the Israelis came out on top during negotiations? Why were we incapable challenging the power imbalance that exists between the two sides?

Our teacher offered a suggestion for why the power imbalance fell into place so simply: the Palestinian side implicitly agreed to negotiate on the terms set by the Israelis. That is, the Palestinian side agreed to the splitting up of the issues: discussing settlements, water resources, borders, refugees and Jerusalem all separately. This immediately places them in a position of weakness because if every issue is up for negotiation separately, what do the Palestinians have to bargain with?

They have one bargaining chip: an agreement to recognise the sovereignty of Israel on its 1948 borders. They want one thing in return: an end to the occupation. That means a dismantling of all settlements, the handover of all control over the West Bank and Gaza’s water resources, complete control of the borders (as set by the 1967 green line) and East Jerusalem. Anything less would be a continuation of the occupation in another form.

Would this argument as suggested by our teacher have worked for the Palestinian side during our class negotiations? Probably not. We as the Israeli side would probably have dismissed such an all-encompassing demand as unrealistic and ridiculous. But at least there would have been unity on the Palestinian side, and at least it would have been up to us to break up the negotiations by saying we were unwilling to negotiate on their terms, which would reflect poorly on us.

The one point that complicates this simple structuring of the issues is the Palestinian refugees. Our teacher was clear on his position: Resolution 194 must be implemented and all refugees given the right to return. But this issue does not fit neatly into the clear demand of an end to the occupation. And yet, without a resolution of this issue, can any discussion of a final status be fruitful?

Why is it possible for any Jew around the world to gain citizenship of Israel and yet the Palestinians who left the area during the violence of 1948 and their descendents are still prevented from returning? I was always taught as a child that people are people, regardless of religion, origin or ethnicity. It is overly idealistic, but John Lennon asked us to imagine a world where there was no religion – just imagine.