The world community must not let Israel's latest penchant for unilateralism undermine the internationally backed roadmap plan for peace Suppose one were to take a snapshot of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict today, encompassing all its political, social and economic dimensions, then compare it to the provisions of the internationally backed "roadmap". What would be the result? Diametric or alarming would be an understatement. The roadmap's purpose was and is to serve as a framework for joint Palestinian- Israeli peace negotiations under the auspices of the Quartet, which would eventually lead to the emergence of an independent, sovereign and contiguous Palestinian state, existing side by side in peace with its neighbour Israel. Sadly, the facts on the ground in the occupied Palestinian territories represent such a divergence that revisiting and re- evaluating the roadmap becomes an imperative, in order to determine whether it is still relevant, especially in the post-unilateral disengagement world. The roadmap is split into three phases. The focus of phase one is on bringing violence and terror to an end, improving Palestinian living conditions and empowering the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the process of Palestinian nation building. Phase two sees the creation of an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty, based on a new constitution, as a way station to a permanent settlement. Finally, phase three's objectives include consolidating the reform and stabilisation of Palestinian institutions, sustained, effective Palestinian security performance, and Israeli- Palestinian negotiations aimed at a final status agreement in 2005. Furthermore, as a performance-based plan, progress will depend on the good faith efforts of the PA and the Israeli government, and their compliance with each of the obligations outlined in the roadmap. According to the plan, "should the parties perform their obligations rapidly, progress within and through the phases may come sooner than indicated in the plan. Non-compliance with obligations will impede progress." The formula might seem very simple, if both parties genuinely wished to achieve a comprehensive and just peace. The reality though is that a Palestinian state has not emerged, and with the momentum and pace of Israeli unilateralism will not emerge in the near future. Commenting on the performance-based approach in a recent article Hanan Ashrawi said, "given the asymmetry of power, Israel will continue to hamper Palestinian 'performance' by using its unhampered military might to create insurmountable obstacles and provoke extreme responses and reactions. A clear example is Israel's use of the policy of assassination to create further instability, violence, a sense of victimisation, and a cycle of lawlessness and revenge. A performance- driven road map will lead only in the direction of an Israeli-driven disaster. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has always had very different plans. Since the introduction of the roadmap in 2003, the Israeli cabinet began with listing 14 reservations it had to the provisions of the plan. Then it seemed that the cabinet quietly scrapped the whole idea of adhering to the plan, while always publicly claiming to abide by it. This was facilitated by the "letter of assurance" given to Sharon by President Bush in which he assured Sharon that Israel would not be expected to return to the 1967 borders (an international and Palestinian precondition) "in light of new realities on the ground, including already-existing major Israeli population centres". Israel's disregard for the roadmap is evident from its official policies. Take the unilateral disengagement from Gaza and the annexation or segregation wall as examples. The unilateral disengagement from Gaza was in no measure implemented for the sake of advancing the roadmap; it was rather devised and implemented for strategic reasons serving Israel's self-interest. If the State of Israel had only evacuated Gazan settlers one could have spoken of good will. Frankly, Israel used the disengagement as a smokescreen, annexing and illegally confiscating more Palestinian land in the West Bank, in order to prejudge final status talks. According to Dror Etkes, director of the Israeli organisation Settlement Watch, "it's a trade off: the Gaza Strip for the settlement blocks; the Gaza Strip for Palestinian land; the Gaza Strip for unilaterally imposing borders." Furthermore, Israel used the disengagement to bluff world leaders into thinking that Israel is taking the initiative, ending the occupation of Palestinian land, and that this, sadly, has no Palestinian equivalent in terms of reciprocal actions. On the annexation or Apartheid Wall, needless to say it is being built for three main reasons: first, to annex as much Palestinian land as possible; second, to create evermore new and irreversible "facts on the ground" that prejudge final status talks; and third, to make life for Palestinians as miserable as possible. Here again self-interest, not good will, is the name of the game for Israel. According to Jeff Halper, coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, "Israel's unilateralism means only one thing: it has nothing to offer the Palestinians, nothing worth negotiating over. The roadmap asserts that only a true end of the occupation and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state will finally see the end of this conflict with its global implications. A genuine two-state solution may already be dead, the victim of Israeli expansionism." To re-visit and re-evaluate the roadmap is to see whether it is still relevant as a document that might eventually lead to much- needed peace for a war-torn region. Even though Israel's onslaught on the Palestinian people continues, the roadmap represents, if anything, a framework that could bring about change. We stand before two options: either the international community is willing to see Sharon carry on with his unilateral and diabolical plans, or there is the peaceful, tangible option of the roadmap. Unilateralism cannot and will not become a remedy for Israel's problem with the Palestinian people. Finally, the international community and specifically the Quartet must not stand idle or dazzled by Israel's unilateral plans. According to Ashrawi, "clearly, the logic of the previous peace process has proved to be a failure, not least in its insistence on bilateralism as a means of 'conflict resolution' in a situation of such glaring power bias and disequilibrium. If multilateralism is the global mechanism for collective responsibility, particularly in peacemaking and in ensuring a global rule of law, then the 'monitoring mechanism' of the roadmap must embody such an approach both in form and in substance. Such logic requires re-thinking the Quartet. The UN must remain the reference to state and multi-state actors; full Arab partnership must be ensured throughout; and behaviour on the ground must be subject to scrutiny and immediate intervention. The international community and leaders of the Quartet have a legal and moral obligation to promote peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, and call for the implementation of Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 1397, as well as the upholding of international human rights law." This article is the contribution of MIFTAH, the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy, www.miftah.org .
