Dov Weisglass, was Sharon's friend and top advisor, and apparently acts as Olmert's also, said something very interesting, published today in Ha'aretz, on Israel's intention in cutting funds to the PA.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/683458.html
"'It's like a meeting with a dietician. We have to make them much thinner, but not enough to die,' said the prime minister's adviser Dov Weissglas."
also related is this: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/684030.html
Sorry if sometimes I come across as "advertising-esque" (including the following) but so much of my energy writing on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict goes into my work editing "News from Within" and often I think that what is written there and by others at/for the AIC is pertinent to the discussion here...(and actually, it works both ways, because I sometimes find that things I write on LBO-talk become the seeds of the Letter from the Editors for the next issue.)
Anyway, the latest Letter from the Editors touches I think acts as a good reply to the plans of Israel vis-a-vis the PA and Palestinian people.
Letter from the Editors
On 25 January 2006, the Palestinian people voted in the first Palestinian Legislative Council elections in ten years. While many projected outcomes of a Hamas plurality, in the final tally, taking seventy-six seats out of a total of 132, Hamas won a surprising majority position in the legislature.
Numerous Israeli and international politicians and media pundits have been arguing that this victory for Hamas in the elections was a deliberate Palestinian “vote against peace.” Yet, they exhibit no aspiration to understand the complicated social and political context of contemporary Palestine, the results of Israel’s longstanding unilateralist approach, the continuing expansion of the Israeli Occupation, or the very bases on which the Palestinians themselves made their voting decisions. Instead, a very simplistic equation—that a vote for Hamas is a vote for terror and against peace—is projected. These assertions do not stand up to the evidence, however.
First, it’s important to highlight that, due to a two-tiered electoral system featuring multi-member districts and a national proportional list, the elections results do not reflect a strict proportion of votes cast for a particular party or candidates aligned with that party. The multi-member district system penalizes ticket-splitting and rewards parties with greater cohesion.(1) Thus, Hamas was able to win without receiving the majority of the Palestinian vote, a little more than 44.4 percent, in comparison to 41.4 percent going to Fatah. Moreover, the remaining 14 percent of the popular vote went largely to secular parties, made up of former Fatah members and leftist parties such as the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine. This means that over 55 percent of the Palestinian vote did not go to parties or independent candidates aligned with Hamas. And significantly, time after time—including in the run-up to the elections—opinion polls of the Palestinian public have revealed that a majority of Palestinians are actually willing and interested in a realistic negotiated settlement.
Between 6-15 December 2005, a little over one month before the PLC elections, a joint Palestinian/Israeli opinion poll was conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah and the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.2 Fifty-five percent of Palestinians polled stated that they would support an agreement on final borders, based on the 1967 lines, except for about three percent of the West Bank, which would be exchanged for an Israeli territory of equal size. Moreover, 64 percent of the Palestinians polled supported “a compromise on ending the conflict that would state that when the permanent status agreement is fully implemented, it will mean the end of the conflict and no further claims will be made by either side.”
Yet, disregarding the implications of these polls, the current Israeli administration has taken the election results as a cue to continue its unilateralist approach with additional zeal, and begin to implement its designs to formalize control over large tracts of the OPT through annexation.
Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has declared that the Israeli government will not enter into any negotiations with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, so long as Hamas does not lay down its arms and accept the Israel’s “right to exist.” This, despite the fact that, according to the same December poll discussed above: “50 percent of the Israelis support [ ] negotiations with Hamas if this is called for in order to reach a compromise agreement with the Palestinians.” While this poll was conducted before the elections, it was well known in Israel at the time that there was a significant chance Hamas would either finish the elections in a close second to Fatah or gain a plurality of the Palestinian vote. This reveals a significant disconnect between the Israeli government’s hard-line stance and the more conciliatory or ambivalent Israeli population.
Moreover, Acting PM Olmert stated on 7 February that Israel would make unilateral moves to determine ‘its final borders.’ In what can only be understood as an attempt to implement a plan originally spelled out as far back as 1967 by General Yigal Allon, Israel would annex significant portions of the OPT, leaving islands of Palestinian autonomy surrounded on all sides by Israeli control. Specifically, Olmert declared intentions to annex “the main settlement blocs and preserve united Jerusalem. [...] Ma’aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion and Ariel will be part of the state of Israel” (Aluf Benn and Mazal Mualem in Ha’aretz, 8 Feb). In addition, he vowed that Israel would retain control over the Jordan Valley, which would effectively cut the Occupied Palestinian Territories off from Jordan. Implementation of this plan would never be accepted by the Palestinian people and is a sure recipe for perpetual war. Moreover, this once again, reveals a strong disparity between the Israeli government and public over the willingness to make concessions. According to an opinion poll on the subject of Jerusalem, published in January 2006 by the Tazpit Research Institute for the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies (JIIS), 63 percent of Israelis polled stated that they would be willing to give up control over East Jerusalem or more, in exchange for a settlement with the Palestinians. In addition, Israeli opinion polls, including the joint poll mentioned above, have consistently shown that the Israeli public is willing to make concessions based on the 1967 borders.
Potentially more devastating in the immediate future for the Palestinian population is the likelihood of a drastic cut in the flow of funds to both the PA and Palestinian civil institutions. Yet, while the US and Europe may have the freedom of stopping the flow of funds, this would not be so simple for the Israeli government to do. Israel can elect not to recognize Hamas and/or negotiate with it, but the victory of Hamas in the PLC elections does not give Israel the right to abdicate any of its legal responsibilities. By international law, Israel, as an occupying power, is legally responsible for the wellbeing of the population under its occupation. According to Article 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: “In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation. [...]” These obligations include the provision of education, food, medical supplies and health facilities, etc. (please see box on page 5 for specific obligations). The fact that up to the present, these basic services have been largely provided by the PA, local and international NGOs and civil society institutions, does not detract from the fact that, as the occupying power, Israel bears sole legal responsibility.
If either the Israeli government or international governments/institutions sever funding for the Palestinians, and there is a subsequent breakdown in the PA and/ or civil Palestinian institutions leading to a humanitarian crisis, the result would be nothing other than a war crime committed by Israel. The Israeli government has only three options regarding adherence to their obligations. It must either make certain that the PA and civil society institutions continue to function and provide for the basic needs of the Palestinian population, or take over these responsibilities directly. The third option, one that would release Israel from its legal responsibility over the Palestinians, is the one which Israel has not shown any willingness to entertain. Namely, an immediate and total end to the Occupation, recognition of the Palestinian Right of Return, and respect for the civil, human, and national rights of the Palestinians.
Notes: (1) For a discussion of the entire poll, see here: <http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2005/p18ejoint.html> (2) Over a 100 Fatah candidates ran as independents, for instance, and there were several smaller lists which appealed to Fatah voters, further diluting Fatah’s chances for legislative seats.
Some of the relevant articles from the Fourth Geneva Convention relating to an Occupying Power’s responsibilities for the provision of basic services to the people it occupies(1):
Article 50
“The Occupying Power shall, with the cooperation of the national and local authorities, facilitate the proper working of all institutions devoted to the care and education of children. The Occupying Power shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the identification of children and the registration of their parentage. [...] Should the local institutions be inadequate for the purpose, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements for the maintenance and education, if possible by persons of their own nationality, language and religion, of children who are orphaned or separated from their parents as a result of the war and who cannot be adequately cared for by a near relative or friend. [...] The Occupying Power shall not hinder the application of any preferential measures in regard to food, medical care and protection against the effects of war, which may have been adopted prior to the occupation in favor of children under fifteen years, expectant mothers, and mothers of children under seven years.”
Article 55 “To the fullest extent of the means available to it the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate. The Occupying Power may not requisition foodstuffs, articles or medical supplies available in the occupied territory, except for use by the occupation forces and administration personnel, and then only if the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account. Subject to the provisions of other international Conventions, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements to ensure that fair value is paid for any requisitioned goods.[...]”
Article 56 To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties. [...]” In adopting measures of health and hygiene and in their implementation, the Occupying Power shall take into consideration the moral and ethical susceptibilities of the population of the occupied territory.
Article 59 “If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal. Such schemes, which may be undertaken either by States or by impartial humanitarian organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, shall consist, in particular, of the provision of consignments of foodstuffs, medical supplies and clothing. All Contracting Parties shall permit the free passage of these consignments and shall guarantee their protection. [...]”
Article 60 “Relief consignments shall in no way relieve the Occupying Power of any of its responsibilities under Articles 55, 56 and 59. The Occupying Power shall in no way whatsoever divert relief consignments from the purpose for which they are intended, except in cases of urgent necessity, in the interests of the population of the occupied territory and with the consent of the Protecting Power.”
Notes: (1) For the entire Fourth Geneva Convention, look here: <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/ menu3/b/92.htm>