The Future of the Palestinian State

Report on an international workshop in Berlin, December 6 - 8, 2000,
jointly organized by Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) and German Churches Development Service (EED)

Summary

Since the violent confrontations started at the end of September 2000, the peace process between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) seems to have come to a complete halt. The conflicting parties and the international community currently focus on short-term crisis management and the search for ways out of the spiral of violence.

As a result, questions pertaining to the future of the region as well as to the practical design of a two-state-solution and of Palestinian statehood have once again receded to the background. Once more, fundamental decisions on the character of the Palestinian State rank second behind the efforts to liberate from occupation and to declare independence.

Therefore, this conference was intended to provide a forum for discussing essential elements of a viable Palestinian state. In addition to the territorial prerequisites, this included, in particular, the specific design of the political, economic and social system.

The Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation and the German Churches Development Service wanted to provide an opportunity for a comprehensive exchange of ideas on the essential elements of a Palestinian State. The organizers intended to provide a platform enabling the Palestinian governmental and civil society organizations to give their assessment of the debate and developments so far and to present and discuss various options to an interested German audience. Leading German and international experts, politicians and practitioners from the field of development co-operation contributed their analyses and experiences. Thus a lively and multi-faceted discussion took place.

The workshop was opened by Ernst Kerbusch, Head of Division for International Cooperation, FES, and Konrad von Bonin, Chairman of EED.

The Palestinian perspective of the future Palestinian State with regards to the political, economic and human resources spheres was presented by:
Ziad Abu Amr (Palestinian Legislative Council), Chair of the Political Committee)
Rawya Shawwa (Palestinian Legislative Council)
Mustafa Barghouti (Palestinian NGO-Network)
Khader Shquirat ( Law-Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment)
Abdul Rahman Tamimi (Palestinian Hydrology Group)
Rana Nashashibi (Palestinian Counseling Center)

The European perspective of the future Palestinian State was presented by:
Christoph Moosbauer (MP, Rapporteur on Near and Middle East Issues for the SPD Faction in the German Bundestag)
Muriel Asseburg (FES Jerusalem)
Jan Blum (German Bank for Reconstruction and Development /KfW)
Eberhard Rhein (European Policy Center)
Angela Grünert (Journalist)
Henning Niederhoff (German Development Service /DED)

The sessions were moderated by:
Dagmar Schmidt (MP, Chairperson of the Israel Discussion Group)
Andrä Gärber (FES)
Volker Perthes (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik)
Matthes Buhbe (Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Jerusalem)
Annette Jünemann (University of Kassel)
The summary was done by Nabil Khatib (Media Institute of Birzeit University) and Corrie Roeper (Interchurch Council for Development Cooperation).

Introduction

Seven years have passed since the signing of the Oslo Accords between Yasser Arafat (PLO) and Isaac Rabin (Israel).

In these seven years, seven interim agreements were signed between the parties in order to implement the Declaration of Principles signed in Washington on September 13th, 1993, known as the Oslo Accords. But the agreements have led to an explosion of violence and confrontation starting on September 29th, 2000.

The experience of Palestinians and Israelis has been that the interim agreements, due to different reasons, have never led to a just situation. The process so far has shown that there are basic needs for the Palestinians that will be to the benefit of both sides, such as:

Sovereignty over territory and borders
Free passage to neighboring countries
Geographic integrity
Control over resources (human and natural)
Control over Jerusalem

This is needed for the future Palestinian State mainly to satisfy for:
1. cultural,
2. geographic,
3. economic needs
and not only for historical and religious reasons, as Jerusalem is the geographical and business center of Palestinian life.

Stability in the region is strongly related to an independent, prosperous, democratic, pacific Palestinian State.

It is still unclear in which direction the development is heading, but due to the experiences in the Palestinian nation’s modern history, there seem to be the following options:

Options for the political system: democracy or well-masked dictatorship?

The possible scenarios for the Palestinian political system should be considered in the context of the new situation in which they most probably will become reality in the future (i.e., in a few years) – a new situation which will be a post-Arafat era and a post-war era.

In a well-masked dictatorship, the political system that Palestinians will have is prone to be:

no democratic system,
no rotation of power,
no accountability,
no respect for human rights,
no freedom of expression and press.

Also, in a well-masked dictatorship, we can expect:

a high ratio of birth (4-5%) ,
a lot of educated experts who are NOT absorbed,
a climate for poverty and crimes
chaos and the desire for immigration to the US and Europe.

What if democracy?

What is the political system that Palestinians would like to have? They would like to have a political system which is:

a democratic system,
with rotation of power,
with accountability of the government,
with respect for human rights,
with freedom of expression and of the press.

What would the economic system in a Palestinian democracy look like? It would involve:

modern rational planning,
a high-tech industry in co-operation with Israel,
not being based on agriculture (because there is no water),
interdependence with Israeli economy,
more Palestinian-Arab Economic co-operation,
modern investment legislation,
a free market economy,
co-operation between Palestinian universities and the economy in planning for education,
less monopolies.

Human resources in democracy would be used more efficient and in a more participatory way:

attempts to have a social security system,
rational plans to reduce the high ratio of birth,
involvement of highly educated and specialized experts in planning and in the private sector,
all this will produce the climate for a viable economy
and the desire for an integration in the global economic competition and cooperation.

Conclusion

Only an independent, democratic, economically viable Palestinian State will have the chance for prosperity. And only such a state will fulfill the basic conditions to be a pacific state. Only in this case, there will be a real hope for real peace in the region.

How to contribute to a future Palestinian state from a European perspective?

During the seminar no doubts were expressed that a Palestinian state should become reality in the near future. It was also generally agreed upon that the Palestinian state should be a democratic and pluralistic one, and has to be socially, economically and ecologically viable. It has to be realised taking into account the relevant UN resolutions, meaning respecting the Green Line and recognising the right of return of the Palestinian refugees.

What European states, institutions and NGOs should not do?

Several times the discussion referred to international efforts and actions that do not help to get a state with the character desired. Apparently the general principle agreed upon for conflict areas, the one of "Do no harm" cannot be repeated enough.. Seven problematic actions were mentioned, and one main, overarching principle, which should be adhered to:

1. Do not encourage any violation of human rights, like arbitrary arrests and setting up of security courts, because of so-called security reasons. There is a real chance that Palestine might end up as a dictatorship.
2. Do not allow corruption for the sake of having a strong leadership, or the peace process continuing. It will have a negative impact on democracy.
3. Do not subsidise a huge state apparatus that is not economic viable and not encouraging pluralism for the sake of the peace process.
4. Do not take some good looking items for the own constituency from a Palestinian Authority shopping list of wishes and pretend to support overall economic and democratic development of Palestine. An example is the huge support that many Western states gave to the Palestinian police. This police is counterproductive for a sound economy, and it does not stop corruption - to the contrary. At the same time, there is a huge gap in legislation in Palestine. More support for developing the legal profession seems to be more needed.
Do not pretend that joint is the same as equal rights. With so-called joint border control there is Palestinian fake control and Israeli real control. With joint economic projects there is Israeli economic profit, and growing dependency for Palestine. All joint projects did not stop Palestinian poverty to increase. Moreover, it was said that there are joint projects, like the Industrial Park near Jenin, that do ecological damage to Palestine.
5. Do not pretend things will solve with time, while in practice over the last seven years the situation has grown worse for the Palestinians. Examples are the situation of the refugees, especially those in Lebanon, the question of Jerusalem - surrounded by settlements, cut into pieces by bypass roads, and economically isolated - , the expansion of the settlements, and the growing scarcity of water for the Palestinians.
6. Do not pretend that the Oslo process will be a solution for all Palestinians who want Palestinian statehood. The question of the refugees is not solved yet, and the situation of Palestinians inside the Green Line is worse than it has been in many years.
7. The overarching principle is: Do not pressure Palestinians into a framework for peace, the Oslo agreements, which have proven not to work.
8. Finally I would like to add what I perceived in between the lines in the discussions about democracy: Do not tell Palestinians to work for democracy in a state that will only be a symbolic state, without any real sovereignty.

How can European countries, institutions and NGOs contribute?

Like it is often the case, it is more difficult to know what to do, than telling what is wrong. Some possible actions are clear, some need further debate. First the ones were there is agreement upon:

1. Give support to Palestinian civil society and institutions, support institution building and building and rehabilitation of infrastructure.
This has to be done from a perspective of contributing to human development, building of a civil society with a culture of human rights and having a countervailing power. There is not just a need for physical rehabilitation; also human and social rehabilitation is needed. Therefore people need trauma healing, and to reconcile with the past. For this it is essential to recognise that wrong has been done to the Palestinians.

2. Put pressure on Israel.
It has been clearly said by some Palestinian speakers, and not been denied by any other speaker. But it has not really been discussed and been spelled out how. So I want to mention some possibilities.

First there is diplomatic pressure.
Second the support to so-called joint projects has to be stopped. This includes the projects in which Israel has the main voice and in which most of the money goes to Israel. The Netherlands government has supported several economic projects through the Peres Institute for Peace. The Palestinians counterparts have now asked for direct support to them. Also support to the so-called people to people projects that do not contribute to reconciliation and equal rights has to be stopped. This certainly needs to be taken up with the EU.
Do stop the trade preferences Israel gets from the EU. Israel needs to be kept to the human rights clause it has signed.

The third possible area of action has been more debated:
3. Europe as a mediator.
It was asked for by Palestinians, and it was said that Europe should not do this, because the US is already playing that role. And because first of all the two parties have to negotiate among themselves. There is a tendency in Europe to behave as if two equal partners are negotiating, and they have a neutral mediator. There are no two equal parties, and the mediator is clearly in favour of Israel. I want to say that during seven years the USA did not produce positive results and has proven not to be neutral. I am sure that if Europe had been the mediator the USA would have intervened a long time ago.

The fourth possible area of action was not debated much, can be an interesting one, but also questionable:
4. Europe in a military role, as a UN intervention or peacekeeping force?
It could be an interesting contribution. Israel clearly does not want it at the moment and the Palestinians have asked for UN protection. Some European journalists and NGOs are starting to discuss this option. Since the beginning of October, ICCO has advocated it. But after some recent articles I also have doubts. The long-term contribution of such an intervention will depend upon the framework in which it takes place. Will European forces be used to protect Israeli settlers? To keep Palestinians out of Jerusalem? Will it help Israel in saving on military expenses and on saving lives of Israeli soldiers? Might Europe, with the UN, become the new occupying force instead of Israel? This will not contribute to Palestinian sovereignty. But under a clear mandate, within the mandate of the relevant UN resolutions, like 194, 242, etc., well discussed with the Palestinian Authority and civil society, it can certainly improve the security of the Palestinians. A UN intervention force can save many lives, provided that the Israeli army really will completely withdraw. It can stop destruction of Palestinian infrastructure. But a European contribution to a UN intervention force cannot substitute for Europe actively contributing to the realization of a future viable Palestinian state.

Responsible: Werner Puschra
Werner.Puschra[at]FES.de
and Sieglinde Weinbrenner
eze-africa-2[at]eze.org)

For further information please refer to
www.fes.de/,
www.fespal.com/ and
www.fes.org.il/.