Is there an Occupation or isn't there? For years Israel has rejected the term "occupation" in reference to the Palestinian Territories. But now that settlers have been evacuated from Gaza it is Israel, and not Palestinians, who insist on using the "O" word.

by Daoud Kuttab

by Hisham Ahmed

One of the reasons Benjamin Netanyahu cited when he tendered his resignation on August 7 was that he did not want to be a party to what he called "concessions" to the Palestinian side without Israel getting anything in return.

Indeed, on the surface it might seem strange that an Israeli prime minister should evacuate settlements unilaterally without securing anything from the Palestinian Authority in negotiations.

But that would certainly be a superficial interpretation of why Ariel Sharon chose to withdraw from settlements unilaterally. On the contrary, Sharon, it seems, is intent on going down in history as the only modern-day Israeli prime minister, a list that includes Netanyahu, who has consistently and utterly refused to negotiate with the Palestinian side--whether the Palestinian Authority or the PLO. In this way, he is unique among Israeli leaders since the Oslo Accords were signed.

by Daoud Kuttab

The upcoming Israeli unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the mess of the wall around East Jerusalem have been producing some unusual statements and positions not heard of since 1967.

Members of the Israeli Knesset and other right wing Israelis, angry at the possibility that permits will be needed to visit settlers in the Gaza Strip, came up with some interesting statements.

Despite official Israeli assurances that requests for visits to the Gaza settlers will be processed within eight hours, the response was explosive. "These decisions are inhuman," said one. Another called the closure of the Gaza Strip, where nearly 8,000 Jewish settlers live, "undemocratic". Others complained about this "collective punishment".

Well, what about the Palestinians who have been experiencing the closure of the territories for the past five years? Palestinians need permits to travel from one city to another. Those wishing to visit relatives or acquaintances in Jerusalem have needed a permit since 1993. Even with a permit, no Palestinian from outside Jerusalem is allowed to sleep overnight or drive his own car to reach relatives, friends, cultural centres or religious locations. With a few exceptions, visitor visas for Arabs wishing to visit the occupied territories or Israel have been repeatedly rejected by Israeli embassies in Amman and Cairo.

by Issa Samandar

Israeli strategists are not mistaken in identifying the settlement project as an intrinsic component in defining the territory of the Jewish state. Historical precedents, from the 1947 UN Partition Plan through to the "Clinton Parameters" of December 2000, have reinforced their belief that by manifesting a presence--no matter how small or how unjustly--on Palestinian land, eventual sovereignty is achieved, recognized and rendered irreversible.

The "tool" of settlement building, rather than that of diplomacy, is in fact Israel's first choice in creating, preserving and expanding a sovereign presence. As such, its seemingly extraordinary cost--in terms of political "awkwardness" as well as financial investment--is readily justified.

In the two years following the signing of the Oslo Declaration of Principles, the Rabin government presided over West Bank land confiscations averaging 220 dunums a day and totaling 170 square km. Although the current rate is less steep, the expansion has continued. The territory that today falls under settlement control is nearly half the total West Bank area.

by Yossi Alpher

The only recorded instance of settler leaders and Palestinian leaders discussing the possibility of settlers remaining on Palestinian territory after Israeli withdrawal, took place ten years ago in talks I organized in Jerusalem. The discussion of the issue is recorded in And the wolf shall dwell with the wolf: the settlers and the Palestinians, a book (in Hebrew) I published four years ago. Some of the statements made then have only now become truly relevant.

Hassan Asfour, chief Palestinian negotiator: "We want a democratic country. The presence of Jews will help us ensure democracy, and will also enable us to serve as a bridge between Israel and the Arab world. As for the settlements per se, they are a consequence of occupation. Where their location doesn't constitute a problem for us, we'll consider the possibility of leaving them in place. But not before a Palestinian state comes into being in Gaza and the West Bank. . . . [A] settler can remain . . . as an individual. . . . "

Khalil Shikaki, leading Palestinian political scientist: "I understand [the settlers'] ideological motivation. But why . . . insist on national sovereignty? I came . . . to see whether I'm correct or not when I assume that ideologically-motivated Jews want to live in the Land of Israel for reasons that transcend politics."

Palestinians and Israelis Disagree on how to Proceed with the Peace Process

By Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research and Harry S. Truman Research Institute

The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in Ramallah and the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, conducted a joint survey of Palestinian and Israeli public opinion between March 8 and 13 , 2005.

The poll was designed to examine the preferences of Palestinians and Israelis on how to proceed with the peace process, their attitudes towards the disengagement plan, and their attitudes towards reconciliation after Arafat’s death.

by Ghassan Khatib

The unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza is creating more problems than solutions both in Israel and Palestine.

In Palestine, the Palestinian Authority and the relevant donor parties including the World Bank are unable to identify any benefit to Palestinians from the move. Politically it won't contribute to efforts to restart a peace process. Security-wise it won't serve to reduce violence because all the ingredients of that particular recipe--continued settlement expansions in the West Bank, the killings and arrests of Palestinians and crippling economic sanctions--will still be in place.

In Israel, meanwhile, the plan is being questioned vociferously. In the eyes of the Israeli right wing, Israel is paying a price without getting anything in return. More worryingly for a country where the military remains the backbone there have been serious threats of mutiny in the army, so serious that leading Israeli personalities within the government and military elite are wondering aloud whether such a withdrawal can really take place in this atmosphere.

In turn, these developments have created an increasingly heated debate about how Israel should respond to resistance to the withdrawal by Israelis. The main problematic here is how the army should behave if settlers should choose to refuse evacuation. The only two options Israel appears to have seem either ineffective or carry the danger of backfiring.