Political Upheaval in Israel and Peace Negotiations
HIRAYAMA Kentaro / Former NHK commentator
September 30, 2008
The Israeli government party Kadima elected Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni as its leader, defeating Minister of Transportation Shaul Mofaz, her hawkish opposing candidate, following the resignation of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who faced criminal indictment in corruption probes. Although Livni intends to keep the past policy-line of creating a state of Palestine, she will have to call for general elections in three months unless she succeeds within 42 days in selecting the members of a new cabinet for a coalition government. Moreover, there are possibilities that former Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu who had opposed to negotiate peace with the Palestinians might come back as leader of the ruling party, and in the United States the presidential election will take place at around the same time which might bring about a blank and meandering period for peace negotiations to proceed in the Middle East.
Now let us look back upon the past record of how much progress the peace talks with the Palestinian side have achieved under the Olmert administration. Whether it was due to his political intention to stay in power, or his wish to have his name recorded in history, nobody knows. Whatever his motives may be, however, Olmert intentionally leaked to some members of the Israeli press the general outline of the "latest Israeli proposal" in secret negotiations with the Palestinians as the party leader re-election time approached. The information said: Israel will annex 7 percent of the adjoining parcels of land on the West Bank of the Jordan River and in exchange, Palestine will get land adjacent to Gaza from Israeli territory the size of which is 5.5% of the West Bank. The "sovereignty" of the road linking the "West Bank" with Gaza would be handed over to Palestinians, thus making ground for an argument that Israel returned 100% of occupied land to Palestinians. Compared to the past Israeli position that the area to be annexed by Israel would be somewhere around 12 to 13 percent, it is certain that the Israeli side has apparently offered a greater concession.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian side is not too happy about the Israeli proposal which does not say anything about the handover of the east Jerusalem or the right of return of the Palestinian refugees broken up by the birth of the state of Israel. Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos' statement, however, that PLO's Chairman Mahmout Abbas is seriously studying the Israeli proposition is drawing world-wide attention.
Another thing worthy of note is the U.S. government's attitude. American Consul General in Jerusalem who was in charge of the Palestinian Authority quoting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said in regard to the outline of the state of Palestine that the basis of the border line should be the one which existed before the 1967 war, including east Jerusalem, but this could be changeable by mutual consent. The Palestinian newspapers reported it and the Israeli press quoted the report. Right-wingers in Israel immediately expressed criticism but it is interesting the U.S. government has not denied or made any explanation about it. Unfortunately, the comment came too late.
Since the 1967 war, the international community, including the U.S., has referred to the U.N. Security Council resolution 242 as the legal basis of peace in the Middle East, whose chief provision is the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 war and peaceful coexistence of states "within secure and recognized boundaries." Israel, however, has maintained that the boundaries prior to the ‘67 conflict when Arab countries had not acknowledged Israel as a state were nothing but simple "ceasefire lines," and the so-called "occupied territories" beyond the lines were just "disputed regions." Only at the stage when the boundaries and the areas from where Israelis withdraw are determined by agreement with the Palestinian side, according to Israeli interpretation it will become clear for the first time where the occupied territories were. Thus, it is a very cynical situation.
Israel's hard-line approach against the fourth Geneva Convention (Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949）which condemns settlements in occupied areas as illegal as well as successive American governments' unclear attitude toward the illegality of the occupied lands are considered to be attributable to the ambiguousness of the convention terms.
Meanwhile, since the start of the 21st century, an understanding about the creation of an independent state of Palestine has been confirmed in the international society, including the U.N. Security Council, and the issue of boundaries is under review from the standpoint of a contiguous and viable state of Palestine. The Hague International Court of Justice ruled the "separation wall" built by Israel in the West Bank illegal and called for a comprehensive solution through negotiation. This is also an indication of change of trends in the current situation.
It is strongly hoped, therefore, that the in-coming administrations in America and Israel will pay due attention to the new trends and endeavor to make progress in peace negotiations.
The Writer is a former NHK commentator.
Now let us look back upon the past record of how much progress the peace talks with the Palestinian side have achieved under the Olmert administration. Whether it was due to his political intention to stay in power, or his wish to have his name recorded in history, nobody knows. Whatever his motives may be, however, Olmert intentionally leaked to some members of the Israeli press the general outline of the "latest Israeli proposal" in secret negotiations with the Palestinians as the party leader re-election time approached. The information said: Israel will annex 7 percent of the adjoining parcels of land on the West Bank of the Jordan River and in exchange, Palestine will get land adjacent to Gaza from Israeli territory the size of which is 5.5% of the West Bank. The "sovereignty" of the road linking the "West Bank" with Gaza would be handed over to Palestinians, thus making ground for an argument that Israel returned 100% of occupied land to Palestinians. Compared to the past Israeli position that the area to be annexed by Israel would be somewhere around 12 to 13 percent, it is certain that the Israeli side has apparently offered a greater concession.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian side is not too happy about the Israeli proposal which does not say anything about the handover of the east Jerusalem or the right of return of the Palestinian refugees broken up by the birth of the state of Israel. Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos' statement, however, that PLO's Chairman Mahmout Abbas is seriously studying the Israeli proposition is drawing world-wide attention.
Another thing worthy of note is the U.S. government's attitude. American Consul General in Jerusalem who was in charge of the Palestinian Authority quoting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said in regard to the outline of the state of Palestine that the basis of the border line should be the one which existed before the 1967 war, including east Jerusalem, but this could be changeable by mutual consent. The Palestinian newspapers reported it and the Israeli press quoted the report. Right-wingers in Israel immediately expressed criticism but it is interesting the U.S. government has not denied or made any explanation about it. Unfortunately, the comment came too late.
Since the 1967 war, the international community, including the U.S., has referred to the U.N. Security Council resolution 242 as the legal basis of peace in the Middle East, whose chief provision is the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 war and peaceful coexistence of states "within secure and recognized boundaries." Israel, however, has maintained that the boundaries prior to the ‘67 conflict when Arab countries had not acknowledged Israel as a state were nothing but simple "ceasefire lines," and the so-called "occupied territories" beyond the lines were just "disputed regions." Only at the stage when the boundaries and the areas from where Israelis withdraw are determined by agreement with the Palestinian side, according to Israeli interpretation it will become clear for the first time where the occupied territories were. Thus, it is a very cynical situation.
Israel's hard-line approach against the fourth Geneva Convention (Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949）which condemns settlements in occupied areas as illegal as well as successive American governments' unclear attitude toward the illegality of the occupied lands are considered to be attributable to the ambiguousness of the convention terms.
Meanwhile, since the start of the 21st century, an understanding about the creation of an independent state of Palestine has been confirmed in the international society, including the U.N. Security Council, and the issue of boundaries is under review from the standpoint of a contiguous and viable state of Palestine. The Hague International Court of Justice ruled the "separation wall" built by Israel in the West Bank illegal and called for a comprehensive solution through negotiation. This is also an indication of change of trends in the current situation.
It is strongly hoped, therefore, that the in-coming administrations in America and Israel will pay due attention to the new trends and endeavor to make progress in peace negotiations.
The Writer is a former NHK commentator.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
イスラエル政変と和平交渉
平山健太郎 / 元ＮＨＫ解説委員
2008年 9月 30日
イスラエルの政権与党カディマ（前進）は、オルメルト首相の収賄容疑による続投の断念を受けて行われた党内の選挙で、リヴニ外相がタカ派の対立候補であるモファズ交通相を破り党首に選任された。リヴニ党首は、パレスチナ国家の創設を目標にしたこれまでの路線を続ける方針だが、42日以内に新しい連立政権に向けた組閣工作がまとまらない場合、3か月以内には総選挙が義務付けられており、パレスチナ側との和平交渉の継続に難色を締める右翼野党リクード（ネタニヤフ元首相）の政権復帰も有力視されているだけに、アメリカの政権交代に伴う空白の時期とも重なり、和平交渉の行方には曲折が予想される。
ここで、オルメルト政権下でのパレスチナ側との交渉がどこまで煮詰まっていたかを振り返って見ておこう。自らの政治的な延命策であったか、業績を歴史にとどめたい欲求に駆られたものであったか、動機は別として、オルメルト首相は党首の改選間近に、これまで秘密裏に進められていたパレスチナ側との交渉の「到着点」の内容を、イスラエルの一部報道関係者に意図的に漏らしている。イスラエル本来の領土に隣接するヨルダン川西岸の７％をイスラエルが併合し、その替え地としてガザに隣接する５．５％に相当する土地をイスラエル領土からパレスチナ側に提供。「西岸」とガザを結ぶ道路の「主権」もパレスチナ側に譲って、西岸占領地の１００％をパレスチナ側に返還したことにする・・・というのが概要だ。西岸でのイスラエルの併合地域を１２－１３％としてきた今年前半の立場に比べ、イスラエル側の「譲歩」の幅が広がっているのは確かなようだ。
これに対しパレスチナ側は、東エルサレムの返還が含まれていないことや、イスラエルの建国により離散したパレスチナ難民の帰国権に触れられてないことなどイスラエル側の提案に強い不満を表明してはいるが、交渉の内容に精通しているスペインのマルディノス外相の「アパス議長がオルメルト提案を真剣に検討している」という発言が、微妙なタイミングだけに注目されている。
もう一つ注目しておきたいのはアメリカ政府の言動だ。パレスチナ暫定自治政府との対応に当っている米エルサレム総領事の談話として、ライス国務長官が、パレスチナ国家の輪郭について「束エルサレムも含め、67年戦争以前の境界線がベースであり、双方の同意により変更が可能」と考えている・・・という内容だ。パレスチナ側の新聞がその内容を掲載し、イスラエルの新聞がそのまま転載した。イスラエルの右翼勢力の間で早速物議をかもしているが、アメリカ当局は否定も釈明もしていない点が興味深い。なぜもっと早く・・・という恨みも残る。
67年戦争以来、中東和平の法的な基盤としてアメリカを含む国際社会が引き合いにしてきたのは、国連安全保証理事会決議２４２号である。６７年戦争の占領地からのイスラエルの撤退と、「承認された境界線の中での」地域の諸国の共存がその骨子だ。しかしイスラエル側は、アラブ側がイスラエルを国家として承認していなかった６７年戦争以前の境界線は、国境線ではない単なる「休戦ライン」に過ぎず、この線を越えたいわゆる「占領地」は「係争地」に過ぎないと主張してきた。パレスチナ側との合意で境界線やイスラエルの撤退の範囲が決まった段階で、どこが占領地で「あった」のかが初めてはっきりする・・・という極めて皮肉な状況だ。占領地への入植を違法とするジュネーブ第四条約をめぐるイスラエル側の強硬な姿勢も、占領地の違法性をめぐる歴代アメリカ政府の煮え切らない言動も、その辺の曖昧さに起因していたと言えるだろう。
しかし２１世紀に入り、パレスチナ独立国家の創立という処方箋が安保理を含めた国際社会の中で定着するようになって、「連続性を持ち、自立可能な」（contiguous and viable）パレスチナ国土の輪郭という観点から問題が見直されている・・・と言ってよかろう。ハーグの国際司法裁判所が、イスラエル政府が建設中の西岸での｛分離壁｝を国際法上の違法行為であると断定した上、交渉による包括的な解決を呼びかけているのも、流れの変化をうかがわせる動きだ。
イスラエルとアメリカの次期政権が、これらの点に留意して和平交渉を前進させることを強く望みたい。
（筆者は元ＮＨＫ解説委員。）
ここで、オルメルト政権下でのパレスチナ側との交渉がどこまで煮詰まっていたかを振り返って見ておこう。自らの政治的な延命策であったか、業績を歴史にとどめたい欲求に駆られたものであったか、動機は別として、オルメルト首相は党首の改選間近に、これまで秘密裏に進められていたパレスチナ側との交渉の「到着点」の内容を、イスラエルの一部報道関係者に意図的に漏らしている。イスラエル本来の領土に隣接するヨルダン川西岸の７％をイスラエルが併合し、その替え地としてガザに隣接する５．５％に相当する土地をイスラエル領土からパレスチナ側に提供。「西岸」とガザを結ぶ道路の「主権」もパレスチナ側に譲って、西岸占領地の１００％をパレスチナ側に返還したことにする・・・というのが概要だ。西岸でのイスラエルの併合地域を１２－１３％としてきた今年前半の立場に比べ、イスラエル側の「譲歩」の幅が広がっているのは確かなようだ。
これに対しパレスチナ側は、東エルサレムの返還が含まれていないことや、イスラエルの建国により離散したパレスチナ難民の帰国権に触れられてないことなどイスラエル側の提案に強い不満を表明してはいるが、交渉の内容に精通しているスペインのマルディノス外相の「アパス議長がオルメルト提案を真剣に検討している」という発言が、微妙なタイミングだけに注目されている。
もう一つ注目しておきたいのはアメリカ政府の言動だ。パレスチナ暫定自治政府との対応に当っている米エルサレム総領事の談話として、ライス国務長官が、パレスチナ国家の輪郭について「束エルサレムも含め、67年戦争以前の境界線がベースであり、双方の同意により変更が可能」と考えている・・・という内容だ。パレスチナ側の新聞がその内容を掲載し、イスラエルの新聞がそのまま転載した。イスラエルの右翼勢力の間で早速物議をかもしているが、アメリカ当局は否定も釈明もしていない点が興味深い。なぜもっと早く・・・という恨みも残る。
67年戦争以来、中東和平の法的な基盤としてアメリカを含む国際社会が引き合いにしてきたのは、国連安全保証理事会決議２４２号である。６７年戦争の占領地からのイスラエルの撤退と、「承認された境界線の中での」地域の諸国の共存がその骨子だ。しかしイスラエル側は、アラブ側がイスラエルを国家として承認していなかった６７年戦争以前の境界線は、国境線ではない単なる「休戦ライン」に過ぎず、この線を越えたいわゆる「占領地」は「係争地」に過ぎないと主張してきた。パレスチナ側との合意で境界線やイスラエルの撤退の範囲が決まった段階で、どこが占領地で「あった」のかが初めてはっきりする・・・という極めて皮肉な状況だ。占領地への入植を違法とするジュネーブ第四条約をめぐるイスラエル側の強硬な姿勢も、占領地の違法性をめぐる歴代アメリカ政府の煮え切らない言動も、その辺の曖昧さに起因していたと言えるだろう。
しかし２１世紀に入り、パレスチナ独立国家の創立という処方箋が安保理を含めた国際社会の中で定着するようになって、「連続性を持ち、自立可能な」（contiguous and viable）パレスチナ国土の輪郭という観点から問題が見直されている・・・と言ってよかろう。ハーグの国際司法裁判所が、イスラエル政府が建設中の西岸での｛分離壁｝を国際法上の違法行為であると断定した上、交渉による包括的な解決を呼びかけているのも、流れの変化をうかがわせる動きだ。
イスラエルとアメリカの次期政権が、これらの点に留意して和平交渉を前進させることを強く望みたい。
（筆者は元ＮＨＫ解説委員。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟