The Roadmap's Human Rights Gaps in Israeli-Palestinian Peace

Introduction and Background

The Roadmap for Peace may be an important step taken by the United States, Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations to ensure safety and end the conflict between Israel and Palestine. However, as explained below, the Roadmap does not adequately encompass recognized laws for the protection of human rights. While this limitation may not seem paramount in isolation, it is significant when the overall performance of the agreement is considered.

There is an extensive assumption that the disagreement between Israelis and Palestinians is multifaceted and that the U.S. has been and remains the greatest hope for peace. The reality, however, is quite different. For nearly thirty years, international agreements for peace in the Middle East have centered on the withdrawal of Israeli forces to internationally recognized boundaries in exchange for security assurances from Israel's neighbors, the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, a special status for a shared Jerusalem, and recognition of Palestinian refugee rights.

Throughout this period, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), under the leadership of Yasir Arafat, transitioned from engaging in terrorist actions and calling for Israel's destruction to sustaining international consensus for a two-state solution. Israeli public opinion evolved partly in this direction as well. Washington, however, has traditionally rejected international consensus, insisted on a significantly expanded Jerusalem under Israeli control, and opposed the right of Palestinian refugees to return home. The U.S. supports only partial Israeli withdrawal from occupied Palestinian territories and refuses to support Palestinian self-determination beyond limits Israel is willing to accept, nor will it pressure Israel to end its unlawful settlements and construction of Jewish-only roads.

The Palestinians fundamentally accepted Israeli control over 78 percent of Palestine—the territory within Israel's internationally recognized borders—in the 1993 Oslo Accords. Israelis, however, now inhabit over 60 percent of the remaining Palestinian territory in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, seized by Israel in the 1967 war. The remaining territory operates under the repressive control of the Palestinian National Authority, existing as a fragmented collection of limited autonomy that resembles American Indian reservations or the infamous Bantustans of apartheid-era South Africa more than a viable state.

During U.S.-mediated discussions at Camp David, Israelis offered to return most occupied territories to Palestinians. However, this fell far short of the complete withdrawal required under international law, which prohibits the expansion of any nation's territory by military force—a principle reaffirmed in UN Security Council Resolution 242, long considered the foundation for peace. The Israeli proposal also permitted continued Israeli control over unlawful Jewish settlements, military positions, and a system of elite highways throughout the West Bank and Gaza, fragmenting Palestinian territory into small, noncontiguous units and rendering a viable, economically feasible state nearly impossible.

Although the American public appears to robustly support Israel's right to exist and wants the U.S. to protect that right, there is rising concern about the excessive and unrestricted nature of U.S. assistance to Israel. Few elected officials, however, call for reduced aid, largely because U.S. support proceeds either through American weapons purchases or as interest payments to U.S. banks for prior loans. Despite Israel never being more militarily secure in its history, U.S. military support remains at unprecedented levels. Israel comprises only one one-thousandth of the world's population, and Israeli Jews enjoy the world's sixteenth-highest per capita income, yet Israel receives 40 percent of all U.S. overseas aid. Direct annual aid to Israel has exceeded $3.5 billion in recent years.