The Flawed Application of ‘Normalisation’ for Peace Building in Palestine
Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin shake hands outside of the White House after agreement over the Oslo Accords (1993).
Amongst the media storm that followed the 11 day Israeli massacre carried out in Gaza this past May, calls for a peaceful solution to end the bloodshed have been heard louder than ever before. Built off of an ill-informed understanding of ‘normalisation', many such solutions have come and gone, and where applied, produced more disastrous consequences than they came to solve. So what exactly does this term ‘normalisation’ mean, and who does it serve?
To onlookers who have little to no knowledge on the origins of the state of Israel, and those who have internalised the western understanding of the Palestinian struggle, normalisation would seem to make sense. Calling for two rival states to view each other and their populations as equals, meaning to either shake hands under a new order inspired by an older, more palatable one, or to forget past strategies and proceed with a clean slate. This, they propose, creates a hopeful, promising future for both parties.
However, their suggestion highlights that those who advocate normalisation carry with them the preconceived notion that the two parties involved in a conflict are always equals in ability. Such a stance requires a complete oversight of history - however ugly it may be.
A glance at the historical record of the so-called ‘peace process’ in Palestine- where this term has been habitually misused - allows us to see the problems with seeking ‘normalisation’ in a situation wherein there has never existed a ‘normal’ bilateral relationship. In reality, the relationship is only a contemporary re-configuration of the relationship between the occupier and the occupied. It highlights how this very balance of power affects the terms of normalisation, often tipping it in favour of the more powerful faction.
The next section will develop this discussion.
Normalisation in perspective: a glance into the historical record
The Foundations of the Zionist Regime
If normalisation means the return to better relations, finding a point in history where relations have been satisfactory is a difficult task.
From its very inception, the Zionist state has built itself off the trampling of Palestinian rights. The Balfour Declarations which declared a national homeland for the Jewish people, did so without any Palestinian agreement, though they made up 90% of the population [1]. A series of policies seeking to make this ‘national homeland’ a reality by forcefully displacing Palestinian populations through land grabs and mass displacements, meant that Palestinians have only seen decades of turmoil since the birth of the Zionist regime. There has been no equality of status, nor forms of recompense for the above violations of international law. Thus, seeking to reinstate some form of return to an imagined past where relations were somewhat ‘better’’ is futile, as it never existed to begin with.
This history of violence, expulsion and oppression cannot be forgotten, as it is this history which continues to form the backdrop of any solution to the Palestinian occupation, as well as the Palestinian stance within negotiations. Attempting to deny or erase this reality, as has been done in most peace talks, has only exacerbated the apathy towards them.
The failure of the Oslo Accords
On the other hand, if normalisation means the turning of a new leaf and forgetting the history of Palestinian subjugation, we do not need to imagine what this might look like, since we have seen it in action through the outcomes of the Oslo Accords where the PLO was first recognised by Israel, and the Palestinian Authority first formed.
Under this so-called peace process, the West Bank (WB) was divided into areas A, making up 18%, Area B making up 22%, and Area C making up 60%, of which both areas A and C were supposed to be under full jurisdiction of the PA [2].
In reality though, none of this materialised, with Israel having full external security control over area A and full control of area C, including that of its economy, construction, and development [3], tripling the number of illegal settlements in the West Bank that were maintained by the same oppressive policies used in the years prior - the vast majority of which remain in area C.
In this way, a peace process said to normalise ties between Israel and Palestine, paving the way towards a two-state solution, ended with the expansion of settler colonialism and suffocation of the Palestinian liberation movement, highlighting one of the key failures of policies built off of a flawed application of normalisation. Any policy made in the name of normalisation thus far has tended towards the desires of the more powerful faction, creating no possibility for both parties to talk on equal terms; it is the occupier who has set the terms, and it is the occupier who has reaped its benefits.
American endorsement of the occupier’s status quo
America’s conceptual understanding of normalisation means the negotiation of peace in line with their allies; those who have sustained the balance of power with US help.
Not only was this evident in the Oslo Accords, but more recently in Trump's Middle East Plan which included the establishment of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the refusal of the right to return for Palestinians who were forcefully displaced, and the go ahead for Israeli annexation of the Jordan Valley [4] in Area C - a piece of fertile land which was found lucrative for Israeli companies seeking to exploit Palestinian resources, and home to around 65,000 Palestinians [5]. As of 2021, Biden is yet to make any significant changes to these policy implementations.
Normalisation requires an equal playing field for all parties involved; there can be no normalisation where there is no balance of power, especially when we are discussing it in relation to the hierarchical arrangement between occupier and occupied. Yet, as exemplified by these supposed peace deals and negotiations brokered by the West, the meaning and application of normalisation where there are uneven power dynamics is hijacked and gravely distorted by being made with the more powerful faction and its allies in mind.
Conclusion
As the historical record of the peace process in Palestine shows, built into the very essence of normalisation is the silent acceptance and continuation of the Palestinian occupation. This is because we are not using any universal definition of normalisation to integrate into policies, but one that exacerbates the power imbalance by putting the more powerful factions' desire for the status quo to be maintained at the forefront of any deal.
There are lessons to be learned from this history, all of which point to there being little hope for peace between Palestine and Israel when this very relationship is reflective of the colonial power imbalance produced by the occupier-occupied relationship. This is the very problem with solutions built off of this pacifist understanding of normalisation such as the so-called two-state solution, which does nothing to counter this imbalance of power.
Any attempt at ‘normalisation’ would necessitate the complete reintegration of displaced Palestinian populations into their land, governmental control placed back into their hands, and a complete overhaul of the settler colonial system which was imposed on Palestine in 1917. Only once this is achieved will there be any justice done to the kind of normalisation we should aspire to; one that doesn't ignore or minimise the consequences of settler-colonialism, but seeks to entirely collapse this system of oppression.
Sourced Used:
[1] Illan Pappe, ‘The Palestine peace process: unlearned lessons of history'- https://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-palestine-peace-process-unlearned-lessons-of-history
[2] Al Jazeera, Palestine Remix, https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/palestineremix/the-price-of-oslo.html#/14
[3] Al Jazeera, ‘What are areas A, B, and C of the occupied West Bank?’ - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/9/11/what-are-areas-a-b-and-c-of-the-occupied-west-bank
[4] Oliver Holmes, et al, ‘Trump unveils Middle East peace plan with no Palestinian support,’ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/28/donald-trump-middle-east-peace-plan-israel-netanyahu-palestinians
[5] Ian Black, “This ‘deal of the century’ for the Middle East will be just another bleak milestone,” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/30/donald-trump-israel-palestinians-middle-east
[6] Noam Chomsky & Ilan Pappe, On Palestine