Applying Cypriot lessons to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict

[Bullika]

Applying Cypriot lessons to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict

By Ari Shuali
Special to The Daily Star
Monday, April 12, 2004


The wall that divides Cyprus between a northern part ruled by Cypriots of Turkish descent and a southern section led by Greek Cypriots, was built following the invasion of the island by the Turkish Army some 30 years ago.

The purpose of the wall was military security - preventing incursions, creating a defendable line of deployment and limiting possibilities of flat-trajectory fire. Yet at the same time it served political objectives, primarily those of the Turkish side. It redefined the border between the two ethnic groups with the objective of creating an infrastructure for two independent states, in accordance with the vision of the venerable leader of the Turkish part, Rauf Denktash.

With the passage of time, this wall became a symbol for both sides: of achievement for the Turkish Cypriots; and of oppression for their Greek counterparts. Nowadays, as the possibility of a solution to the conflict looks more probable, the wall stands to be dismantled. It will not serve as a border, and there will not be two independent states. Moreover, the wall has had little military relevance for some time. The solution being formulated in accordance with the plan of United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan is supposed to reflect a compromise that both sides can consider as a partial fulfillment of their goals.

The agreement will deal with territorial issues that will require the Turkish occupiers to withdraw from most of the areas they have held since the fighting and will confine them to the places where Turkish Cypriots dwelled prior to the war. The plan will also deal with issues of compensation for those who lost their lands and homes; with the removal of Turkish settlers brought to the island with the aim of altering its demographic balance; and with the political and judicial structure of authority, in order to ensure the rights of the Turkish minority as well as the capacity of the Greek majority to realize its priorities.

The agreement has been made possible at the current juncture in view of changes in regional political circumstances, and particularly an increase in both the opportunities enjoyed by each side as well as the dangers in not reaching an agreement. The leverage for an agreement is an external-international dynamic - the enlargement of the EU to include the Greek part of the island - but also the somewhat equivocal conditioning of Turkish EU membership upon a solution in Cyprus. In the background is a considerable gap of some $12,000 in GNP per capita between the thriving Greek Cypriot economy and the backward economy of Turkish Cyprus - to a large extent the product of an international embargo - which will only increase if Greek Cyprus joins the EU without the Turkish North.

At first glance, many of the components of the Cyprus conflict can be found in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both feature a struggle between two peoples, cultures and religions that feed into different values, frames of identity and attitudes. These find expression in nearly every context: political, economic and social.

At the political level, in both conflicts there is a struggle over territory, borders, withdrawal from territories captured in war, compensation for victims, removal of settlements and the status of the capital city. Economically there is a huge gap between a technologically developed economy and a largely agrarian economy that lags far behind.


On the other hand, there are significant differences and unique features that distinguish the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from that in Cyprus. Most centrally, while in Cyprus the solution lies in unifying the two parts of the island, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the future involves separating two sovereign states. Hence all the components of a solution that apply to the structure of a unified state and administration in Cyprus are not relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Further, in recent years the conflict in Cyprus has not been violent, while the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has involved endless bloodshed, drained the assets of both sides economically and psychologically, and effectively prevented formal dialogue between the two leaderships.

In Cyprus there exists a kind of symmetry and identity between the two opposing sides and their patrons in Greece and Turkey, with the EU enjoying a uniquely attractive status in the eyes of both parties and their patrons. There is no such symmetry in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While Israel is identified with the United States, the two in fact do not agree on the characteristics of a desired outcome, and disagreement between Israel and Europe regarding the future of the conflict goes far deeper. Palestine, for its part, relies on the Arab world, but suffers from inter-Arab disagreement and from conflicting Arab interests regarding a solution, while agreeing with the European view.

Nevertheless, and assuming no major geostrategic changes intervene, the principles formulated for Cyprus - particularly in those areas where the issues are similar - will ultimately confront whoever tries to mediate the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Whether that is the UN, the US or some other actor, the outlines of a Cyprus solution will show the way regarding return of territory, compensation, removal of settlers, integration of economies and ethnic-religious-national separation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Assuming that the fuel feeding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict eventually burns itself out as it did in Cyprus, and that the vicissitudes of history enable a third party to twist the arms of both sides while satisfying their vital needs and offering them a win-win formula - then the principles of the Annan plan are likely to be applied to Jerusalem and along the wall and lines separating the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.


Ari Shuali, a member of the board of the Strategic Dialogue Center at Netanya College, is a former official in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office. This commentary, which originally appeared on the Bitterlemons International website, is published by THE DAILY STAR in collaboration with the Common Ground News Service

[Dhavlos]

Interesting article,

Idid used to think that the arab-israeli and cyprus problems were kind of similar, and that if a cypriot solution was found, it could be ablue print for palestine/israel. However, i too noticed the differences....quite sad really

[garbitsch]

The hatred between T.Cs and G.Cs are not as big as it is between Israelis and Palestinians. Besides T.Cs and G.Cs seek for unification, while both Israilis and Palestinians seek to destroy each other.

[brother]

[cannedmoose]