It is an unlikely request. But Palestinians would be pleasantly surprised if US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would do it when she comes to Ramallah. Many would be surprised if the convoy of the senior US diplomat would take the same route — that going through the Qalandia checkpoint — that thousands of Palestinians going to Ramallah take. This checkpoint has become the humiliating symbol of what the continued Israeli occupation is all about.

Checkpoints between Palestinian cities (and not just between Palestine and Israel) were erected shortly after the eruption of the second Intifada. All international peace agreements, including the one accepted by all sides: the roadmap, call on Israel to remove the tens of checkpoints and return the Israeli army to the pre-October 2000 positions.

The effects of the checkpoints have been disastrous. They stifled economic relations, as goods and people are not able to move between Palestinian cities. Ironically, the only goods easily allowed into Palestinian cities are Israeli, giving them a huge advantage, at the expense of local products and services. In addition to their negative effects on the economy, the checkpoints have had a huge negative effect on people’s psyche. Many Palestinians say that while they may not want to travel to other cities, the fact that they cannot make them feel claustrophobic.

Perhaps the best indication of the wide-ranging negative effects of the checkpoints can be seen by scanning the daily reports of the Israeli group Mahsom Watch. A look at the details of these reports shows that basic humiliations and restriction of movement is arbitrary. That humiliating practices often depend on the mood of a particular soldier or officer, rather than on any genuine security need.

Of real importance is to look at the variety of people of all ages, backgrounds, professions and economic status. This variety reinforces the feeling among Palestinians, as well as among legal experts, that these travel restriction between Palestinian cities is nothing less than a violation of international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention clearly defines such actions as collective punishment, prohibited by international humanitarian law.

The difficulties of transportation have forced the Palestinian telephone carrier PalTel to make all Palestinian areas one dialling zone. In an ad played on radio and television, a mother calls her two daughters in Nablus and in Gaza and talks for a long time telling them not to worry because all the calls have become local.

Six months after the elections of Mahmoud Abbas and after a long and continuous period of relative quiet from the Palestinian factions, there are no more excuses for Israel to keep these four-year-long humiliating checkpoints that restrict movement between Palestinian cities. They are clearly not security motivated but rather politically related. The continued use of an entire people as hostage should not be tolerated.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government, engulfed in internal political conflict over the withdrawal from Gaza, is hoping to trade the relaxation of these clearly not security-related restrictions for political results from a weakened Palestinian partner.

Rice’s upcoming visit to Israel and Palestine is unlikely to include the many checkpoints that are checkering the Palestinian areas and choking the possibilities of peace. With the continuation of these restrictions and unnecessary checkpoints, the seeds of hate and anger that have been planted during the past four years will mature into violent reactions. Talk of a third Palestinian Intifada is getting more serious, not only among politicians but also in the sitting rooms of most Palestinians.

To some shortsighted politicians, unilateralism seems very convenient. It doesn’t require the mess of actual negotiations. It is usually politically correct, because you can decide how much and how far you want to carry out a particular policy. But unilateralism can’t be a rational long-term, effective policy. US President George Bush is getting a bloody nose in Iraq and if Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon continues on the path of unilateralism, he will have many problems.

For a while, Sharon actually convinced many people that he was interested in negotiations. It was easy to fool the world at the time because of the claim that Israel will not negotiate until there was quiet. Calls for a ceasefire were rejected as Israel, the strong party in this equation, simply said it will only talk when the Palestinians are “quiet.”



Putting the blame on Yasser Arafat was also convenient and received the support of the American president who shunned the Palestinian leader; thus, yet another opportunity for multilateralism was avoided and Israel was able to do whatever it wished.



All this was possible until this year. The Arafat excuse was buried in Ramallah. The demand for quiet has been accomplished without a ceasefire and the new Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has done everything expected of him, including vastly improving the security situation, refocusing the Palestinian television programming, reforming the key ministries of justice and finance.



The new Palestinian minister of interior, Nasser Yousef (refused by Arafat this post), proved to be a serious and professional internal security chief. Among his first decisions was the removal of most of the security chiefs who were responsible (directly or indirectly) for the state of chaos and the absence of the rule of law in Palestine. These changes have already been noticed as the Palestinian public has seen a drastic drop in cases of lawlessness, and serious investigation in any new reports of individuals or security personnel taking the law in their own hands.



Control over the Palestinian Broadcasting Authority has been removed from the PLO and the office of the president and placed under the direction of moderate Nabil Shaath’s information ministry. A few weeks ago, Shaath expelled a sheikh for a sermon that was transmitted on Palestinian TV.



One would expect that all these accomplishments would be matched by, at the minimum, an improvement in the daily lives of Palestinians. Israel continues to refuse to coordinate its prisoner releases; over 8,000 Palestinians are held in Israeli jails, many without trial or charge. Save for the redeployment in three Palestinian cities, the catastrophic closure imposed on the Palestinian cities in the West Bank is still valid. Palestinians are not allowed to travel from one West Bank town to another without a permit. Even those with permits in Bethlehem are still unable to drive their cars to Ramallah, or vice versa, and are forced to travel in shared public taxis.



Political unilateralism is very attractive to radicals who are afraid of compromise. To be fair, unilateralism is not only convenient for a reluctant Israeli prime minister not wishing to make substantial compromises during negotiations, it is also attractive to hardline Palestinians who see multilateralism as a means to press them to make unpopular compromises.



In the absence of substantial negotiations, small acts of violence are happening on a daily basis. Israeli soldiers are still killing Palestinians almost daily. Palestinian militants are firing some rockets into Israel and this low-level cycle of violence will no doubt burst into a major confrontation very quickly if not held in check.



Without a formal ceasefire and without a serious negotiating process, there is little incentive for the militants or the Israeli army to stop the violence. What we need now is a serious, effective and monitored ceasefire, to be followed immediately by serious multilateral talks in which Palestinians, Israelis and a third party (could be the Quartet or even the US) are talking, instead of acting unilaterally.



Any serious observer of the Middle East conflict will no doubt agree that what the Palestinian-Israeli conflict needs now is an immediate end to unilateralism. The opportunities we have today might not last long. Abbas’ political honeymoon will not last long and neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis can afford unilateral politics, as usual, that have become the convenient way out. We need regular, substantive and effective multilateral talks now, otherwise we will soon regret missing this golden opportunity.