An Issue of Middle Eastern Credibility
A decade ago the US stepped in and drove Iraq back from its attempted annexation of Kuwaiti. With little dispute, this was a necessary act to protect the sovereignty of a nation that was unable to defend itself against the expansionistic aggressions of a superior military power. International law in the modern world forbids the acquisition of territory by military force. Given that legal benchmark, however, the preferential defense of Kuwaiti is difficult to honorably reconcile against the United States' staunch support of Israel's blatant ongoing efforts to annex Palestine. Of course, the Israeli expansionists claim that Palestine doesn't currently enjoy the status of a sovereign nation. In their view therefore, the above stated rules of international law don't apply. As their claim goes, the lands they are gobbling up for their settlements are "disputed lands" (complements of Bill Clinton). But that kind of reasoning is just so much legalistic chicanery aimed at creating bogus justification for a draconian act of land grab.
"The major issues still to be resolved remain unchanged: the final boundaries of the state of Israel, the return of, or compensation for, Palestinians dislodged from their previous homes and the status of Jerusalem. It seems almost inevitable that the United States will initiate new peace efforts, but it is unlikely that real progress can be made on any of these issues as long as Israel insists on its settlement policy, illegal under international laws that are supported by the United States and all other nations." (Former President Jimmy Carter, November 2000)
In the present hours of conflict, if Israel continues to succeed in both psychologically invalidating and physically dismantling the existing Palestinian economic and government infrastructure, then they can also succeed in delaying indefinitely or extinguishing altogether any international recognition and enforcement of Palestinian sovereignty. This whole issue of Israel and Palestine has been going on much longer then just since the events of September 11th 2001. America's war on terrorism will never justify Israel's inhumanity toward the Palestinians. Where is the line morally drawn between a just and necessary war on international terrorism and the more situation specific case of a greedy encroachment of one people upon the lands and lives of another?
Regardless of the tangible faults of Arafat and the Palestinians in the decades long conflict, Israel has reneged on just about every internationally brokered agreement ever made about Palestinian territorial sovereignty and about repatriation of Palestinian refugees (References). For decades the Palestinians have tolerated being placated with promises about an independent Palestine that have never been delivered. This has got to be a terminally depressing state of affairs for the Palestinians. Their backs are against the wall and they are likely to continue to come out swinging with whatever means of war they have at their disposal. They are fighting for their homelands against the incursion of a foreign invader that refuses to withdraw.
Israel is squeezing every bit of political justification they can out of using Arafat as a scapegoat. This is clearly intended to ward off any concentrated focus on Israel's own criminal accountability. Regardless of how vigorously Israel denounces Arafat as a terrorist, one thing is certain, no one ever awarded Ariel Sharon a peace prize for anything, ever!. Whatever the current propaganda about him, Arafat is not going to betray the will of his people in their struggle against Israel for a free Palestinian state. Of course, that's exactly why Sharon and company want him gone so badly. It is quite evident that Arafat is expected to stand up before the world and tell the Palestinians to lay down their arms. It is very unlikely that he would ever concede to do so, not until he has absolute proof that Israel will be forced to abide by a just agreement and thus also that the US will desist from supporting or tolerating Israel's bigoted colonialist agenda. Regardless of what culpability Arafat may actually have in terrorist acts, it might be the case that the likes of Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu are really the ones that need to go. Sharon and his cronies hide behind the psychological shield of claiming to colonize "only disputed lands", "fighting a war on terrorism", and claiming a "special relationship" with the US. What is this "special relationship" that they make claim to? We prop them up with billions of dollars a year in foreign aid while they continue to make bitter enemies for the US in the Middle East and fan the flames of World War Three?
Perhaps it was a mistake for Arafat to walk out on the previous negotiations when "95%" of Palestine's demands were supposedly being offered up. Then again, maybe there were things going on around the negotiating table that never surfaced in the news wires. Israel has been whittling away at Palestinian holdings for decades. A seemingly inconsequential "5%" is therefore far from trivial. As the old saying goes, "give them an inch and they will take a mile". If the Israelis were willing to propose a "95%" solution, as they claim, then why didn't they come to the table with the full 100%? It is very doubtful that Arafat would lightly decide to walk away from any proceedings that were legitimate. Furthermore, Sharon himself would never remain at any bargaining table if Israel faced internationally enforced conformance to United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. It mandated Israel's relinquishment of all existing settlements and thus all Palestinian lands they occupied and included accountability for the repatriation or reparation of Palestinian refuges. In fact, Sharon has vowed never to conform to such mandates.
At this point, Israel's definition of "terrorism" really amounts to any act of reprisal against their continued occupation of Palestine, including any show of defense against their search and destroy incursions during the present round of conflicts. Which of course, fits very neatly into Israel's agenda of self justification. Israel's definition of a terrorist amounts to anyone who raises a rifle or a stone against them, as if the Palestinians didn't have the legitimate right to defend their cities and homes against Israel's destructive military incursions. If Palestine is expected to renounce "terrorism" against Israel, then justice demands that Israel renounce colonialism and withdraw itself and its settlements from the occupied territories. The issues cut both ways. Washington cannot hard-peddle Israel's side while short-shifting the Palestinian's side and still expect to have any credibility before the World or expect to achieve worthwhile results.
When is Washington and the American news services going to take some legitimate moral responsibility and quit being lackeys to Benjamin Netanyahu, Joe Lieberman, the AIPAC lobby, and the rest of Israel’s propaganda machine? Peace without justice only plants the seeds of more war. Israel has repeatedly used the negotiating table to buy time with promises and agreements they never intend to keep. During the periods of relative peace that the "agreements" create, Israel proceeds to displace still more Palestinians in order to make room for still more settlements, thus invoking more Palestinian animosity and retaliation. Of course, the Israelis are then compelled to counter-retaliate so as to "protect their own security". Of course, Israel will then require additional aid from the US to replenish their depleted war chest. In fact (25 April 2002), Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (fresh from supplicating before the AIPAC), and Senator Joe Liberian were busy drafting a special additional aide package to cover Israel's indulgences during the present round of conflict. Meanwhile, the republican majority leader in the House of Representatives managed to spearhead yet another congressional resolution in support of Israel. Can anyone really think that one-third of the US foreign aid budget should continue to be handed over to Israel to support its criminal power-grind against the Palestinians? Write you congressmen and tell them what you think.
In dangerous regard for the latter matter, there doesn't seem to be many US politicians with the ethical substance to openly challenge the credibility of Israel's game. Evidently, no one wants to jeopardize their political solvency by going against the Jewish power lobby, which has become influential in Washington beyond constitutional credibility (article). In the present climate, it would seem that anyone willing to denounce Israel either for tampering with US politics or for criminal insurrection of Palestine, does so at the risk of being accused of anti-Semitism. As a Zionist tactic, the mere threat of such an innuendo serves quite well to deter any political opposition, potential or otherwise. At the perverse bottom, the tactic is about the same as accusing someone of racial prejudice for denouncing Christian-European apartheid in South Africa. Standing against Israel isn't anti-Semitism, leastwise not in the sense of prejudice toward some genealogical pedigree (note). What it is, however; is opposition to Colonialism and unbridled Zionism, and with just cause. With Israel's ongoing conduct toward the Palestinians, the demarcation line between Zionism and fascism has become blurred beyond distinction. Israel's declared status as a Jewish state, even with all the biblical connotations that come attached, is no license to commit crimes of inhumanity against the Palestinians or anyone else. And regarding sympathy for times past, neither the Spanish inquisition nor the Nazi Holocaust will justify Israel's expansionist agenda either.
The issues involved are also a matter of American nationalism and Constitutional authority. Where in the minds of America's politicians is the line drawn between fidelity to the US and its stand of religious neutrality, equality, and freedom, versus the nation of Israel and its monotheistic biblical identity? Indeed, where is the line drawn between Israel as a so-called democratic ally and Israel as a Zionist religious cause? Israel may be a democratic nation on paper, but it certainly is not a particularly pluralistic one, not where matters of non-Jewish race and religion are concerned. This indelible fact demonstrates itself even down to the Star of David that dominates the Israeli flag. Indeed, in defiance of Resolution 242, Israel refuses to repatriate Palestinian refugees, claiming they would be unable to retain their unique identity as a Jewish State if the refugees were allowed to return. In spite of these things, the notion of a "special" or "unique" relationship with Israel continues to be parroted high up in US government circles. Notably, nobody in those circles has been disposed to define to the American public just what the substance of the so-called "unique relationship" is; or what profit or worth it is to the US. Perhaps Washington's current office holders should reflect more assiduously on the mandate contained in First Amendment, which states, "Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."! The American public and Washington must reassess the constitutional legitimacy, economic value, and strategic worth of the existing US policy toward Israel. If America's politicians are afraid or unwilling to stand and do this as they should and must, then its time to drain the political swamp in Washington and build a core of leaders who will!
For More short essays on the conflict in the Middle East