|
Back to
Opinions Page
Politically, the Israeli evacuation from the Gaza Strip that started
Monday is significant, and potentially historic. Morally, for the
Israeli government and the settler-colonists, it is a pile of garbage,
deception and lies. Sorting out the significant from the merely sinful
in this situation is useful for discerning whether or not better days
lie ahead.
The Israeli colonization of the Gaza Strip, the
West Bank,
the Golan Heights and other occupied Arab lands is a crime, by at least
three compelling measures. It is explicitly prohibited by international
law and the 4th Geneva Convention's proscription of an occupying power
moving its civilians into the lands it occupies. It is condemned by name
in dozens of UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. And
it is rejected by the bilateral policies of the entire community of
nations, which refuses to acknowledge Israeli sovereignty in the
occupied lands.
Israeli settler-colonists are dangerous predators in territorial terms,
and ugly anachronisms in historical terms. They represent the last,
lingering link to a form of 19th century European colonialism that is
now universally seen to be based on the racist principle that white
Europeans could steal the lands of any other people in the world,
because the darker natives in southern lands had lesser rights as human
beings. There are very few active colonial enterprises left in the world
these days.
Israel's
is the most dramatic example of this movement that once included
grotesque European assaults on India, South Africa, South America,
Southeast Asia and North Africa.
Therefore the widespread press depictions of the Gaza settlers'
"emotional pain" at being sent back to their own country of Israel lack
both credibility and relevance. Forcing a thief to stop stealing is not
an act that should be depicted as inflicting pain on the criminal, but
rather as forcing the criminal to abide by the law.
It
is outrageous and insulting that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
would say, even as he was evacuating
Gaza,
that he prefers to keep it. He said in his televised speech Monday
night: "It is no secret that I, like many others, believed and hoped
that we would be able to hold onto [the settlements of] Netzarim and
Kfar Darom forever. The changing reality in the country, the region, and
the world required a different assessment and a change in [my]
position."
So, politically, in its unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and
four small settlements in the northern
West Bank,
Israel is doing the right thing, but perhaps for the wrong reasons. This
is why the move is unlikely to lead to a complete and successful
Palestinian-Israeli or Arab-Israeli peace accord.
I
am saddened but not surprised that
Sharon
says he is leaving Gaza because political and demographic realities have
changed. It is a shame that so few voices in Israel or among Jewish
communities around the world would come out and say in clear terms that
Israel is leaving because occupation is illegal, morally wrong, and
politically counterproductive. Or that the Palestinians have the right
to live in freedom, independence and national dignity. What a powerful
message that would have been, and what a tremendous impetus for peaceful
negotiations and ultimate relations with all the Arab peoples, had the
Israeli government acknowledged that military occupation and moving
civilians to colonize occupied lands bring neither peace nor submission
from the Palestinians and other Arabs.
Just as there is a virtually unanimous international consensus on the
illegal nature of the Israeli settler-colonies, so is there also global
agreement that Israel must leave the territories occupied in 1967,
negotiate a fair settlement of the refugee issue, share Jerusalem and
coexist in peace alongside a sovereign, viable Palestinian state. The
deep skepticism about both the impetus and the impact of the
Gaza
withdrawal reflects the perception - rooted in historical experience -
that Israel is behaving only according to its sense of how to ensure its
security through the use of its force, rather than through compliance
with international law and the will of the community of nations. There
is something slightly politically devious about
Israel's
withdrawal. It does not have the compelling ring of authenticity and
honesty that characterized the white South Africans' coming to terms
with black majority rule, or Mikhael Gorbachev's coming to grips with
his people's right to freedom and democracy. It seems to be an
expedient, grudging, defensive, reluctant endeavor. It is the enterprise
of a thief who decides to stop stealing in one part of town, only to
steal more efficiently in other neighborhoods.
Nevertheless, its deceptive morality aside, Israel's realities of the
day suggest that its unilateral withdrawal does have the potential to
advance the long-stalled peace-making process. This move is significant
in part because
Israel
is unilaterally withdrawing from occupied Arab lands, ending some of its
settler-colonial excesses, and defining part of its border. These trends
need to be encouraged on other fronts where Israel is occupying and
colonizing Arab lands, and this is where the next steps to come will be
so important.
If
all concerned Arab, Israeli and international parties work harder than
before to make it clear that peace and security can only be achieved for
all through a peaceful political process, rather than force of arms, we
might see progress towards a fair, permanent peace accord. This requires
that Israelis and Palestinians both abide by global law, rather than
defy it with guns. The key to this is not a racist, colonial-era demand
that the occupied, dispersed and blockaded Palestinians behave like nice
children before they can hope to enjoy their human and national rights;
the key is rather that Israelis and Palestinians who both respect the
law and UN resolutions can expect simultaneously to live in peace and
security.
Simultaneity is critically important for peace, because only if both
sides feel they are achieving their rights will they continue with
peaceful means of conflict resolution. The Gaza withdrawal must be a
sign that Israel is forsaking occupation as an instrument to ensure its
own security, not that it is returning some Palestinian lands in order
to hold on to others. |
