|
Back to
Opinions Page
That no western
government condemned Israel’s plans to demarcate its borders with
Palestine was not surprising. Since winning the recent general elections
Israel’s Kadima party has declared its intent to continue with the
so-called ‘unilateralist’ policies of its founder Ariel Sharon. The
political and humanitarian consequences of this plan spell assured
disaster for all concerned.
While international
pressure continues to pile on the new Palestinian Authority (PA) to
honor the agreements signed by their predecessors, Israel’s imposition
of its de facto borders with the Palestinian territories have received
general approval. No lessons, it seems, have been learnt for the last
sixty years. Had Israel’s appetite for unilateralist action been checked
in the beginning things would have been much different today.
The seminal act of
unilateralism from which all subsequent acts have flowed was the May
1948 declaration of the state of Israel. It was issued after the
Zionists realized that the international community was about to abandon
the plan to partition Palestine. Ben Gurion pointed out in April 1963
that the “Establishment of the State was not, in effect, given in the
United Nations resolution…although the resolution was of great moral and
political value – but by our ability to bring about a decision in the
country by force.” (Hadawi, 1967)
Israel’s unilateral
seizure of Palestinian land far in excess of what the UN proposed and
its annexation of the western sector of Jerusalem were instantly
recognized. It took the Truman administration only ten minutes to
recognize the new state. The farcical nature of the affair was exposed
by the fact that the United States delegation at the UN was itself
unaware that their country had already recognized the new state. They
were still locked in negotiations with the world body to revoke the
partition plan and establish a trusteeship over Palestine when the
Soviet representative at the UN informed his American counterpart that
their government had recognized the state of Israel.
This is how it
started and this is how it has remained. The Zionists’ ability to impose
their will on the international community has continued ever since.
More Expulsions
Unilateralism in the
Palestinian context is not only a question of percentage of land. It is
about people, their heritage, their lives and future. Hundreds of
thousands of lives have been ruined and turned into a living hell by
these policies which should not be depicted as unilateral because they
are carried out by Israel and its allies.
In east Jerusalem,
the apartheid Wall which passes through the Palestinian neighborhoods
have drastically reduced the number of Palestinians in the city and
transferred them to the West Bank. The scale of the humanitarian
disaster is highlighted in the Shufat area which together with its
refugee camp has a population of 55,000. Upon the completion of the Wall
they would be excluded from east Jerusalem and transferred to the West
Bank. Residents of several other areas would suffer a similar expulsion.
They include Abu Dis, Anata, and Al Eizariya.
In geo-political
terms the current policies seek to carve what remains of the West Bank
into three regions, isolated and hemmed in by the apartheid Wall and
other barriers. Ultimately it would block any possibility of geographic
continuity between the component parts of the Palestinian state.
At the heart of the
current campaign is the expansion of Israel’s settlement activity in the
West Bank. It aims to create realties which would be difficult to
reverse in future. Invariably the construction of these housing units
has been accompanied by the destruction of scores of Palestinian homes,
bulldozing of agricultural land and uprooting of productive trees.
By allowing these
‘new realities’ to be created on the ground the international community
has demonstrated the extent to which it is prepared to sacrifice its
principles and laws to accommodate Israel’s insatiable demands. Many of
those who were most vocal in their opposition to the International Court
of Justice (ICJ) advisory ruling on the wall have remained silent on the
ongoing demolition of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and the
violent takeover of their homes by Israeli settlers. Neither have they
denounced the violence used by Israeli soldiers and police at
checkpoints throughout the Occupied Territories.
Almost two years
since the ICJ issued its advisory opinion on the legal consequences of
Israel’s construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
the Security Council is yet to approve the ruling. In fact it studiously
avoids making any reference to it. The apparent reason is because the US
still refuses to recognize the ruling of the ICJ that the construction
of the Wall and the settlements were illegal and they should be
dismantled.
Multinational Parties
European involvement
in conducting the so-called ‘unilateralist’ policies is no less
significant. While home governments have refused to publish their
findings on Israel’s policies in Jerusalem for fear of provoking cries
of anti-Semitism, their own diplomats in the region have had great
difficulty covering up the facts. In a recent report the Jerusalem and
Ramallah European heads of mission confirmed that the real Israeli
strategy in the city was demographic – meaning to reduce the size of the
Palestinian population of Jerusalem while boosting that of the Israelis.
In reality, the
definition of Israel’s borders is not an election pledge that may or may
not be implemented during the tenure of its current government. The
truth is this is a process that has already begun and is well in its
advanced stages. Its annexation of the eastern part of the West Bank
including the Jordan valley is part of this strategy. For many decades
this area has been viewed as a bread basket for Palestine. While the
annexation and the projected borders would leave Israel in control of
60% of the West Bank it places the livelihood of two million
Palestinians there at considerable risk.
In the Gaza Strip,
the challenges are equally difficult. Despite the withdrawal of the
settlers the territory remains under effective Israeli occupation.
Residents are still denied the basic freedom to move and earn their
living. The virtual depletion of poultry stocks because of bird flu and
rising prices of lamb and beef have placed huge demands on the fishing
industry. But even so, a new United Nations’ World Food Programme (WFP)
study warns that the Israeli restrictions on fishing boats could force
the collapse of the industry by October 2007.
This unfortunate scenario may yet be avoided if the international
coalition which calls on the new PA to honor past agreements were to
revisit the Oslo accords that they pay lip service to. It provided for
Palestinian fishing grounds to extend up to 20 nautical miles west of
Gaza. The Occupying Power, according to the WEF, currently limits
Palestinian fishing boats to 6 nautical miles.
There is always a
ready formula to justify these acts – security. So too the aerial
bombing of residential in the Gaza Strip are acts of security necessity.
And needless to say, the building of the Wall – now a de facto boundary
- was built for security reasons. Attempts by the military to disguise
their motives have been exposed by the statements of Prime Minister
Olmert and representatives from the military establishment. All have
announced their absolute refusal to withdraw from the eastern part of
the West Bank on the grounds of strategic security considerations.
On his part, Olmert
is determined to pursue the course charted by Sharon, that there is no
Palestinian partner with whom they can work for peace. Thus far he has
succeeded to preoccupy the international community in a futile debate on
the composition of new Palestinian Authority while they get on with the
business of occupation and settlement expansion. The UN Special
Rapporteur noted the consequences of these policies in his 17 January
[2006] report, ‘the construction of the wall, the expansion of
settlements, the de-Palestinization of Jerusalem and the gradual
incorporation of the Jordan valley are incompatible with the two-sate
solution.’
Olmert’s ‘unilateral’
border is much more than what he says it is. Launched with the backing
of the US it is anything but unilateral. It seeks to liquidate all other
aspect of the conflict particularly those pertaining to the refugees,
Jerusalem, water and airspace. Israel’s maximalist offer of 40% of the
West Bank does not meet the minimal needs or aspirations of the
Palestinian people. By retaining control of 60% of the West Bank the
possibility of some refugees returning to a truncated West Bank state
has become out of the question.
In another era or
location the carte blanche given to Israel to pursue its policies would
be described as appeasement. Without obtaining anything in return it
encourages Israel to act as a state above the law, and to perpetrate
more violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. The
EU decision to suspend aid payments to the Palestinian Authority at the
behest of Israel fits squarely into this agenda.
In as much as they
demand that the new PA should respect previous agreements the US and the
EU are legally bound to oppose the acquisition of territory by force. By
assisting Israel to forcefully define its borders in such a manner that
denies the Palestinians access to their natural resources and obstructs
their capacity to economic development they have not only performed the
last rites over the two-state solution. Worse still, they have forfeited
yet another opportunity to secure a just and lasting peace to the
conflict. |
