Written October
2008
Read this
article first: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/976662.html
People who would
rather sit on the fence regarding the Palestine-Israel
conflict – at most, possess a very contrived perspective of
this issue – will usually chime that: “There are two wrongs
in this conflict.” While any attack on innocent civilians,
regardless of which side it is, is definitely morally
despicable, desperate people will react in desperate ways.
From an objective stand-point, it is pretty obvious from the
historical record which side is ensuring that this conflict
will never end.
After reading
the article above, there is a simple question that people
should ask themselves in reflection: Which side is
actually in-line with the remarkably uncontroversial
international consensus as it relates to returning to the
pre-1967 borders as called for by U.N. Resolution 242 and by
international law?
As the article
alludes to but never state explicitly, it is quite clearly
Hamas or the Palestinian side in general. In fact, they have
made tremendous concessions in light of what they are
actually entitled to according to international law. It is
common for people to respond with "What about Oslo?" but
that negotiation did not even come close to meeting the
basic requirements of that consensus which had to do with:
Israel’s full withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza and
Jerusalem in accordance to the international law which
states that it is inadmissible to acquire land through
warfare. In exchange, the Arab states and Palestinians will
have to recognize Israel’s rights to exist. This consensus
is voted on every year (for over 30 years now) at the U.N.
Security Council and the United States and Israel always
reject it. The voting is not even close. In 1989 it was 151
to 3 (U.S., Israel and the Island State of Dominica). From
2001 to 2004, it has been the U.S., Israel, Federated States
of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nalu, Palu and Tuvalu on
one side and the rest of the world on the other. To the
present day, the same voting pattern can be found.
There is no
dispute that Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention
states that all the settlements are illegal under
international law. In July 2004, the World Court ruled that
it was also illegal. Israel does not have a single atom of
sovereignty over any of Jerusalem under international law.
According to all human rights groups, every Palestinian has
the right to return to their homes or its environs. This is
the relevant framework, what they are entitled to under
international law, not what Israel wants.
Since 1971, the
United States and Israel have adopted a stance of pure
rejectionism beginning with then Egyptian president Anwar
Sadat's acceptance of a proposal by U.N. mediator Gunnar
Jarring -- agreeing to full peace with Israel in return to
the prewar Israel-Egypt border. Of course, Israel preferred
expansion to peace. Haim Bar-Lev of the governing Labor
Party argued:
"I think that
we could obtain a peace settlement on the basis of the
earlier [pre-June 1967] borders. If I were persuaded that
this is the maximum that we might obtain, I would say:
agreed. But I think that it is not the maximum. I think that
if we continue to hold out, we will obtain more.”
Amos Elon, an
Israeli commentator, wrote ten years after Sadat’s
acceptance of the proposal that Sadat caused “panic” amongst
the Israeli leadership when he announced that he wanted a
peace agreement by respecting secure and recognized borders.
Even U.N.
Resolution 242 was rejectionist since its formulation
because it did not recognize Palestinian sovereignty until
January 1976 when it began calling for a Palestinian state
alongside Israel. The 1976 resolution was supported by
nearly every single major Arab state, the PLO, nonaligned
countries, the Soviet Union and Europe. The Israeli U.N.
ambassador Haim Herzog – who later became President – said
that the PLO prepared the plan themselves. Not unusual,
Israel refused to attend the U.N. session and opted instead
in attacking Lebanon again (more than fifty villagers were
killed under the guise of a “preventive” attack).
In the 1980’s
the United States and Israel were running into difficulties
because of the criticisms they were getting in their refusal
to hear the diplomatic efforts of the PLO and others – of
course, the first Intifida which occurred independent of
Arafat and the PLO was happening at the same time. Secretary
of State George Shultz finally declared that U.S. and Israel
were victorious because the PLO finally said the “magic
words” which they have been uttering since 1976. In 1987,
the U.S. and Israel even barred a resolution condemning
“terrorism wherever and by whomever committed.” The clause
stated:
“Nothing in the present resolution could in any way
prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and
independence, as derived from the Charter of the United
Nations, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right ...,
particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and
foreign occupation or other forms of colonial domination,
nor … the right of these peoples to struggle to this end and
to seek and receive support [in accordance with the Charter
and other principles of international law].”
The U.S., Israel
and the apartheid government in South Africa (who was an
ally at the time) did not recognize these rights. The U.S.
and Israel voted against it 153 to 2.
It is commonly
asserted that Hamas is not recognized by Israel and its
allies because it will not recognize Israel. That being
said, an even more important question that is conveniently
tucked away in light of historical facts: is there any
Israeli party that recognizes Palestine within its
internationally recognized borders? In particular, is there
a single party that agrees in complete accordance to the
international consensus that has existed for over 30 years?
A nation is
dying before our eyes and the answer still completely eludes
many without a single iota of moral outrage. Instead, they
opt for sitting on the fence and watching Palestine burn.
