By Ted Belman (written May '06)
1st part of 2
On a sunny day in June '02, President G W Bush, on the lawn of the Whitehouse, delivered his "Palestine vision" speech.
"I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts. If the Palestinian people meet these goals, they will be able to reach agreement with Israel and Egypt and Jordan on security and other arrangements for independence."
Of course this wasn't the first foray by the US administration into the Israel/Arab conflict in search of a solution. For the purpose of this analysis, I want to start with the Madrid Conference. Itzhak Shamir the Prime Minister of Israel was dragged, kicking a screaming, to this conference by the Bush Sr administration.
"In the aftermath of the Gulf War, the Bush administration embarked on an extensive effort to achieve a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Washington had doubtless promised its Arab coalition partners that it would address the issue once the war with Iraq was over.". [..] [1]
So, in effect, the US was proceeding to pressure Israel on behalf of the Arabs. Why was this necessary given the fact that the US had just rescued Kuwait and S. Arabia from Sadaam's clutches? It suggests that the US was just continuing a policy of ingratiating itself with the Arab potentates, at Israel's expense, in order to secure oil licenses and control. This policy was in existence even before the Israel declared its independence.
"Israel's refusal to heed U.S. requests to freeze the settlements [at that time] embroiled the two countries in a bitter dispute that finally drove President Bush to take a step that no U.S. president before him had taken: He linked U.S. financial aid to Israel to Israel's willingness to curb the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The policy that Bush adopted was not new- — every U.S. administration since 1967 had expressed its opposition to Israeli settlements in the occupied territories — but Bush was the first to enforce that policy."[1]
Rather than take such a US policy for granted one must question why the US was against the settlement of the territories in the first place. After all, the right of Jews to settle in all of the land mandated to Britain was the declared policy of Great Britain as articulated in the Balfour Declaration of 1917. These lands included all the land west of the Jordan River and Jordan itself.
This right was then legalized by the creation of the Palestinian Mandate by the League of Nations in 1922. In fact, by virtue of this mandate, Great Britain had the duty to preserve this right of the Jews and to enable such settlement to take place. Throughout the Mandate, the British breached this mandate by restricting settlement by Jews.
In 1947, the successor to the League of Nations, the United Nations, recommended the division of these lands, contrary to the Mandate, and sanctioned the creation of two states (Partition Plan). Pursuant to this plan both the Arabs and the Jews had the right to declare a state on its side of the partition line. Only Israel availed itself of this right and it legally came into existence in May of 1948. The Arabs on the other hand rejected it and attacked Israel. The resulting war ended in an Armistice Agreement which delineated an armistice line otherwise known as the "Green Line". Israel ended up in possession of more land then the Partition Line allowed them.
In '67 Israel was once again forced to go to war to defend itself. As a result, it acquired possession of all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. UNSC Resolution 242 was thereafter passed to chart a path to peace.
Eugene V. Rostow states:
"Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved."
Therefore the occupation is legal. It was sanctioned by the UN Security Council.
The British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution to the Council, has stated that:
It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them.
The United States' UN Ambassador at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, has stated that:
"The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawal are the words "the" or "all" and the "June 5, 1967 lines" … the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal. [This would encompass] less than a complete withdrawal less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably Insecure".
Arab countries unanimously rejected this resolution at the Khartoum Conference where they agreed to "no recognition, no negotiation and no peace" with Israel.
What is important to note is that neither the Partition Plan, nor the Armistice Agreement, nor Resolution 242 removed the right of the Jews to settle in all of the lands and that right still exists today.
Accordingly, the settlements are legal no matter how much the UN, the Arabs or the US declares them "illegal". President Reagan backed off this labeling and simply called them an "obstacle to peace". For that matter some people, even in the State Department, also consider the existence of Israel to be an "obstacle to peace" and call for its destruction, secretly or otherwise.
American pressure on Israel to begin an internationally supervised peace process was relentless in the early nineties notwithstanding that the relations between Israelis and Arabs in the territories were excellent. The "Palestinians" in the territories had the highest standard of living, the best schooling and best health care compared to Arabs in any Arab country.
In 1993 the Oslo Accords were signed to great fanfare on the Whitehouse lawn. As a prelude and condition precedent to these accords, Arafat, as Chairman of the PLO, the sole representative of the Palestinian people, signed this letter,
Mr. Prime Minister, Rabin
The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era…I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself…to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations…the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators…the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.
Sincerely,
Arafat failed to honor any of these undertakings. I would point out that nowhere in these Accords, were the settlements or the occupation, declared illegal or did Israel agree to cease settlement activity.
But that didn't stop the US from insisting on more and more concessions and acts of good will by Israel to further the process along. Israel complied but to no avail.
In 2000, at Camp David, Prime Minister Barak, made what most considered a very generous offer to Arafat only to have Arafat walk out ending the talks. Thereafter, the US attempted to breathe life into the process by sending Sen. Mitchell, George Tenent, General Zinni and Anthony Ward to make reports and assist in the matter. In all cases additional demands were made on Israel to go beyond the terms of Oslo rather then on Arafat to honor the existing terms or else. There was never an "or else".
Rather then pursue peace, Arafat pursued war resulting in thousands of deaths and injuries. During the war, the US continually pressured Israel not to react or to restrain itself. The US didn't allow Israel to destroy the PA or the failed Oslo Accords and remained wedded to a failed process.
Instead, the State Department began diplomatic negotiations to offer a better deal, once again, to Arafat notwithstanding that he had no attention of abandoning terror and incitement. We began to hear that the Palestinians must be offered "hope". This was a euphemism for a Palestinian State.
In February 2002, Thomas Friedman introduced the Saudi Peace Plan to the world with these words,
"After I laid out this idea, the crown prince [Abdullah] looked at me with mock astonishment and said, "Have you broken into my desk?" "No," I said, wondering what he was talking about. "The reason I ask is that this is exactly the idea I had in mind — full withdrawal from all the occupied territories, in accord with U.N. resolutions, including in Jerusalem, for full normalization of relations," he said. 'I have drafted a speech along those lines. My thinking was to deliver it before the Arab summit and try to mobilize the entire Arab world behind it. The speech is written, and it is in my desk. But I changed my mind about delivering it when Sharon took the violence, and the oppression, to an unprecedented level.'"
How quaint? This plan when approved by the Arab League who included the "right of return". This "right" has no foundation in international law or practice and is being advanced by Arabs as a means to destroy Israel.
So when President Bush stepped on the lawn of the White House to declare his vision of a Palestinian state it mattered little that Arafat had unleashed a series of devastating suicide bomb attacks in the previous six months and that the offer of a state in fact rewarded such atrocities. The message clearly delivered to the Palestinians throughout the "peace process" was that no matter what you do, no matter that you fail to honor your commitments; you will be rewarded with a state. Perhaps the message included, the more violence you employ, the more you will get. What kind of a policy is that?
At the same time, the US was planning the invasion of Iraq. Part of this planning involved the attempt to build as large a "coalition of the willing" as possible. As it turned out, this coalition included Britain and Saudi Arabia. They demanded US pressure Israel to cede to Arab demands for the creation of a Palestinian state. That is not to say that they wanted a Palestinian state side by side with Israel. The ultimate goal is a Palestinian state instead of Israel.
Ted Belman
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment