NO, MR. KOUCHNER, MIDEAST REALITY IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK.

 

by Salomon Benzimra

 

2^nd part of 2

On historical grounds:

There is no doubt about which territories Israel should purportedly abandon in order to create a Palestinian state. They include mainly the "West Bank" –– a misnomer widely used by all those who favour a new partition, to actually designate Judea and Samaria. It just happens that Judea and Samaria hold over 90% of the historic patrimony of the Jewish people [It is much of Biblical Israel]. Withdrawing from these territories would not only be a national suicide but an invitation to any number of further territorial demands made by the Arabs (Galilee, coastal zone, etc.), where Jews could not possibly claim as strong historical links as in Judea & Samaria. And let us not even mention the partition of Jerusalem, and its supposed holiness to Islam, so recently touted!

Since the establishment of the State of Israel, contemporary history never ceases to remind us of a reality that the world persists to ignore. For reasons that escape reason, the armistice line of 1949 (the "Green Line") has acquired the status of an "internationally recognized boundary." Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who seldom misses an opportunity to distort the reality of the Middle East, repeats this nonsense in an article published in USA Today in May, 2006 (Note 6). In 1967, the Green Line vanished but the error persists. It is useful to recall the parallel between the War of Independence of 1948 and the Six Day War of 1967. In both events,

• the goals of the Arabs were the same: the destruction of the State of Israel, through military aggression.
• the calls to violence broadcast by the Mufti in 1948 and by Nasser in 1967, were eerily similar: the eradication of the "Zionist entity." In fact, Nasser was convinced that the aggression of 1967 was the natural pursuit of the 1948 war.
• the methods used by the Arabs breached international law: the UN Charter (Art. 2) in 1948 and the closing of the Straits of Tiran in 1967 (casus belli).
• the outcome of both wars was the same: the loss, by the aggressors, of territories populated mainly by Arabs: Western Galilee in 1948, and Judea & Samaria in 1967.

One may then wonder why the outcomes of these two wars should be treated differently. On the one hand, no one questions the legality of the acquisition of territories by Israel in 1948-49 and, on the other hand, diplomats around the world consider that the "West Bank" and "East-Jerusalem" are occupied territories. Actually, these territories are as "occupied" as Western Galilee, Beersheba and Ashdod, which were all part of the Arab state proposed by the Partition Plan of Palestine in 1947 (UN Resolution 181 which, let us not forget, violated the provisions of the Mandate). The notion of "occupied Palestinian territories" is a monumental sham, all the more so when one compares the original version of the PLO Charter of 1964 –– where there is no mention of a "Palestinian people" and where the "West Bank" is excluded from the lands to be "librated" –– to its second version of 1968, in which the "Palestinian people" suddenly appears to "liberate Palestine ... in all the territory of the British Mandate" (Note 7).

How is it that the whole world could be duped by this Arab-forged Palestinian mythology, while Colonel Qaddafi of Libya, in an unusual outburst of common sense, exposed it openly to his mesmerized colleagues of the Arab League? (Note 8).

Nevertheless, Israel has pursued the so-called "peace process", by withdrawing from several territories. Following the Oslo Accords, Palestinian terrorism increased dramatically. The disengagement from the Gaza Strip was rewarded by thousands of Kassam rockets targeting towns in the western Negev. And after the withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, a month long war was triggered by Hezbollah's aggression six years later, in spite of UN guarantees. In view of these empirical correlations, perhaps Mr. Kouchner could explain how a further withdrawal would put an end to Arab violence.
 

On geo-strategic grounds:

It is hard to imagine a viable Palestinian state contained in the 6,000 square kilometres of Judea & Samaria, especially when allowing for the "right of return" of some 4 million "refugees." It is inconceivable to contemplate uprooting a quarter million Israeli Jews who live there, in order to meet the grievances of the Palestinian Arabs who, ironically, condemn the "Israeli apartheid." Therefore, if Israel were to keep a significant portion of those territories –– where most Jewish urban centers are located –– the putative Palestinian state would be even less viable. Why, then, hold on to this fantasy of "viability", as Mr. Kouchner insists? Moreover, if the Gaza Strip, "liberated" since 2005, were to be linked to the "West Bank" by a safe passage corridor, would there be anyone concerned with the viability of Israel? Why this obstinate effort in obfuscating reality?

Given that the "peace process" has been around for the past 15 years, there is only one word that comes to mind: madness. Or, to put it more mildly, an assault on reason under diplomatic cover.

Since 1967, all military strategists, Israelis as well as American, have been adamantly opposed to any Israeli withdrawal from the heights of Judea and Samaria. No country would expose its most densely populated area to the constant threats of a potential enemy, by reducing its width to 15 km. The Lod airport –– the only international airport in Israel –– would be even more exposed. These strategic issues were dramatically brought to the fore during the missile attack by Hezbollah in 2006.
 

WHAT IS URGENT IS NEITHER THE CREATION OF A PALESTINIAN STATE, NOR THE PURSUIT OF A MINDLESS PACIFISM where justice and truth are often ignored.

What is really urgent is to have the courage to face reality.

And a good place to start is in semantics.

As long as misnomers such as "colonization", "illegal occupation", "Palestinian territories", "right of return of refugees", will be endlessly repeated, peace will remain out of reach, as Albert Camus aptly observed: "Misnaming things compounds the troubles of the world."

As long as cause (extremism) and effect (confrontation) are inverted, à la Kouchner, the conflict will not be understood and surely not resolved. A cursory reading of the founding documents of the PLO, Fatah and Hamas would quickly dispel many long held misconceptions (Notes 7, 9, 10).

As long as the international community stubbornly seeks to resolve a complex problem without sorting out its various components, the process will lead to failure. Deal first with the legal aspect of territorial sovereignty, before addressing the status of the resident population.

Insofar as diplomacy and rational thought are not entirely divorced, it is apparent that one cannot be both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian (Note 11). It behooves all of us to take a stand and to cast aside the many fantasies that perpetuate the conflict.
 

Notes:

1. Interview (in French) of Mr. Bernard Kouchner by Ms. Caroll Azoulay, Guysen News International, June 26, 2008:
Video: http://www.guysen.com/tv/index_flash.php?vida=2395
Transcript: http://www.guysen.com/articles.php?sid=7447

2. Statements made by Messrs Erekat and Shtayyeh in May 2005, as reported by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace Process Guide

3. Official text of the Mandate for Palestine, July 24, 1922, prefaced by Attorney Howard Grief, a Jerusalem based lawyer focused on international law.
http://www.therightroadtopeace.com/infocenter/Heb/MandateforPalestine.html

4. The report of the Peel Commission, submitted to the British Parliament in July, 1937, contrasts the extraordinary economic development achieved by the Zionists with the situation of the Arab population, and dismisses any possibility of "fusion or assimilation between Jewish and Arab cultures" in spite of the substantial demographic growth and the improvements in living conditions of the Arab population since 1920. However, the report concludes on the necessity of a second partition of Mandatory Palestine, contrary to Britain's commitments made 15 years earlier:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/peel1.html

5. Anticipating the termination of the British Mandate, Resolution 181 was passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 29, 1947, with a majority of 33 votes for, 13 against and 10 abstentions. This resolution of the General Assembly was only a "recommendation" and is not binding on the parties. Besides its incompatibility with the spirit and the letter of the Mandate, Resolution 181 proved itself ineffective in stopping the armed aggression against Israel in May, 1948, even though it clearly allowed the Security Council, under Chapter VII of the Charter, to intervene in the event of "threats to peace".
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

6. Article penned by former President Jimmy Carter in USA Today, May 15, 2006.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-05-15-carter-israel-edit_x.htm For a rebuttal to Jimmy Carter, see:
http://www.newyorkmonthlyherald.com/political_commentary.htm

7. The two versions of the Charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO):
1964: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/cove1.html
1968: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/plocov.htm
For a comparative analysis of these two documents and a historical overview of the region, please refer to the excellent report of Professor Francisco Gil-White (April 30, 2006):
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov2.htm

8. Colonel Muammar Qaddfi addresses the members of the Arab League at their plenary session of March, 2008, in Syria. The Al-Jazeera network aired Qaddafi's speech on March 29, 2008. MEMRI included English subtitles.
Video: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1731.htm
Transcript: http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1731.htm

9. The Constitution of Fatah (the party of Mr. Mahmoud Abbas) was written in 1964, three years before any "occupation of Palestinian territories." Of special interest are Articles 8, 12, 19 and 22. You decide whether Fatah can be labelled "moderate."
http://www.middleeastfacts.com/middle-east/the-fatah-constitution.php

10. The Hamas Charter was produced in August, 1988. Articles 7, 14, 28 and 32 are particularly revealing. This document is nothing but an open call to genocide:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm

11. The world at large now seems to "define" Palestinians as those Arabs who live in the "West Bank", Gaza, the scattered refugee camps, maybe even those living abroad, and on occasion Arabs living in Israel proper are included. But the Palestinians living in Jordan (>70% of the population) are excluded from this definition, as they are considered "Jordanians" I raise this doubt about the definition of the word "Palestinian" because there is really a large cloud on their actual identity. And it is precisely the widely accepted definition of "Palestinians" (those Arabs in the West Bank especially) that makes it impossible to be, at the same time pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, because that would entail truncating Israel to a non viable size, once the "Palestinian state" is carved out.

 
Salomon Benzimra, P.Eng., lives in Toronto, Canada.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.