Mid-East Realitieswww.middleeast.org

The "Palestinian State" Charade

October 9, 2001

BUSH, "PALESTINIAN STATE", AND HIS FRIEND ARIEL SHARON

MID-EAST REALITIES © - MER - www.MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 10/09: Most of the Arab regimes, including that of Yasser Arafat, have proved themselves so co-opted and so gullible over the years that you can't blame the Americans for continuing to try their little tricks and deceptions -- just look how well, at least from their point-of-view, such things have worked in the past.. The very idea that by uttering the two words "Palestinian State" in the way he did at this point in history after all kinds of U.N. resolutions; all kinds of past broken U.S. promises; historic conferences in Madrid, Washington, Cairo, Sharm, Wye River, and Camp David in recent years; and all kinds of vaguely similar statements by Israeli leaders, including Ariel Sharon himself, that "a Palestinian State" is in fact their goal as well; the very idea that there is any significant change here is on its face laughable. But nevertheless the compliant media, especially in the U.S. and the Arab "client regime" countries, took it all in and regurgitated it as if there was something new and significant to this -- just what and when the American government wanted. This even though George W in a less publicized subsequent follow-up himself noted that there really was nothing knew it was he said and that he was in fact agreeing with his friend Prime Minister Sharon who had in fact said the same thing the week before!

When it comes to serious discussion about a possible "Palestinian State" in today's situation the real questions are just where is that State going to be; who's going to control it; how independent is it really going to be; and what happens to all the settlements and "by-pass roads" that no other independent state in the world has within it's sovereign borders. Indeed, if George W were really serious he would have already done something to roll back Israel's still expanding settlements policies -- 25 new ones set up semi-clandestinely this year aline in fact since Bush took over at the White House, with "thickening" of many others.

To repeat...George W was not really doing something new or significant in mentioning that the eventual goal is a "Palestinian State"; and the very notion that he was is laughable to those most aware of the real history involved here. What George W was doing -- and the same could also be the case when it came to the little Israeli-US splat that conveniently took place at just the right political moment for the Americans -- was using the media to project his words in an attempt to try to diminish all the hatred created by U.S./Israeli policies over so long a period of time in order to make it easier for the U.S. to pursue its current "anti-terrorist" alliance priorities.

This very thoughtful article by Palestinian American journalist Muna Hamzeh spells out some of the crucial realities of this situation:

BUSH'S "VISION" OF A PALESTINIAN STATE

By Muna Hamzeh*

President Bush's recent discovery that a Palestinian state is part of his "vision" for peace in the Middle East brings back a sense of déjà vu. It was only a few years ago that the Clinton Administration tried to convince Americans that the Oslo Peace Accord, signed between Israel and Yasser Arafat in 1993, has finally brought "real" peace to the area.

Back then, it was fascinating to live in the Palestinian Territories and witness the difference between what American, Israeli and even Palestinian leaders were saying about the new Oslo era of "peace" and between what every ordinary Palestinian was witnessing on the ground. It bordered on the hilarious to listen to presidents and prime ministers talk about the implementation of the agreements, while watching the continued confiscation of Palestinian land, house demolitions, restrictions on movement and travel, as well as the continued growth of Israeli settlements around every Palestinian town and village. For the average Palestinian, developments on the ground starkly contradicted the agreements reached on paper. And I am not talking here about Palestinian intellectuals who had read the details of the "peace" agreements and realized just how disastrous they were. I am referring to the simple and uneducated Palestinians who could not see a single change, no matter how minute, to make them feel that they are any closer to independence or that their daily hardships have subsided.

Now, almost a decade after Oslo, President Bush is telling the world that "the idea of a Palestinian state has always been part of a vision, so long as the right of Israel to exist is respected". What "vision" is the president talking about? Whether Bush knows it or not, there is a legal basis for Palestinian statehood, and one which is long overdue. UN Resolution 181 (1947) gave legality to the establishment of both a Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine. While only a part of the Resolution was implemented - the establishment of the state of Israel on most of the territory of historical Palestine - the other which deals with an Arab state has not.

The antiquated argument that the U.S. would bless the establishment of a Palestinian state so long as Israel's right to exist is respected ought to be seriously revised. Occupying the Palestinians since 1967 has hardly resulted in the respect that Israel desires. The only way that Israel can live with security and respect is to come to terms with the fact that its occupation of the Palestinians must be brought to a full end. Anything short of giving the Palestinians their full political, national and human rights will mean a continuation of this conflict. The solution seems so elementary in its simplicity.

Perhaps the most startling difference between the agreements signed on paper between Israel and the Palestinian since the Madrid talks of 1991 and today is the fact that Israel has never halted its confiscation of additional land in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Only last month, an Israeli military order transformed 1.4 percent of West Bank land into a closed military zone - a move that normally precedes an all out confiscation. An aerial survey conducted by the Israeli Peace Now movement early this month indicates that ten new Israeli settlements were established in the West Bank between June and September 2001. An earlier survey found 15 new settlements established between February and May 2001.

While Israeli Prime Minister Sharon is blaming Arafat for the "violence" and going so far as to call him a Ben Laden, his government has been actively grabbing more Palestinian land and building more settlements. Against this backdrop, what sort of peace does Sharon really envision himself making with the increasingly weakened Palestinian leader? And how can peace be made if it doesn't involve territorial concessions of a land Israel occupied by military force in 1967? Even a Palestinian child in the West Bank can see Israeli bulldozers working away to uproot olive trees dating back to the Roman Age, destroy agricultural land and then watch as new settlement housing fills the landscape. How to convince that child that the Israelis want to make peace becomes the challenge. But how to convince that child that the U.S. is an "honest-broker" in the Middle East becomes an even greater challenge.

It appears that Bush's remarks in support of Palestinian statehood has brought on significant division within the American-Jewish community. A letter signed by at least prominent 50 American Jewish figures was presented to the White House October 5, in support of the administration's war on terrorism and policy efforts in the Middle East. It follows criticism of the administration's plan by pro-Israel lobby groups. The idea of a Palestinian state is so frightening to the pro-Israel lobby? If genuine Palestinian statehood is achieved in all the territory occupied by Israel in 1967, there would be a chance for real peace. The results would mean political stability and economic stability in the region. Why would the pro-Israel lobby be so terrified of such a notion? Should ever-lasting peace be reached, there is a considerable possibility that stability may, 20 or 30 years down the road, naturally end in a bi-national state where Jews and Arabs would live side-by-side. If this were to happen, the entire concept of a Zionist state for a Jewish people would no longer be viable. Perhaps this is what frightens the pro-Israel lobby.

The Palestinians, meanwhile, view Bush's remarks as nothing more than a political maneuver to give the Arab states the pretext they need to join America's war on Ben Laden and the Taliban, and perhaps even justify an attack on Iraq and Islamic training camps in Arab countries such as Sudan, Yemen and Lebanon. Several Arab regimes have made it clear that their support of the war on terrorism is conditional to an American promise of a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and an end to the sanctions on Iraq. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for 34 years and the sanctions on Iraq for nearly a decade, yet the Arab states have hardly brought any pressure on the U.S. to change its policy. For a year now, the Arab and Muslim worlds have been watching, along with everyone else, the Palestinians getting killed and wounded, their homes shelled and demolished, and their land confiscated, while only paying lip-service to their plight. The Palestinians are all too aware that of this. Since the start of the current uprising in late September 2000, they've watched Arab leaders make empty statements on television, claiming support of the Palestinian uprising. On the ground, and for the average Palestinian who is bearing the brunt of Israeli air and land raids, there have been no visible signs of this support. The fact that 22 Arab states, with the oil wealth of some and the economic clout of others, cannot bring any reasonable pressure to bear on the U.S. to rethink its policy towards Israel's occupation of the Palestinians reveals the extent of their weakness.

More importantly, what is the use of getting the Bush Administration to "promise" a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? The situation in the Palestinian Territories requires something far more courageous than promises. It requires a hard, long look at a continually failing American foreign policy that is neither giving Israel the security it insists on having, nor the Palestinians the statehood they have long aspired for. It is time for the U.S. to become an honest peace broker in the Middle East. And it ought to do so in order to preserve its own interests in the region. Otherwise, the outcome for American interests in the Middle East looks very bleak. All over the Palestinian Territories, children collect the remains of Israeli tank shells. They point out to journalists the inscriptions in English: 'Made in Mesa, Arizona'. They mention that the Israeli Apache gunships, F-16 and F-15 fighter jets shelling their homes are also made in America. Tell these children that the U.S. is an honest peace broker and they laugh in your face. Ask them if they hate Americans and they tell you it is America's policy they hate. But for how long will this last?

One of the best parts of the American Constitution is: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This is the American spirit that should be exported overseas and should guide our foreign policy-makers. So long as we don't regard all mankind as equal and with unalienable rights equal to ours, we will continue to allow our tax money to pay for weapons that are exported to kill innocent civilians, when our hard-earned dollars could be better spent on Medicare, education and the medical research in this country.
Mid-East Realitieswww.middleeast.org

Source: http://www.middleeast.org/articles/2001/10/452.htm