|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2010-10-08
© 2010 Peter Belmont
With respect to the Israeli belligerent occupation of various Arab lands, the international community of nations has long been giving itself a “pass” on its responsibility to ensure that international law is respected in all circumstances (see the “common” Article I[1] of each of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949). This do-nothing policy, it is argued by some, is necessary so that the nations do not—by the vigor of their enforcement efforts—upset the oh-so-delicate “peace process” that is currently on-going (and, doubtless, in a critically important phase) and which is, after all, aiming at a far more important result than the mere enforcement of international humanitarian law.
This false way of seeing (and of responding to) the so-called peace-process and the presently-in-place apartheid regime in Israel/Palestine is echoed in a way by Mearsheimer’s recent rhetorical placing of Apartheid-Israel in the future.
“Gee, fellas,” the nations seem to say to each other, “reports of the death of the peace process are highly exaggerated and we may, therefore, conveniently sit on our hands on the issue of international law — the illegal settlements, the illegal WALL, the illegal blockade of Gaza. And, although there is obviously an Apartheid-like regime in place in the occupied territories—including occupied East Jerusalem, there is no reason to regard it as permanent, and therefore no reason for us to become exercised over it, since the on-going and perhaps soon-to-be-fruitful peace negotiations will straighten it all out, replacing the Apartheid occupied territories with a splendid, shiny, new Palestinian state. Far be it from us to interfere destructively whilst the peace process proceeds on its stately way.”
(The “peace process” to the extent that it embraces an actual negotiation aimed at creating an actual treaty—which many doubt—is being conducted by Israel and the USA by means, in part, of the vigorous and enthusiastic use of settlement building and land confiscation, wall building, and blockading (of Gaza), to name only a few of the USA-Israeli negotiation techniques, these latter all illegal at international law. Peace negotiations conducted in this fashion call to mind the methods used by police in precinct backrooms to conduct ‘negotiations’ for confessions of their prisoners by the enthusiastic and energetic application of rubber hoses as negotiating tools. Imagine any American being in favor of this type of ‘negotiation.’)
The question for the peace with justice (or anti-Apartheid) community (very much including the PLO and even Abbas) is — how to persuade the international community of nations that the time for sitting on the side lines has ended and the time to act has at long last come.
(The end of sitting on hands, though not yet well under way, may have begun: Norway has forbidden the testing of Israeli submarines in her waters, for example.)
I offer one answer to the question of how the nations can be encouraged to intervene in my badly named—and possibly ill-considered—essay On choosing between various seemingly pointless pro-Palestine actions. I’d be interested to hear other answers. This should be THE major topic of the BDS folks and all other anti-Apartheid folks.
-----------
[1]
Article 1 common to the four Geneva Conventions reads as follows: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances”
|
