Opinions of Peter Belmont
Speaking Truth to Power
| On choosing between various seemingly pointless pro-Palestine actions |
|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2010-10-03
By and large, all major pro-Palestine actions which might be taken by governments other than those of the USA or Israel for the purpose of peace making are pointless in light of the joint Israeli-USA sturdy (and 40 year long) determination to prevent the emergence of the “just and lasting peace” imagined in UNSC 242 (1967). The philosophy and small successes of the BDS movement, however, suggest that there might be some international efforts that might bear fruit. More about that below.[1] We’ve reconsidered. We no longer ask for a unilateral and voluntary freeze on settlement building by Israel. Today, we say that we do not consider that either Israel or the USA is a legitimate negotiating partner at this time and will not become so until they have done two things.[3] Now such a position may seem extreme and pointless. What? After 43 years, ask Israel (and the USA) to comply with international law? That dog won’t hunt![4] Well, perhaps. And one would not expect results soon, in any case. But the nations have watched the “peace process” decline from something in which reasonable people could repose hope (Madrid, 1991) to something which is by common—if mostly silent—agreement, a useless charade (2010). And at the same time, they have seen international humanitarian and human rights law shown to be effectively fictions as Israel and the USA, as chief offenders, have ignored them. One may hope that, one by one, the nations of the world, starting with the very smallest of baby steps and then, as momentum develops, continuing in larger and larger steps, will register their preference for a world subject to the Rule of Law over what we have today, a world ruled by the sole, and lawless, (military) superpower, the USA. What might these steps be? The “baby steps” might be cessation of sports contact with Israel or denial of visas to Israelis. And, always, official speeches decrying Israeli violations of human rights and violations of international law. Larger steps might include removal of embassies and gradually increasing partial or general cessation of trade. No nation would have to take maximal steps all at once. Gradualism would be the key, together with constant repetition that the goal of these actions is that Israel conduct its occupations lawfully for as long as they continue, not in any way delegitimization of Israel within its widely-recognized pre-1967 borders. But, some will say, that path has no future. The USA will use its economic and military power to prevent any states from attempting to exercise such pressure on Israel. No good will come of this now or later. If the nations could be shamed into action, they would have acted long ago, for Israel’s actions (such as its siege and pulverization of Gaza and its attacks on the Mavi Marmara, to choose recent well-publicized examples) have indeed shamed any nations capable of feeling shame. Some will say that anything would be better than this for the Palestinians. To this I would argue that this has not been tried and everything which has been tried has already failed. So why not act with dignity and make a stand for the Rule of Law? And trust that the people (civil societies) who live in democracies and who have already started to move via the BDS process may move their own governments to take the baby steps, or the larger steps, which might bring a return to the Rule of Law. And, lastly, what of peace? It is my fervent believe that peace will take care of itself if the nations exercise themselves sufficiently to bring about the restoration of the Rule of Law, and that, conversely, there will never be a “just and lasting peace” until then. ----------- [1] Others have similar ideas. See: Halper: American Jews (and the Congress) don’t want an Israel at peace. Halper says: “But I will tell you my formula for peace. You say to Israel three things. Obama and the international community have to say it. ”One, We love you. Israelis love to hear that. That’s where Sadat succeeded. He hugged Golda [Meir] and the Israelis melted. They just melted.” That is why Israel yielded the Sinai so easily in the end after a lot of bluster. “Obama would come and speak at the Knesset, Abu Mazen would go to Yad Vashem. “Two, we will guarantee your security. Israelis are not committed to the occupation for ideological reasons, most Israelis aren’t, but because they don’t trust Arabs. If you can allay their fears that withdrawal won’t lead to Sderot, then they will do it... There are security arrangements that could be found to satisfy the Israeli public. “Three, you say the occupation’s over. Period. You’re out of every square inch… Maybe parts of Gush Etzion would be swapped, but we’re back to the 1967 borders. And the Jewish Quarter in a shared Jerusalem, not a divided Jerusalem. The only resource Jerusalem has is its religious symbolism, and you want to give all the stakeholders a feeling of ownership. “If that scenario were followed, you’d have dancing in the streets of Tel Aviv. This is what Israelis want. They want security. They don’t want to see Palestinians. This is what Ehud Barak ran on in 1999, for Labor. ‘Us here, them there.’ That’s what Israelis want, and that’s what the two state solution would do.” ----------- [2] These territories may also be “administered”. Outside of Antarctica, there is little land in the world that is not administered by some nation-state. But, whether or not administered, the lands captured in 1967 and so far still controlled by Israel, are “occupied territory”. ----------- [3] There is some possibility that the PA will abandon peace talks and, indeed, cease to operate as the PA, if President Abbas quits the peace talks and resigns due to Israel’s continued building of settlements. See analysis here. Earlier this week, Abbas also threatened to resign if talks were to break down. According to Haaretz, Abbas’ resignation would mean “dismantling of the Palestinian Authority, since it was agreed inside the government that no one from the leadership of Fatah will step up to replace Abbas as president, and no new elections will be held.” ----------- [4] I once heard Israeli peacenik Uri Avnery tell his audience in a New York City synagogue that the enforcement of the Fourth Geneva Convention’s ban on settlement was a “dead letter”. What he hid from his audience and maybe from himself was that peace-making itself was rapidly becoming, if it was not already, a dead letter. |
Comments:
Submit a comment, subject to review:
|
123pab.com | Top
©2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 www.123pab.com |