http://www.newstatesman.com/middle-east/2010/11/israel-chomsky-obama
The betrayal of Gaza
By Noam Chomsky
New Statesman/UK: November 10, 2010
The US is vocal about its commitment to peace in Israel and the Palestinian
territories - but its actions suggest otherwise.
That the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear
to be rather strange. For many of the world's conflicts, it is difficult
even to conjure up a feasible settlement. In this case, not only is it
possible, but there is near-universal agreement on its basic contours: a
two-state settlement along the internationally recognised (pre-June 1967)
borders - with "minor and mutual modifications", to adopt official US
terminology before Washington departed from the international community in
the mid-1970s.
The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world,
including the Arab states (which call for the full normalisation of
relations), the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (including Iran) and
relevant non-state actors (including Hamas). A settlement along these lines
was first proposed at the UN Security Council in January 1976 and backed by
the major Arab states. Israel refused to attend. The United States vetoed
the resolution, and did so again in 1980. The record at the General Assembly
since is similar.
But there was one important and revealing break in US-Israeli rejectionism.
After the failed Camp David agreements in 2000, President Clinton recognised
that the terms he and Israel had proposed were unacceptable to any
Palestinians. That December, he proposed his "parameters": imprecise but
more forthcoming. He then stated that both sides had accepted the
parameters, while expressing reservations.
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met in Taba, Egypt, in January 2001 to
resolve the differences and were making progress. At their final press
conference, they reported that, with more time, they could probably have
reached full agreement. Israel called off the negotiations prematurely,
however, and official progress was then terminated, though informal
discussions at a high level continued, leading to the Geneva Accord,
rejected by Israel and ignored by the US. Much has happened since but a
settlement along those lines is still not out of reach, if Washington is
once again willing to accept it. Unfortunately, there is little sign of
that.
The US and Israel have been acting in tandem to extend and deepen the
occupation. Take the situation in Gaza. After its formal withdrawal from the
Gaza Strip in 2005, Israel never relinquished its total control over the
territory, often described as "the world's largest prison".
In January 2006, Palestine had an election that was recognised as free and
fair by international observers. Palestinians, however, voted "the wrong
way", electing Hamas. Instantly, the US and Israel intensified their assault
against Gazans as punishment for this misdeed. The facts and the reasoning
were not concealed; rather, they were published alongside reverential
commentary on Washington's dedication to democracy. The US-backed Israeli
assault against the Gazans has only intensified since, in the form of savage
violence and economic strangulation. After Israel's 2008-2009 assault, Gaza
has become a virtually unliveable place.
It cannot be stressed too often that Israel had no credible pretext for its
attack on Gaza, with full US support and illegally using US weapons. Popular
opinion asserts the contrary, claiming that Israel was acting in
self-defence. That is utterly unsustainable, in light of Israel's flat
rejection of peaceful means that were readily available, as Israel and its
US partner in crime knew very well.
Truth by omission
In his Cairo address to the Muslim world on 4 June 2009, Barack Obama echoed
George W Bush's "vision" of two states, without saying what he meant by the
phrase "Palestinian state". His intentions were clarified not only by his
crucial omissions, but also by his one explicit criticism of Israel: "The
United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli
settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines
efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."
That is, Israel should live up to Phase I of the 2003 "road map", rejected
by Israel with tacit US support. The operative words are "legitimacy" and
"continued". By omission, Obama indicates that he accepts Bush's vision: the
vast existing settlement and infrastructure projects are "legitimate".
Always even-handed, Obama also had an admonition for the Arab states: they
"must recognise that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning
but not the end of their responsibilities". Plainly, however, it cannot be a
meaningful "beginning" if Obama continues to reject its core principle: the
implementation of the international consensus. To do so, however, is
evidently not Washington's "responsibility" in his vision.
On democracy, Obama said that "we would not presume to pick the outcome of a
peaceful election" - as in January 2006, when Washington picked the outcome
with a vengeance, turning at once to the severe punishment of the
Palestinians because it did not like the results of a peaceful election.
This happened with Obama's apparent approval, judging by his words before
and actions since taking office. There should be little difficulty in
understanding why those whose eyes are not closed tight shut by rigid
doctrine dismiss Obama's yearning for democracy as a joke in bad taste.
Extracted from "Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel's War Against the
Palestinians" by Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappé (Hamish Hamilton, £14.99.
No comments:
Post a Comment