A False Compromise
Brad makes several good points. That Sharon has “adopted
a policy of compromise,” though, is not one of them.
Israel’s disengagement is unilateral and not in a
reconciliatory spirit. When the man who has you in a headlock loosens his
hold and changes his position, it is not a compromise. While Sharon has not
appeased the settlers, he has capitalized on their situation: the difficulty
and chaos surrounding the withdrawal that has been so highlighted by the
media, especially in Israel, is not an accident. When it comes time to
address settlers in the West Bank, the trumpeted resistance of the Gaza
settlers will certainly be a large factor.
But since when is complying with the law considered a
compromise? It is interesting that many Americans who condemned Bush for his
callous attitude toward the UN and obtaining broad support in Iraq have no
problem with Israel’s blatant disregard for international law. Article 49 of
the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time
of War states that “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of
its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Israel has
ignored this since 1967. Until Israel dismantles all of its illegal
settlements, it is not a compromise. Until then, Israel will be a rogue
nation.
Then there is the “Security Wall,” the biggest Jewish
construction effort since the Pyramids. This wall was explicitly found to be
illegal by the International Court of Justice. Last July, the UN General
Assembly requested that the ICJ investigate the wall’s legality and the
Advisory Opinion was that Israel is in violation of international law. The
wall, according to Phyllis Bennis from the Institute for Policy Studies, will
“lock West Bank Palestinians into tiny cantons separated from each other and
their own land.” This wall will be devastating for the Palestinian economy
and agriculture. Israel is rushing construction and it will soon be near
completion.
The disengagement by no means equals Palestinian
autonomy or self-determination. Israel will still control the border and the
military will control and monitor all crossing points. According to Bennis,
“Israel will control Gaza’s skies and seas, the building and operation of any
future port or airport will be under Israeli permission and the people of Gaza
will have no ability to move in and out of their land, to ship agricultural
products out or bring crucial medicines in, except under intrusive Israeli
control.” This is unilaterally giving the occupation a facelift; it is not
ending an occupation, complying with legal standards, or reaching a
compromise.
Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere have been the victims
of oppressive state practices. Arab violence against Israel does not justify
these practices and these practices do not justify Arab violence – comparing
these reprehensible actions is useless. The conditions in Arab areas like
Gaza are severe – in the past four years, the Israeli military has demolished
over 2,500 homes. Over 10% of the Rafah population (which borders Egypt) has
lost their homes. Overall, nearly half of all Palestinians live below the
poverty line, according to the World Bank.
The withdrawal, as it stands now, will not improve these
dismal conditions. Many even fear that it can open up the possibility of a
larger scale attack from Israel, now that the settlers are out of the way.
The words of Israeli General Eival Giladi are cause for concern: "If pinpoint
response proves insufficient, we may have to use weaponry that causes major
collateral damage, including helicopters and planes, with mounting danger to
surrounding people." This sort of action is indefensible when committed by
America and it is indefensible when committed by Israel.
Yes, every nation has the right to protect itself. Right
now, Israel has an army and resources that dwarf its surrounding neighbors –
the image of a scrappy little nation fighting the big bad wolves from 1967 is
no longer quite accurate. But military action must bear in mind international
law and standards and the international community must be considered. The 21st
century has seen some very dangerous precedents set in this respect.
Both Israeli and Palestinian leaders have failed their
people and have made peace a distance notion. Both sides are riddled with
idiotic, theocratic arguments that care more about ancient texts than about
human suffering. Arafat’s efforts were too little too late. Abbas is
overstretched and, despite his intentions, is not building the coalitions that
are necessary. All those things need to be recognized. The discourse in this
country must change in order to understand a complex and tragic situation.
Self-interested leaders betray the people on both sides and condemnation must
fall all around. Right now though, Israel’s path is not one leading to
peace.