Walking on eggshells
Rime Allaf, October 6, 2006
The International Crisis Group's statement on the Middle East tiptoes around the big issues, but they have to be faced sooner or later.
Dove of peace, by Pablo Picasso.
It has become disheartening, albeit ordinary, to observe that most people in positions of power, authority or responsibility in US-friendly countries treat the Arab-Israeli conflict in one of two ways: with kid gloves and exaggerated detachment (speaking of "two sides" while pretending to be objective and neutral, as many EU states do) or with confident partisanship and only feigned concern for the region (unwaveringly replicating Israel's rhetoric and supporting its position, as the Anglo-American partners, standing shoulder-to-shoulder, demonstrated this summer). While the latter's glaring double standards are infuriating, the former's deceptive engagement only creates false hopes.
It is supposedly when excellencies become ex-excellencies, or so one would have hoped, that they become free to voice opinions, to let their sense of justice overtake realpolitik, and to demand the application of international law, all of which can only benefit the dispossessed Palestinian people in dire need of help, and bring Israel the security and peace it claims to be seeking.
The "exes" who signed the International Crisis Group's statement this week, "Towards a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict," fail to fulfil this, reactivating yet another false hope with an initiative that is even weaker than all the other previous ones. In spite of the fanfare surrounding the declaration, there is little to celebrate in this gathering of so-called global leaders who are still walking on eggshells and who dare not even insist on the consistent observance of UN resolutions.
Wary of making an apparently politically incorrect faux pas by implying that Israel is the aggressor and occupier, ICG adopted a generic approach, declaring that "everyone has lost in this conflict". This suitably gives the illusion that said conflict is one between near-equals and that equal measures are expected from all. Moreover, it announces that the conflict has the Middle East "immersed in its worst crisis for years." That this may be at least partly because of Israel's military aggression on Gaza and on Lebanon in the past few months is left unsaid; could it be because the initiative is more concerned with how to improve the future?
Well, for this particular conflict (unlike, say, for the Iraq-Kuwait conflict of 1990), actual UN resolutions are apparently too restrictive, which is why the statement assures that the "outlines" of what is needed are already known. These outlines can be used as a rough guide, as a sketch, but not as the minimum necessary for a rosy future.
These outlines contain a peculiar selection of events: for instance, they include the Camp David peace treaty of 1978 between Egypt and Israel (whose direct relevance is unclear) but not the Oslo Accord of 1993 between the PLO and Israel (surely a more pertinent document, despite all its flaws). They mention the Arab League initiative of 2002 (rejected by Israel) and the roadmap of 2003 (an "initiative" which has become difficult to evoke in a serious manner) but not the more important Madrid peace conference of 1991. Perhaps Madrid was left out to avoid the inconvenient reminder of the "land for peace" equation, misleading as that may be given that it implies Israel would be giving up land, rather than giving it back. We should take comfort in the simple mention of UNSC resolutions 242 and 338, ignored by Israel since 1967 and 1973 respectively, but which, as they emanate from the security council, have the merit of being technically impossible to circumvent - or so we were told when the "peace" initiative in question was about Iraq's WMDs.
The goals of these "outlines" are first, it goes without saying, the security and full recognition of Israel. Then, an "end to the occupation for the Palestinian people" (from the statement, you wouldn't know who actually occupies them) in a viable (for whom?) independent, sovereign state (the mere mention of "Palestine" being too ominous, apparently). There is nothing new here.
What is new, however, is the most timid - practically cowardly - part of the statement calling for "the return of lost land to Syria". Lost land? What exactly is lost land? Lost where, when and how? Did Syria inadvertently lose it while not paying attention, or did it misplace it in a crowded place? Did Syria forget where it put it? And did Israel (which we know, no thanks to the statement, has it) just happen to find it? An innocent case of lost and found, finders keepers?
If anything is lost, it's the integrity of initiatives with such statements. UNSC resolution 497 of 1981 rejects Israel's illegal annexation of the Golan Heights (Syria's "lost land") and recalls, as most resolutions do (including the important 242), the fundamental principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force. This applies not only to Syria's lost land, but to all territory illegally occupied by Israel, no matter how exes, even well-meaning ones, phrase it.
The proposal to give "support for a Palestinian national unity government" implies there will be none for the current government which, whether we like it or not, was elected democratically. Indeed, the statement goes on to mention talks with the conveniently vague "Palestinian leadership" rather than the government. Such compliance with Israeli and American requirements is not a good omen, nor is the omission of vital issues- namely the right of return covered in resolution 194, and granted anyway in article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
For all its limitations, this initiative probably aims at shaking the "international community" out of its lethargy and breaking the silence on the Middle East's problems. But then why such a feeble, half-hearted attempt? Reaching a just and comprehensive settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict is feasible, but difficult, so tiptoeing around the big issues is pointless: sooner or later, they must be faced, and international law (in addition to basic humanitarian principles) must be applied without exception. In simple terms, this includes the withdrawal of Israel (army and settlers) to the borders of June 4, 1967, the creation of the state of Palestine, the right of return and the right of compensation for refugees, all of which should ensure a state of non-belligerence and security for everyone. Undeniably, the right to exist, in all its dimensions, applies to all people, as does the respect of national sovereignty.
Contrary to the initiative's assertion, there is actually no "desperate need for fresh thinking" there aren't hundreds of ways to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, only one, and it's already been all thought out (including by ICG in better projects). Therefore, what is desperately needed is determined action for a just and comprehensive peace; without Washington's support, this will continue to be mission impossible, a situation the current plan aims at reversing. But let's face it; if such an unconvincing initiative is all that 135 global leaders could sponsor, the future looks bleak for the Middle East.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/oct/06/towardsbraverandfairermidd
