Noam Chomsky / The New Statesman – 2010-11-13 19:25:51
LONDON (November 8, 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 recognized (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-defense. 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 PappÃ© (Hamish Hamilton, Â£14.99.
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.