"What we feared has come true," Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling
writes in Israel's leading newspaper. Jews and Palestinians are
"regressing to superstitious tribalism.... War appears an unavoidable
fate," an "evil colonial" war. This prospect is likely if the U.S.
grants tacit authorization, with grim consequences that may reverberate
far beyond.
There is, of course, no symmetry between the "ethno-national groups"
regressing to tribalism. The conflict is centered in territories
that have been under harsh military occupation since 1967. The conqueror
is a major armed power, acting with massive military, economic and
diplomatic support from the global superpower. Its subjects are
alone and defenseless, many barely surviving in miserable camps.
The cruelty of the occupation has been sharply condemned by international
and Israeli human rights groups for many years. The purpose of the
terror, economic strangulation and daily humiliation is not obscure.
It was articulated in the early years of the occupation by Moshe
Dayan, one of the Israeli leaders most sympathetic to the Palestinian
plight, who advised his Labor Party associates to tell the Palestinians
that "you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may
leave." The Oslo "peace process" changed the modalities, but not
the basic concept. Shortly before joining the Ehud Barak government,
historian Shlomo Ben-Ami, a dove in the U.S.-Israeli spectrum, wrote
that "the Oslo agreements were founded on a neocolonialist basis."
The intent was to impose on the Palestinians "almost total dependence
on Israel" in a "colonial situation" that was to be "permanent."
He soon became the architect of the latest Barak government proposals,
virtually identical to Bill Clinton's final plan.
These proposals were highly praised in U.S. commentary; the Palestinians
and Yasser Arafat were blamed for their failure and the subsequent
violence.
That presentation "was a fraud perpetrated on Israeli ... and international
... public opinion," Kimmerling writes accurately. He continues
that, a look at a map suffices to show that the Clinton-Barak plans
"presented to the Palestinians impossible terms." Crucially, Israel
retained "two settlement blocs that in effect cut the West Bank
into pieces." The Palestinian enclaves also are effectively separated
from the center of Palestinian life in Jerusalem; the Gaza Strip
remains isolated, its population virtually imprisoned.
Israeli settlement in the territories doubled during the years of
the "peace process," increasing under Barak, who bequeathed the
new government of Ariel Sharon "a surprising legacy," the Israeli
press reported as the transition took place early this year: "The
highest number of housing starts in the territories" since the time
when Sharon supervised settlements in 1992, before Oslo. The facts
on the ground are the living reality for the desperate population.
The nature of permanent neo-colonial dependency was underscored
by Israel's High Court of Justice in November 1999 when it rejected
yet another Palestinian petition opposing further expansion of the
[Jewish] city of Maale Adumim established to the east of
Jerusalem, virtually partitioning the West Bank.
The court suggested that "some good for the residents of neighboring
[Palestinian villages] might spring from the economic and
cultural development" of the all-Jewish city. While they try to
survive without water to drink or fields to cultivate, the people
whose lands have been taken can enjoy the sight of the ample housing,
green lawns, swimming pools and other amenities of the heavily subsidized
Israeli settlements.
Immediately after World War II, the Geneva Conventions were adopted
to bar repetition of Nazi crimes, including transfer of population
to occupied territories or actions that harm civilians. As a so-called
high contracting party, the U.S. is obligated "to ensure respect"
for the conventions.
With Israel alone opposed, the United Nations has repeatedly declared
the conventions applicable to the occupied territories; the U.S.
abstains from these votes, unwilling to take a public stand in violation
of fundamental principles of international law, which require it
to act to prevent settlement and expropriation, attacks on civilians
with U.S.-supplied helicopters, collective punishment and all other
repressive measures used by the occupying forces. Washington has
continued to provide the means to implement these practices, refusing
even to allow observers who might reduce violence and protect the
victims.
For 25 years, there has been a near-unanimous international consensus
on the terms of political settlement: a full peace treaty with establishment
of a Palestinian state after Israeli withdrawal, an outcome that
enjoys wide support even within Israel. It has been blocked by Washington
ever since its veto of a Security Council resolution to that effect
in 1976.
It is far from an ideal solution. But the likely current alternatives
are far more ugly.
Philosopher and social critic Noam Chomsky is author of "A New
Generation Draws the Line: Kosovo, East Timor, and the Variable
Standards of the West" (Verso, 2000)
Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times
###
