|
"The Bush letter so overwhelming supported by the House declares
that 'the United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by
anyone to.."
By
Stephen Zunes
On Wednesday, June 23, 2004,
the U.S. House of Representatives, in an overwhelming bipartisan
vote, endorsed right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s
efforts to colonize and annex large sections of the Palestinian West
Bank, seized by Israel in the June 1967 war.
This was not just another "pro-Israel" (or, more accurately,
"pro-Israeli right") resolution, but an effective renunciation of
the post-World War II international system based upon the premise of
the illegitimacy of the expansion of a country’s territory by
military force.
House Concurrent Resolution 460, sponsored by right-wing Republican
leader Tom DeLay, "strongly endorses" the letter sent by President
George W. Bush to the Israeli prime minister in April supporting his
so-called "disengagement" plan. This unilateral initiative calls for
withdrawing the illegal Israeli settlements from the occupied Gaza
Strip, but – far more significantly – would incorporate virtually
all of the illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank into
Israel, leaving the Palestinians with a series of non-contiguous and
economically unviable cantons, each surrounded by Israeli territory,
collectively constituting barely 10% of historic Palestine. (Even in
the case of the Gaza Strip, Sharon’s plan would allow Israel to
control the borders, the ports, and the airspace, as well as having
the right to conduct military operations inside Palestinian areas at
will.)
The vote was 407 in favor of the resolution and only 9 opposed.
The Bush letter so overwhelming supported by the House declares that
"the United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by
anyone to impose any other plan." Indeed, the resolution appears to
be part of an effort to short-circuit last fall’s Geneva Initiative,
a comprehensive peace plan supported by the Palestinian leadership
and leading Israeli moderates. In that proposal, the Palestinians
agreed that Israel could annex some blocs of settlements, but only
along Israel’s internationally recognized borders and only in
exchange for an equivalent amount of territory currently part of Israel
that would be granted to the new Palestinian state. According to
public opinion polls, the majority of Americans – including a
majority of American Jews – support this approach over the
Bush-backed Sharon plan so overwhelming endorsed by Congress.
The resolution does not even make mention of the once highly-touted
"road map" for Israeli-Palestinian peace that the United States drew
up with representatives of Russia, the European Union, and the
United Nations. The "road map" demanded that any growth in the
settlements be frozen and that the remaining outstanding issues,
such as borders and the status of Palestinian refugees be left for
negotiations between the two parties.
Congressman Pete Stark of California,
one of the nine dissenters, observed how the resolution did not call
on both Israelis and Palestinians to work together to find a
peaceful solution to this conflict, correctly observing that "all
parties in the process must work together," something the resolution
notably omitted. Minority leader Nancy Pelosi and Deputy minority
leader Steny Hoyer (who was a cosponsor of the DeLay resolution)
refused to place a resolution cosponsored by Stark (H.R. 479), which
applauds Israelis and Palestinians who are working together to
conceive pragmatic, serious plans for achieving peace and encourages
both Israeli and Palestinian leaders to capitalize on the
opportunity offered by these peace initiatives.
According to Israeli press reports, Sharon brought four separate
disengagement plans to Washington requiring various degrees of
Israeli withdrawal, but President Bush ended up endorsing the one
which allowed Israel
to annex the largest amount of Palestinian territory. Now, much to
the chagrin of progressive and moderate Israelis, Congress has also
chosen to throw its weight behind the most right-wing of the four
proposals.
Most observers – including leading Israeli military and intelligence
officials – recognize that by leaving the Palestinians with little
hope of achieving a viable state through negotiations, this will
only swell the ranks of extremist Palestinian groups and produce
more terrorism. Congress has rejected this analysis, however,
insisting that Sharon’s land grab will somehow "enhance the security
of Israel and advance the cause of peace in the Middle East."
The resolution calls for the Palestinian "state" that could
eventually emerge to be "based on rule of law and respect for human
rights," but does not call on Israel to respect the rule of law and
human rights, which its occupation forces and colonists – according
to reputable human rights organization in Israel and elsewhere – are
violating on a daily basis.
The resolution also repeatedly cites Palestinian terrorism as the
obstacle to peace and security, not the Israeli occupation and
repression that has spawned it. Furthermore, the resolution calls
for the United States to further strengthen Israel’s military
prowess and defends Israel’s right to launch attacks against
Palestinian groups that "threaten Israeli citizens," which
presumably includes settlers and their militias which have been
responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian civilians,
including large numbers of children.
In supporting this resolution, Congress has effectively renounced UN
Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which call on Israel – in
return for security guarantees from its Arab neighbors – to withdraw
from territories seized in the June 1967 war. All previous U.S.
administrations of both parties had seen these resolutions as the
basis for Arab-Israeli peace.
These Israeli settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention,
which deem it illegal for any country to transfer any part of its
civilian population onto territories seized by military force. UN
Security Council resolutions 446, 452, 465 and 471 explicitly call
on Israel to remove its colonists from the occupied territories. The
vast majority of these settlements that the Bush-Sharon plan seeks
to formally annex into Israel were built after these resolutions
were passed.
In an incredible act of chutzpah, however, the resolution claims
that Israel should not be expected to withdraw from these
settlements "in light of new realities on the ground," namely the
settlements built in violation of these UN Security Council
resolutions.
Congress, however, apparently agrees with President Bush that
Sharon’s Israel, unlike Saddam’s Iraq, need not abide by UN Security
Council resolutions.
In that clause, the resolution refers to the illegal settlements
euphemistically as "Israeli population centers." More significantly,
the resolution refers to these settlements as being "in Israel,"
effectively already recognizing their annexation.
The resolution also insists that supporting the right of Palestinian
refugees to return to their homes in Israel – or even in the
occupied territories to be annexed by Israel under the Bush-Sharon
plan – would not be "just" or "fair."
The Bush letter endorsed by Congress effectively destroys the once
highly-touted "road map" and marks the first time in the history of
the peace process that a U.S. president has preempted negotiations
by announcing support of such a unilateral initiative by one party.
Both Israel and the United States continue to refuse to even
negotiate with Palestine Authority President Yasser Arafat,
Palestinian Prime Minister Amhed Qureia, or any other recognized
Palestinian leader, on substantive issues dealing with a peace
settlement.
Supporting the resolution were the fundamentalist Christian
Coalition, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, and other
right-wing groups. Leading the opposition to the resolution were
Churches for Middle East Peace, the Tikkun Community, and similar
progressive organizations. That the entire House Democratic
leadership and all but a handful of Democrats overall supported the
resolution is demonstrative of just how far to the right the
Democratic Party has gone. In short, the Democrats, like the
Republicans, now support the neoconservative doctrine that places
the right of conquest over the rule of law.
More fundamentally, Congress’ effective endorsement of an Israeli
annexation of land it conquered in the 1967 war is a direct
challenge to the United Nations Charter, which forbids any country
from expanding its territory through military conquest. The vote,
therefore, constitutes nothing less than an overwhelming bipartisan
renunciation of the post-World War II international system,
effectively recognizing the right of conquest.
|
