Israel/Palestine Conflict: U.S. Debate is way overdue

Israel/Palestine Conflict: US Debate is way overdue
By Edgar Hopida
(Unpublished Opinion Editorial)

Recently, well respected figures in our country have critically questioned our policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Professors Mearsheimer and Walt presented a well documented academic paper on the negative influence of the Israeli Lobby on our Middle East policy and former President Jimmy Carter’s new book on the mistakes of Israel and US policy and how to move forward, are the more notable of those critics.

There is a long history in support of these critics which our media unfortunately ignores, deliberately avoids, or in same cases distorts. Since the start of the conflict when early Jewish immigrants escaping the Nazi persecution started flocking to what was known Palestine (now Israel and the Occupied Territories), the international community tried to intervene by giving a part to Israel and leaving the rest to Palestinians in resolution 181. The United Nations since then issued over 60 Security Council resolutions condemning Israel (http://www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk/pages/isreal_un_resolutions.htm) of which 42 of them were vetoed by the US. The UN also attempted to solve this conflict peacefully on many occasions including the drafting of Security Council Resolution 242 which required Israel to withdraw from all Arab territories captured in the June 1967 war. In fact the preambular paragraph of that same resolution stated that, “emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.”

The international consensus in support of Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories captured in 1967 has remained strong for more than 25 years only to be opposed by United States, Israel, and occasionally a U.S. client state.
In 2002 a General Assembly resolution which sought a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, affirming Israel’s right to secure and recognized borders as well as the Palestinians right to an independent state in West Bank and Gaza had a vote of 160-4, with Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and U.S. opposing. Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinians which the vote was 141-5, with Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, and U.S. opposing.

The Oslo accords basically forced the Palestinian leadership to accept occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and Israel made the PLO a surrogate to its control of these territories. As far as the territorial make-up, it was fragmented into non-connecting cantons similar to the Bantustan of South Africa and buffered by Israeli only access roads, Israeli settlements, and check points.

B’Tselem (Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories) put out a comprehensive report back in 2002 called Land Grab which details the official Israeli policy of settlements in the Occupied Territories. Nearly half of the land surface of West Bank is made up of illegal Israeli settlements. This is in fact deemed illegal under international law to build on land taken illegally from Palestinians. The irony is that during the years of Oslo, the Israeli settlers increased from 250,000 to 380,000. In addition, the settlements were considered inaccessible to Palestinians unless they have special authorization from the Israeli government. This has effectively prevented any kind of significant Palestinian development. Another issue rarely brought up is water. The 5,000 Israeli settlers of the Jordan Valley consume more than 75% of the water. This is comparable to the amount of water consumed by 2 million Palestinians in West Bank.

Despite the claims made, not one settlement was dismantled during the Oslo period and in fact there was more than a 50 percent increase in settlements not including the ones built in East Jerusalem. The growth spurt of these settlements occurred not during the more hawkish Netanyahu, but during the dovish regime of Ehud Barak. During Sharon’s first few months as Prime Minister, over 44 new settlements were built.

Camp David accord which was touted as the “generous offer” was in fact no offer at all other than accepting the reality that the settlements were there to stay and Arafat had to accept it. Arafat tried desperately to cling to the international consensus on the issue and even compromised to accept settlements in the West Bank for the exchange of land swap of equal size and value. This however was not what the United States and Israel wanted. Their ultimatum was clear: either accept the dysfunctional Bantustan Palestinian state or be labeled the solely responsible for the collapse of the peace process.

The Saudi peace plan in 2002 was also rejected by the Israelis despite the fact it offered more than generous concessions: In exchange for full Israeli withdrawal and a just solution to the refugee problem, the plan offered full recognition and normal relations with Israel. This was a major concession because the Saudi plan did not ask for the right of return of Palestinians who were made refugees. If Israel in fact wanted normal relations with the Arab world and a stable peace, they would have jumped up at such an opportunity. This however, was not the case.

Sharon’s “big sacrifice” of dismantling all the settlements in Gaza in 2004 was in fact a smoke screen in building up the so called “security fence” which is deemed illegal in international law and condemned by just about every human rights organization, and the expansion of settlements in West Bank. Gaza’s airspace and sea lanes also continued to be under the control of the Israeli government. Professor Tanya Reinhart of Tel Aviv University said, “In other words, the Palestinians will be imprisoned from all sides, with no connection to the world, except through Israel. Israel also reserves for itself the right to act militarily inside the Gaza strip.” Tanya Reinhart even published a recent book entitled, Road Map to Nowhere-Israel/Palestine Since 2003 which destroys the Quartet led “Roadmap” plan which offers no viable solution to the problem.

The U.S. government has unfortunately protected Israel from all international pressure and has made it immune to typical international sanctions for similar actions done by other countries. This can easily be seen by looking at the veto record of the U.S. when it comes to any issue that criticizes the actions of Israel. The U.S. also gives Israel over $6 billion annually in weapons and loans. As Mearsheimer and Walt had written in their report on the Israel lobby in the U.S., “neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America’s support for Israel.”

This kind of uncritical support has only led to resentment all throughout the world especially in the Middle East, and has only fueled extremism and terrorism. The United States cannot be considered an honest broker between the two parties if such support for Israel continues. If we are seriously considering making genuine peace in the region, it starts with solving this problem that benefits both Israelis and Palestinians equally. If we, as a nation, decide to keep the status quo, we will certainly be dragged in never ending conflicts that will incur huge financial burdens and more importantly more loss of innocent human lives.


Edgar D. Hopida is the Director of Public Relations for the San Diego Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-San Diego). He may be contacted at ehopida@cair.com