|
Bush
Comes Out
In
light of new realities on the ground, including already existing
major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that
the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and
complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.
- George W. Bush
 |
|
There
is a notable absence: a Palestinian.ý
|
A
couple of weeks ago I was crossing the 1967 line from Jerusalem into
Bethlehem with a seemingly intelligent foreigner wanting to visit a
refugee camp. “So I hear Sharon is pulling out the settlements,”
he said as the massive settlement of Har Homa was looming up to our
right. “Er, not exactly,” I said, not quite knowing what to
reply.
Let’s
hope that Bush’s latest offering to the world on his vision for a
new Middle East has finally got the message across that the US and
Israel have no intention of putting an end to the settlements. But
maybe it hasn’t. Perhaps people didn’t realize that the
“existing major Israeli population centers” he was referring to
is another way of saying settlements. Settlements within 1967
occupied territory deemed illegal by international law. No ambiguity
there; the President of the world’s dominant power openly endorses
the continuation of Israeli settlements.
So
what does April 2004’s speech mean in practice? Well to be honest,
it is nothing new. The US has failed to challenge the existence of
illegal settlements and the denial of the rights of Palestinian
refugees for generations. The key difference is that now the
administration is happy to boldly say so. As Bush and Sharon appear
side by side on the cover of the world’s newspapers, there is a
notable absence: a Palestinian. No more the patronizing American
“honest broker,” forcing longtime enemies into a hesitant
handshake. It does not take a political analyst to work out on whose
side America stands.
No
more the patronizing American “honest broker,” forcing
longtime enemies into a hesitant handshake.
|
|
The
world’s media has portrayed this as a dramatic shift in long-term
US policy, and indeed it is in terms of public rhetoric. Previously
the official public line has always been that issues such as
settlements and refugees were to be dealt with only at “final
status negotiations,” and therefore the US would make no comment
on the details. However for Palestinians on the ground, who have
dealt with American made Israeli weaponry for decades, who saw
Clinton throw the blame onto Arafat for refusing to accept a
“bantustanized” Palestinian state at Camp David, who have
watched the US veto any UN condemnation of Israel, this is no change
in policy.
So
Bush claims that it is “unrealistic” to expect Israel to
withdraw from all West Bank settlements. He talks of 1949 armistice
lines, as if negotiating the end of a war, rather than addressing
the occupation of Palestinian land in 1967 (and heaven forbid we
reconsider what happened in 1948). Bush talks of preserving the
“Jewish character of Israel,” justifying the second class status
of the million Palestinian non-Jewish citizens of Israel. There will
be no return for Palestinian refugees to lands within this Jewish
state, a statement which the Israeli daily Ha’aretz claims as the
greatest achievement from Sharon.
Few
media outlets picked up on the mention of “new opportunities in
the Negev and the Galilee,” densely populated Palestinian areas
within the 1948 borders. Sharon makes no secret of his desire to
confiscate further land from Palestinians within Israeli borders and
to proceed to “Judaize” all areas, hopefully with the help of
settlers formerly in Gaza (Reuters).
Bush
justified the second class status of non-Jewish citizens of
Israel.
|
|
Sharon’s
delegation were naturally over the moon, admitting that there had
been alternative concessions they had privately considered making to
Bush, but in the event there had been no need; Bush accepted the
preferred plan to begin with. In order for Sharon to win the support
of his own Likud constituency he needed reassurances from Bush
regarding the West Bank settlements. Especially in the light
increased domestic questioning of Bush’s judgment in Iraq, Sharon
achieved more than he might have expected.
The
Palestinian response is unsurprising. Politicians and human rights
campaigners alike deplore yet another declaration of classic Western
colonial policy for the Middle East. “Dispensing with Palestinian
rights, Sharon’s plan received unfettered support from Bush, who
foolishly expected Palestinians to embrace their new found
‘freedom,’ despite the fact that Israel will maintain full
control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the
West Bank and Gaza” says MIFTAH, a Palestinian NGO directed by
prominent Palestinian spokesperson Hanan Ashrawi.
Badil
Resource Center, a leading NGO campaigning for the right of return
of Palestinian refugees, described the road map as “up a cul de
sac.” “Courageous? No. Two of the world’s major military
powers can impose their view of the future on a dispersed and
defenseless people. Power politics rules. What counts is force not
the rule of law... Do they [Palestinians] not have a say in their
own future?”
Until
enough people really care, Bush can be as blatant as he wants
in his support for Israel.
|
|
And
what of Gaza? Make no mistake, an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza does
not mean a happy ending for the millions trapped in this tiny strip
of territory. Even UN agencies have now had to cease emergency food
programs in the Strip after the Israeli restrictions have made
conditions impossible to work within. An Israeli withdrawal will
almost certainly mean tighter border controls by Israel. Will the
thousands made homeless by housing demolition in Rafah and other
places suddenly get housing? Will there be a new Gazan economy, or
will Europe give up after Israel simply blew up the infrastructure
invested in during the Oslo years? Oh well, at least Gazans will be
able to drive from one end of the tiny Strip to the other. If they
own a car. Well maybe not even if they own a car, because for sure
some “military installations” and checkpoints will remain for
security purposes.
There
is nothing new in Bush’s speech, simply the fact that he is proud
to own up to it. As well as bringing despair and rage to those who
see the extent of the injustice, he has given us campaign material
by the plate full. Activists have always known the pro-Israel
position of the neo-cons behind the administration, but Bush is
making it increasingly difficult for critics to dismiss our
accusations of all pervading American support for Zionist expansion
as mere conspiracy theory.
And
my ultimate despair comes not from what Bush says, but from knowing
that until enough people really care, Bush can be as blatant as he
wants in his support for Israel. Who is going to do anything about
it? Not Mr. Blair for sure.
Isabelle
Humphries, is conducting Ph.D. research at St. Mary's
College, University of Surrey, on the situation for Palestinian
refugees living inside the 1948 borders. She has worked for three
years with Palestinian NGOs, and as a freelance writer, on both
sides of the 1967 border. You can reach her at innazareth@yahoo.co.uk
|
