Even if Palestine wins at The Hague...

Even if Palestine wins at The Hague

Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 24 February 2004

On the first day of hearings at the International Court of Justice, in The
Hague, Professor Mordechai Kedar at Israel's Begin-Sadat Center for
Strategic Studies told the BBC Arabic Service that Palestinian assertions
that Israel's West Bank wall will make an independent state impossible were
invalid. He argued that the existence of states like Liechtenstein (area:
smaller than Washington, DC; population 33,000,) and Monaco (slightly 
bigger than London's Hyde Park; population 32,000) proves that there will 
be plenty of room left for a sovereign, internationally-recognized 
Palestinian state no matter where Israel builds its barrier. Such arguments 
from Israeli "strategists," offered with apparent seriousness, underscore 
the strength of the Palestinian claim that the wall is intended to annex 
the West Bank, not separate it from Israel, and the weakness of Israel's 
legal position.

At The Hague, the Palestinian envoy to the UN, Nasser Al-Kidwa, said he
hoped an opinion against the wall would lead to the same kind of
international sanctions that followed after the Court's 1971 ruling against
South Africa's occupation of Namibia. But if this hope is what Palestinian
Authority (PA) strategy is built on, then we are in trouble.

There is no reason to believe that whatever the ICJ rules, this will
automatically result in any effective action against Israel. The
Palestinians, after all, are not wanting for international law. There are
already dozens of UN decisions that make clear that Israel is an
international outlaw.

In Resolution 465, of 1980, for example, the UN Security Council,
"determin[ed] that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical
character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of 
the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including
Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's
policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants
in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva
Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 
and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, 
just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

Security Council Resolution 476 also of 1980, "Reaffirms the overriding
necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by
Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem." What could be clearer than that?
These resolutions, which remains in force, would certainly seem to apply 
not just to the settlements, but also to the wall. Despite all the hype, 
then, any ICJ opinion is unlikely to break much new legal ground.

In Resolution 476, the Security Council also "reaffirm[ed] its 
determination in the event of non-compliance by Israel with this 
resolution, to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant 
provisions of the Charter of the United Nations to secure the full 
implementation of this resolution."

And yet here we are 37 years into the occupation, and never has the United
Nations taken a single "practical" measure to halt or reverse any of
Israel's ongoing flagrant violations.

Quite on the contrary, as Israel continues to impose its will on the ground
it has, through its alliance with the United States, managed to completely
sideline international law, and get even the Palestinian Authority's 
friends in the EU to affirm that it is the Palestinians who must first 
"reform" themselves before coming to ask for their rights. As Israel has 
escalated its violence, Palestinians have escalated theirs. And yet only 
Palestinian violence is an obstacle to normal relations with the world.

Despite feeling isolated and set upon, Israel has not seen a single 
country, not even an Arab state, break off diplomatic relations in protest 
at its actions. Israel continues to receive the full, lucrative benefits of 
its trade agreement with the EU, and Israeli universities get research 
grants from Europe. Instead of shunning it, many countries trade arms with 
Israel. The Belgian foreign minister, Louis Michel, has even rushed to 
Israel to reassure it of his friendship. And EU officials ineptly try to 
appease US-based pro-Israel groups whose escalating campaign, based on 
dubious evidence, claiming that the continent is swept up in a wave of 'new
anti-Semitism,' is aimed at stifling European criticism of Israel.

Meanwhile, in addition to all its atrocities against the Palestinian 
people, Israel has publicly threatened to murder or expel the Palestinian 
leader Yasser Arafat, it has invaded and shut down the PLO offices in 
Jerusalem's Orient House, closed universities, and detained and harassed 
members of the Palestinian Legislative Council, all without any "practical" 
measures from anyone. Israel cannot have imagined a few years ago that it 
could do all this and still receive the foreign minister of Egypt as an 
official guest in occupied Jerusalem in December 2003!

An ICJ decision against Israel is not going to change any of this. The
problem is that for years, the Palestinian leadership has treated binding
legal decisions as if they were nothing more than press releases to be 
waved about for a few days until the next photo-op. I am not arguing that 
an ICJ decision would be of no value, but clearly it will, like earlier
resolutions, do no good unless it is accompanied by a determined
Palestinian-led strategy to translate it into action.

Sanctions against Apartheid South Africa did not materialize because of a
court opinion. They were the result of an assiduous and broad-based 
campaign led by the African National Congress (ANC), within South Africa 
and abroad. The ANC built up international public opinion, which in turn 
put pressure on European and eventually American governments to apply 
sanctions. The ANC could mobilize people because it truly represented them. 
The Palestinians, by contrast, are in the frustrating position of having 
broad sympathy in world public opinion (with the important exception of the 
US), but this opinion is not being translated into power.

The Palestinian leadership, since it signed the Oslo Accords, has given up
on representing people. The US-dominated "Quartet" prefers an "empowered,"
but unelected Palestinian prime minister, who will follow orders and always
"do more" for Israel. The PA survives internationally only by keeping hope
alive that it will eventually sign another rotten deal as soon as the
Israeli Labor Party can be brought back to office. This means, of course,
that it cannot afford to really know what millions of Palestinians think
about proposed "peace plans" that leave almost all the settlers where they
are, replace Jerusalem with a fake "Al-Quds" and cancel refugees' right of
return.

Yet this deliberate shutting out of the very people who are most affected,
and who have the greatest stake in a just solution, means that the PA has 
no popular base or credibility on which to organize as did the ANC. 
Reporting on the meagre turnout to the mass demonstrations that Arafat 
called for in a televised speech, The Independent quoted 31-year-old 
Bethlehem resident Ahmad Ibrahim: "People are asking themselves why the 
authority has waited so long to protest... It is too late." A human rights 
activist quoted in the same article said, "There is mistrust between the 
people and the PA. How can people believe that the PA will lead the 
protests, while at the same time there are rumors that some officials have 
been selling cement used for the wall's construction?" (24 February 2004)

This is a crisis that a piece of paper issued in The Hague will not 
resolve. Time has run out for the PA and the two-state formula. We need to 
recognize that and engage in an open dialogue involving all Palestinians 
and their allies about what comes next.


-- 
Macdonald Stainsby
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
In the contradiction lies the hope
		--Brecht.


_______________________________________________
Rad-Green mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green