clear

Creating new perspectives since 2009

More threats of unilateral action by Israel fail to convince

May 4, 2014 at 4:31 pm

Israeli leaders have an unusual appetite for unilateral action. Some say it’s rooted in Zionist DNA. The incumbent government has spent most of the last three years term either lobbying Western powers against Iran or threatening to remove “the threat of nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands” unilaterally. Having failed, thus far, to force the US and its allies to act on their behalf, ministers have now turned their attention to Palestine and are again threatening a unilateral withdrawal from the occupied West Bank.

This week, Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak announced that if the current impasse with the Palestinians continues Israel’s coalition government would consider such a unilateral withdrawal: “Israel does not have the luxury to remain in a stalemate,” he said.


Throughout the crisis, the Palestinian Authority has maintained that it will not resume negotiations unless and until there is a total freeze of Israeli settlement activities in the occupied territories designated for the future State of Palestine.

More to the point, Palestinians insist that if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is really serious about ending the conflict on the basis of two states living side by side in peace, all he has to do is dismantle the settlements, end the occupation, and let the Palestinians get on with their lives. This minimum demand is evidently too much for the Israelis. Since no amount of international cajoling, American financial incentives and security guarantees have been sufficient to bring about a freeze in Israel’s illegal settlement activity it is inconceivable that it would ever withdraw voluntarily.

Thus, should Israel really carry out the unilateral threat to “withdraw”, while keeping some of the larger settlement blocs as it has vowed to do, that would be little more than a redeployment of its forces within the territories occupied in June 1967. Israeli forces would have to remain in situ to protect the illegal settlers, whose number now stands at half-a-million and growing.

Quite rightly, Palestinians have rejected this proposition because they have learnt the hard way about Israeli designs on their land. During the past four decades plus of occupation the presence of settlements and the Israeli army has meant no end of restrictions on their movement and ability to trade. Not to mention, of course, Israel’s large-scale theft of water and other resources across the occupied territories.

It is no secret that Israel has always had this vision of an emaciated Palestinian state consisting of isolated cantons joined by bridges and tunnels. In Israel’s view, “an independent State of Palestine” must also be a “demilitarised state”, with “temporary borders” over which Israel would have full security control. In other words, a right to invade, blockade and ruin the economy at will, as is the case with the Gaza Strip today.

Many observers see this latest media stunt as an attempt to escape the obligation to recognise an independent State of Palestine in the territories occupied in 1967. If the Israelis cannot realise their early dream of a Greater Israel, they are determined to keep their settlements in the West Bank, even though they agreed to dismantle them as part of the first phase of the 2003 “Road Map”.

Israel’s sole agenda, therefore, is settlement expansion and Judaisation; to take as much of the land of Palestine with as few Palestinians on it as possible. All the talk of a two-state solution is simply dust thrown into the eyes of observers to distract world opinion. It will not work; no one serious about peace with justice believes or takes the Israelis seriously any more.

In her first reaction to Barak’s statement, even US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insisted that there is no way forward other than through negotiations. This is hardly reassuring to the Palestinians, though, as they have heard and seen it all before. After the release of Gilad Shalit, Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas demanded the release of 1,500 prisoners as a “goodwill” gesture. This week he received the remains of 91 dead Palestinians whose bodies have lain in unmarked graves for up to forty years. Mrs Clinton described this as a goodwill gesture by Israel. It would be interesting to hear her response when she hears that the funeral procession of one of the Palestinian’s mortal remains was attacked by Israeli forces in Hebron within hours of their return.

Israel’s contempt for Palestinian human rights and its continued detention of thousands of Palestinians, without trial, including 175 children, are unnecessary but real obstacles to peace. If Washington and its allies are to regain any influence and credibility in the region they must hold Israel to the same standards that they advocate elsewhere. There is a consistent refrain coming from across the Middle East that Israel can no longer be allowed to shirk its obligations to the international community if it wishes to see a just, lasting and comprehensive resolution of the conflict with the Palestinians on the basis of international resolutions.

This message was conveyed clearly by the Arab League’s Secretary General, Nabil Al Arabi, at the opening of the 5th ministerial meeting of the Chinese- Arab Forum in Tunis. The failure of Western countries to get a Security Council resolution on Syria shows that the Middle East is no longer their exclusive preserve. There are other powers with a stake in the region. No longer can they afford to hide behind the façade of Israeli democracy while the government in Tel Aviv continues to violate international law. Should the West continue to support Israel in its belligerence, the US and Europe will soon become totally irrelevant in the era and world of the Arab Spring.