What good is 'balance' if it is only of benefit to the occupying power?

President Mahmoud Abbas’s signing of the Rome Statute after months of hesitation, has given rise to an increased wave of hostility against the Palestinians. According to the Times of Israel, for example, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has “retaliated” to the PA leader’s move by freezing $127 million of Palestinian taxes collected by Israel on behalf of the authority.

While most consider Abbas’s an appropriate, albeit belated move, the International Criminal Court’s history is replete with imperialist dictates, which has ensured that leaders of states complicit in serious war crimes can continue to act with impunity. Israel’s existence as an imperialist bastion in the Middle East will undoubtedly provide immunity to accountability for the war crimes that it is accused of committing against Palestinians, despite the existence of ample proof thereof.

Writing in the New York Times, however, Dennis Ross says that these diplomatic and legal endeavours are counterproductive. Emphasising the necessity of alleged “balance” with regard to negotiations, the former US envoy to the Middle East demands that Europe should stop “giving Palestinians a pass”. Why should the victims of Israeli occupation have to compromise yet again in order to provide some “balance” beneficial to the occupying power?

According to Ross, “Palestinian political culture is rooted in a narrative of injustice, its anti-colonialist bent and its deeper sense of grievance treats concessions to Israel as illegitimate.” Negating the anti-colonial struggle would result in irreversible damage to Palestinian history and memory. The necessity of such struggle was rendered primarily as a reality due to the imposition of the state of Israel upon Palestinian territory. Hence, opposition to Palestinian rejection of concessions – which is not altogether accurate given that negotiations are themselves a form of political concession – is illogical and contradicts the essence of accountability. Israel, of course, evades any accountability through the complicity of international organisations, as the settler-colonial state’s alleged right to defend itself, even against the resistance of the people it holds under military occupation, continues to form an essential component of the pro-Israel international narrative.

As a deterrent against Palestinian demands, Ross suggests thwarting international support for a State of Palestine; the main reason is an attempt to add yet another rewrite of the narrative of Palestinian demands from an imperialist perspective. This is reflected particularly in refuting European criticism of Israeli settlement construction, which Ross mentions with no reference to the violent colonialist nature of such expansion across occupied territory. However, European rhetoric draws upon concerns that settlement expansion hinders a two-state “solution” (itself yet another compromise). Such a reaction from Europe, which is repeated frequently, has proved to be little more than political discussion in support of the further colonisation of Palestine.

Fairness, according to Ross, can be achieved by demanding Israeli compliance with 1967 borders and “Palestinians to respond to proposals and accept resolutions that address Israeli needs”; this would result, yet again, in another attempt to destroy the Palestinian struggle by enforcing further acquiescence to colonial demands. Contrary to the assertion that peace requires “accountability on both sides”, the argument should be altered to reflect the fact that the liberation struggle remains imperative to secure justice for Palestinians. Restricting the Palestinian cause to a negotiated territorial compromise dictated by Israel’s allies and “needs” detracts from the internationalist aspect of the wider anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggle. There can never be balance between the occupier and the occupied if justice is the real objective.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.