Argentina’s Foreign Ministry has recently demonstrated its competence in disseminating Zionist propaganda, as well as showing how the “two-state solution” continues to serve Israeli interests. In a series of tweets from its official account, “deep concern” was expressed over “the escalation of violence caused by the launching of rockets from Gaza.” This was the prelude through which insistence upon the two-state compromise was urged, so that “Israel can live in peace with its neighbours within secure and internationally-recognised boundaries.”
The Times of Israel described the statement as “a sign of Buenos Aires’ changing attitude towards Israel.” In June, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appealed to Argentinian President Mauricio Macri to intervene regarding a cancelled international football match that was to be played in Jerusalem, but to no avail.
However, it is clear that the lack of intervention in the match cancellation is not a mark of the current Argentinian government’s support for Palestine. On the contrary, the momentary significance at a time when the FIFA World Cup was starting to take centre stage was just an opportune moment that was discarded swiftly once public scrutiny had shifted away from the two main events: the Great Return March protests and the World Cup. As the latter is now little more than a memory, and the Great Return March is reported mostly in the same way as other Palestinian protests which have lost their distinct identity, Argentina’s Foreign Ministry had no qualms about exposing its pro-Israel stance, with part of the rhetoric associated with Netanyahu’s ramblings on purported security concerns.
The Argentinian statement eliminated mention of the ongoing military occupation and Israel’s decision to place snipers at the border and their deliberate killing of unarmed Palestinians, which has happened since the first day of the protests at the end of March. Yet the statement went further than the fabrications typical of Netanyahu’s government. It also sought to frame the two-state compromise against this backdrop and present it as a solution for Israel to “live in peace”. Furthermore, Argentina’s remarks also seek to distance Palestinian rights from the Palestinians themselves. While the Great Return March is used as a premise to urge for the two-state imposition, it must be remembered that none of the protestors have been murdered for seeking a compromise. Macri’s government is thus aligning itself with Israel in the shooting of unarmed civilians simply because they stood up and demanded their legitimate rights.
If this version of “peace” is what the two-state paradigm is about, why is the Palestinian Authority still calling for this imposition to be implemented? The facts on the ground show that while Argentina has exposed the diplomatic game of conjuring solutions for Israel’s benefit, there is more peril for Palestinians in failing to oppose the two-state compromise.
In all its exhortations, the PA has adopted the fable instigated by the international community that Palestinians are a priority. The redundant rhetoric speaks partially of “an independent and viable Palestinian state living side by side with Israel.” Argentina’s version, which is a step closer to what the international community envisages hypothetically, sees Israel living in peace with its neighbours. The shift in priorities does not augur well for Palestinians. A lack of opposition to the international community’s demands exposes the fact that there is no longer any reason to conceal the original intent, which is for Israel to colonise all of Palestine under the guise of the two-state hypothesis. In this, Netanyahu most definitely has an ally in the Argentinian leader.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.