Editor's Note:
Few people in our country really understand how central
the Palestinian-Israeli issue is to the ENTIRE Middle
East equation. The reason is that every administration
has tried to "de-link" this conflict with the rest of
the issues.
But the centrality of the Palestinian-Israeli issue is
beyond question to 350 million Arabs and 1.3 billion
Muslims. Viewpoint, as a publication, takes this as a
given and while eyes turn to Iraq, we absolutely know
that the region cannot be "fixed" until there is Justice
(note the capital "J") for Palestinians.
***********************************************************
Questions With No Answers - by Ali Abunimah
Does UN Secretary General Kofi Annan think that
Palestinians have a right to defend themselves against
the kinds of violent attacks and destruction Israel is
carrying out in Rafah refugee camp? This is a
straightforward question, but despite my best efforts,
it is impossible to get a straightforward answer.
Annan recently termed Israel's massive lethal campaign
of house destruction in Gaza "acts of collective
punishment" and "grave violations of international law."
Israeli tactics included bulldozing homes with their
residents inside or fleeing only moments before. It
ought to follow that any person or group of people
subjected to an illegal, life-threatening attacks have
an inherent right to self-defense using force if
necessary. Every legal system in the world recognizes
this, including international law.
Annan has often been very explicit in affirming this
when it comes to Israel. Most recently, in a communique
following the May 4 meeting of the "Quartet," Annan
stated, "While recognizing Israel's legitimate right to
self-defense in the face of terrorist attacks against
its citizens, within the parameters of international
humanitarian law, we call on the Government of Israel to
exert maximum efforts to avoid civilian casualties."
This concept underlies all of Annan's statements about
Israeli actions: the Secretary-General will often
criticize Israel for using "excessive force," but almost
never questions Israel's inherent right to achieve its
goals through the use of violence. Since Israel always
describes its actions as "self-defense," this is
effectively carte blanche. But when it comes to
Palestinians, I could not find a single statement from
Annan positively affirming their right to self-defense
against Israeli aggression. By contrast, Annan has made
countless statements criticizing, condemning and calling
for a halt to Palestinian acts of violence, even when
they are directed at Israeli military targets within
occupied territory.
I decided I wanted clarity, so I called up Annan's
office and got a call back from Associate Spokesman
Stephane Dujarric. I asked Mr. Dujarric why the
Secretary General never affirms the Palestinian right to
self-defense. Dujarric said he thought that Annan had
publicly made such statements and promised to find them
for me. I reiterated my query to Dujarric by email, in
these terms:
"The Secretary-General has affirmed on several occasions
that Israel has a right to defend itself with force,
provided it observes international law when doing so.
Does the Secretary-General believe that Palestinians
also have a right to defend themselves using force,
especially against the kinds of grave breaches of
international law being carried out by Israel in Rafah
as I write, and which the Secretary-General has
specifically condemned?"
I also asked, "Other than issuing statements, what
concrete steps has the SG taken, or will he take to end
Israel's attack on Palestinian refugee camps in the
occupied Gaza Strip? When will he report to the Security
Council as is his Charter duty?"
It took almost two weeks for Mr. Dujarric to email his
response. He wasn't able to reference any previous
statements by Annan matching Israel's "right to
self-defense" with a similar Palestinian right. But
Dujarric offered this formula: "International law
defines the parameters within which acts of resistance
and the responsibilities of the occupying power take
place and it's clear, from international law, that
action from both sides should spare civilians."
What this statement indicates is that the UN
Secretary-General is fully aware that Palestinians have
an inherent right to resist occupation using force,
provided they do not target civilians, but neither he
nor his staff are willing to state that in any direct
way.
Dujarric was defensive about my second question too,
responding, "You accuse [Annan] of doing nothing
'practical.' The Secretary-General's daily concern is
focused on finding a political solution to this
conflict. In order for that to happen there must be a
cessation of violence, thus his repeated calls for this
to happen. More importantly, the Secretary-General is,
by definition, a diplomat. His practical activities are
in the diplomatic field. Although they may appear as
'just words,' they remain 'practical.'"
Dujarric added, "The Secretary-General was the catalyst
in the formation of the Quartet which is recognized by
both parties as being representative of the
international community's efforts in the peace process."
But this answer only amplifies the perceived criticism
in my question: the so-called Quartet, made up of US, EU,
UN and Russian representatives was inspired by the
United States and invented for the sole purpose of
sidelining the UN Security Council and General Assembly,
while giving the "peace process" a veneer of
international legitimacy and participation. Israel
recognized the Quartet (though not without a lot of
conditions) because it knows that the body is a fig leaf
for American control of the process. The Palestinian
Authority accepted the Quartet because it is feeble and
has no alternative.
The reality is that the US has called all the shots and
the Quartet has been a total failure. Its continued
existence serves no other purpose than to provide a
cover for its members' unwillingness to confront Israel
and hold it accountable for its flagrant violations of
international law.
Despite launching the Quartet's "road map" with much
fanfare a year ago, the US abandoned the plan and
replaced it with Sharon's rapidly vanishing scheme for
Gaza withdrawal. Annan's recent efforts have focused on
trying to square the road map with Sharon's plan, even
though Sharon's stated goal -- keeping most of the West
Bank -- fundamentally contradicts it. The road map was
worth a try, but when a policy has failed totally, and
it is clear that a voluntary process will not work,
there is no use persisting in it, let alone trumpeting
it as an achievement.
Rather than persisting in failure and dressing it as a
restless search for peace as Annan seems determined to
do, he would be much more useful if he used his position
to speak the truth. In pursuit of that, I wrote Mr.
Dujarric that his responses to me had deftly avoided a
direct answer to my original question. I have yet to
hear back.
************************************************************************************
*Ali Abunimah is a co-founder of The Electronic Intifada.
This article first appeared in The Jordan Times on 6/8.
************************************************************************************
Further Reading on the Middle East
War, War, War! - by Charley Reese
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=2770
Pride, Patriotism and Propaganda - By Thomas Gale Moore
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/moore.php?articleid=2772
Did Ashcroft Approve of Torture?
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a7STpDlieNrY&refer=us
Renewed Attention For Palestinians - China View
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-06/09/content_1515288.htm
US Bans Cleric From Democratic Elections
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1233652,00.html
|