Rozwiazanie jest problemem

[Gość: Jurek]

The solution is the problem

The US presents itself as the peace-broker in the Middle East. The reality is
different

Noam Chomsky
Saturday May 11, 2002
The Guardian

A year ago, the Hebrew University sociologist Baruch Kimmerling observed
that "what we feared has come true - War appears an unavoidable fate", an "evil
colonial" war. His colleague Ze'ev Sternhell noted that the Israeli leadership
was now engaged in "colonial policing, which recalls the takeover by the white
police of the poor neighbourhoods of the blacks in South Africa during the
apartheid era". Both stress the obvious: there is no symmetry between
the "ethno-national groups" in this conflict, which is centred in territories
that have been under harsh military occupation for 35 years.
The Oslo "peace process", begun in 1993, changed the modalities of the
occupation, but not the basic concept. Shortly before joining the Ehud Barak
government, historian Shlomo Ben-Ami wrote that "the Oslo agreements were
founded on a neo-colonialist basis, on a life of dependence of one on the other
forever". He soon became an architect of the US-Israel proposals at Camp David
in 2000, which kept to this condition. At the time, West Bank Palestinians were
confined to 200 scattered areas. Bill Clinton and Israeli prime minister Barak
did propose an improvement: consolidation to three cantons, under Israeli
control, virtually separated from one another and from the fourth enclave, a
small area of East Jerusalem, the centre of Palestinian communi-cations. The
fifth canton was Gaza. It is understandable that maps are not to be found in
the US mainstream. Nor is their prototype, the Bantustan "homelands" of
apartheid South Africa, ever mentioned.

No one can seriously doubt that the US role will continue to be decisive. It is
crucial to understand what that role has been, and how it is internally
perceived. The version of the doves is presented by the editors of the New York
Times, praising President Bush's "path-breaking speech" and the "emerging
vision" he articulated. Its first element is "ending Palestinian terrorism"
immediately. Some time later comes "freezing, then rolling back, Jewish
settlements and negotiating new borders" to allow the establishment of a
Palestinian state. If Palestinian terror ends, Israelis will be encouraged
to "take the Arab League's historic offer of full peace and recognition in
exchange for an Israeli withdrawal more seriously". But first Palestinian
leaders must demonstrate that they are "legitimate diplomatic partners".

The real world has little resemblance to this self-serving portrayal -
virtually copied from the 1980s, when the US and Israel were desperately
seeking to evade PLO offers of negotiation and political settlement. In the
real world, the primary barrier to the "emerging vision" has been, and remains,
unilateral US rejectionism. There is little new in the current "Arab League's
historic offer".

It repeats the basic terms of a security council resolution of January 1976
which called for a political settlement on the internationally recognised
borders "with appropriate arrangements ... to guarantee ... the sovereignty,
territorial integrity, and political independence of all states in the area".
This was backed by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states and
the PLO but opposed by Israel and vetoed by the US, thereby vetoing it from
history. Similar initiatives have since been blocked by the US and mostly
suppressed in public commentary.

Not surprisingly, the guiding principle of the occupation has been incessant
humiliation. Israeli plans for Palestinians have followed the guidelines
formulated by Moshe Dayan, one of the Labour leaders more sympathetic to the
Palestinian plight. Thirty years ago Dayan advised the cabinet that Israel
should make it clear to refugees that "we have no solution, you shall continue
to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave". When challenged, he responded
by citing Ben-Gurion, who said that "whoever approaches the Zionist problem
from a moral aspect is not a Zionist". He could have also cited Chaim Weizmann,
first president of Israel, who held that the fate of the "several hundred
thousand negroes" in the Jewish homeland "is a matter of no consequence".

The Palestinians have long suffered torture, terror, destruction of property,
displacement and settlement, and takeover of basic resources, crucially water.
These policies have relied on decisive US support and European
acquiescence. "The Barak government is leaving Sharon's government a surprising
legacy," the Israeli press reported as the transition took place: "the highest
number of housing starts in the territories since Ariel Sharon was minister of
construction and settlement in 1992 before the Oslo agreements" - funding
provided by the American taxpayer.

It is regularly claimed that all peace proposals have been undermined by Arab
refusal to accept the existence of Israel (the facts are quite different), and
by terrorists like Arafat who have forfeited "our trust". How that trust may be
regained is explained by Edward Walker, a Clinton Middle East adviser: Arafat
must announce that "we put our future and fate in the hands of the US" - which
has led the campaign to undermine Palestinian rights for 30 years.

The basic problem then, as now, traces back to Washington, which has
persistently backed Israel's rejection of a political settlement in terms of
the broad international consensus. Current modifications of US rejectionism are
tactical. With plans for an attack on Iraq endangered, the US permitted a UN
resolution calling for Israeli withdrawal from the newly-invaded
territories "without delay" - meaning "as soon as possible", secretary of state
Colin Powell explained at once. Powell's arrival in Israel was delayed to allow
the Israeli Defence Force to continue its destructive operations, facts hard to
miss and confirmed by US officials.

When the current intifada broke out, Israel used US helicopters to attack
civilian targets, killing and wounding dozens of Palestinians, hardly in self-
defence. Clinton responded by arranging what the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz
called "the largest purchase of military helicopters by the Israeli Air Force
in a decade", along with spare parts for Apache attack helicopters. A few weeks
later, Israel began to use US helicopters for assassinations. These extended
last August to the first assassination of a political leader: Abu Ali Mustafa.
That passed in silence, but the reaction was quite different when Israeli
cabinet minister Rehavam Ze'evi was killed in retaliation. Bush is now praised
for arranging the release of Arafat from his dungeon in return for US-UK
supervision of the accused assassins of Ze'evi. It is inconceivable that there
should be any effort to punish those responsible for the Mustafa assassination.

Further contributions to enhancing terror took place last December, when
Washington again vetoed a security council resolution calling for dispatch of
international monitors. Ten days earlier, the US boycotted an international
conference in Geneva that once again concluded that the fourth Geneva
convention applies to the occupied territories, so that many US-Israeli actions
there are "grave breaches", hence serious war crimes. As a "high contracting
party", the US is obligated by solemn treaty to prosecute those responsible for
such crimes, including its own leadership. Accordingly, all of this passes in
silence.

But the US has not officially withdrawn its recognition that the conventions
apply to the occupied territories, or its censure of Israeli violations as
the "occupying power". In October 2000 the security council reaffirmed the
consensus, "call[ing] on Israel, the occupying