|
Will final settlement include an apology?
by Toni Momiroski
03/28/05 "ICH"
- - At this crucial moment of opportunity for peace, Israel is giving conflicting signals to the world about its genuine interest for peace and its desire for a just settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While Israel withdraws from Gaza, at the same time it approves the construction of 3,500 new homes to the West Bank to Jerusalem. The US has responded by turning a blind eye and making equally ambiguous statements and gestures. A discussion on this topic has far reaching consequences for all who have made ill-gotten gains through war and through illegal means.
There are primarily two approaches taken in any discussion about Israel and Palestine. One we can call traditional, the other alternative. Both focus on redefining reality. Neither can be said to argue for a settlement in Israel and Palestine that can be said to be innovative, caring or showing a true understanding of the current and historic needs of the conflict. Is there perhaps another way to approach this dilemma that is acceptable to both parties? And will final settlement include an apology? I believe there is, and an apology is a crucial variable in any such a settlement.
The question of apology has direct and indirect implication for all nations in the world that currently experience conflict and strife on account of land gained through war, and where disputed borders and boundaries continue to fester. Kosovo and Bosnia are particularly striking examples of this phenomenon as well. It may serve well for others to watch carefully how settlement progresses in Israel and Palestine. If the spoils of war are rewarded again, this is likely to set a trend for all future negotiations elsewhere as well. If however, it is stopped dead in its tracks, then there is likely to be hope for the future.
Most Israeli-Palestinian watchers from the traditional perspective have argued for settlement in this conflict, that accurately reflects Israel's position in Western affairs. Firstly, as George Bush would say "Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East" and secondly, as Natan Sharansky notes Israel is a "light unto nations" that gives continuity to the Judeo-Christian link to the house of Israel. Either way, the US has felt it owed, and in turn, it has delivered much by way of support to Israel. This support has been political (on international and democratic grounds), military and in hard dollars.
Politically speaking, the US has torpedoed all UN discussions that have reflected negatively upon Israel or that have given support to Palestine. Between 1972-2004 for instance, the US has not once voted against Israel or it has used its power to veto to frustrate progress on any given issue. And its policy on the ground as articulated by current American ambassador to Israel, Daniel C. Kurtzer is also morally suspect. Mr Kurtzer explains the latest U.S. policy as supporting "the retention by Israel of major Israeli population centers as an outcome of negotiations". In any event, US continues to give conflicting messages on the subject and Israel doesn't in all honestly care what the US thinks.
The latest US clarifications by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, argue that the United States position remains consistent with the April 14 letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in which President George W Bush said the final borders of a "promised Palestinian state must take into account demographic realities on the ground." While Prime Minister Ariel Sharon argued at his latest cabinet meeting on Sunday 27th, March that it "can't expect to receive explicit American agreement to build freely in the settlements", and additionally, that the large blocs of settlement in the West Bank "will remain in Israel's hands and will fall within the (separation) fence, and we made this position clear to the Americans. This is our position, even if they express reservations."
As for Democracy, David Hirst rightly counters the falsehood that Israel's democracy represents when he argues that this is shady democracy which had "sabotaged all British attempts to install representative government until the Jewish minority was strong enough to impose its will on the Palestinian majority by force; the Israel that drove most of them out in 1948; the one that oppressed, in what amounted to apartheid in all but name, Palestinians who stayed behind, and then extended this system, in other forms, to the West Bank and Gaza after 1967".
In terms of Financial Aid, together with interest, the US has either given or loaned Israel aid to the tune of $134,791,507,200 since 1949. While militarily, the US has turned a blind-eye to the continued development of Israel’s undeclared nuclear capability, while at the same time insisting that others disarm.Similarly, it has promoted unrest in the region to divide Israel's enemies for the benefit of Israel.
Clearly then, the traditional perspective has invested much by way of muscle, money, intellectual capital and soul behind protecting Israeli interests that have impacted heavily upon and disadvantaged Palestine.
Michael Scheuer the author Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror , can be said to be representative of the alternative perspective. He argues that America should assert its powerful position. He argues that there are consequences to not listening to America's dictates, or as Scheuer would put it: "it is the absolute right of both sides ignore our advice. But if they do, all bets should be off.... At day's end, it may be that U.S. interests and those of Israel and Palestine have ceased to be congruent.....In sorrow more than anger, we should stand aside and let the two combatants do what they like to do best, slug it out. We can make it clear to each side that we are ready to help once they have exhausted themselves and are genuinely ready for peace".
The alternative perspective, can best be characterised as one which places emphasis on the power relations between the active parties and highlights that the superior can not be held to ransom by the minor players. But that self-serving interests and political necessity can, and do alter the relationships from time to time.
Is there an alternative model? I believe there is. We could look to Canada and how it has responded to the challenges of the suffering of its dispossessed population.
How can Israel proceed to win over 'the hearts and minds of the world community'?
It must avoid the mistakes made by Australia's prime minister John Howard, when he refused "to apologize to the Aboriginal people for their treatment since white settlement began more than 200 years ago, most notably the forcible removal of Aboriginal children from their families—the "stolen generations"—and their placement with white families in an attempt at assimilation, a process that continued until the 1970s.
Instead, Israel can follow the lead that Canada took when it responded to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) which was created in 1991 to improve relationships between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in Canada.
In January 1998, the Government of Canada issued its response to the RCAP Report: Gathering Strength - Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan. The Plan included an apology where the Government of Canada regretted the treatment of Aboriginal People expressed as follows:
"As a country, we are burdened by past actions that resulted in weakening the identity of Aboriginal Peoples, suppressing their languages and cultures, and outlawing spiritual practices".
By way of healing, the Canadian government granted $350 million to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation to provide funding for community-based healing projects.
The alternative to the traditional and alternative view for solution to the Israeli -Palestinian problem is for Israel to formally apologise for the dispossession of the Palestinian people. It must compensate all who have suffered in the process. It must hand back all land not provided for at the end of British Mandate and gained through war and terror. Tear down all walls and live and let live. This Israel must not do alone, but Britain and the US must share the burden and costs for complicity. Kosovo and Bosnia in turn should watch this settlement process with caution.
In turn, Palestine and its people, must accept this apology and compensation as the best deal possible and return to the November, 1947 end of Mandate provisions which argued for distribution of land in terms of 56.47 percent to be given to the Jewish state and 43.53 percent to the Arab state, with an international enclave around Jerusalem. Reality dictates, that power relation between people are determined by the strong. Palestine is weak. Regrettably, for all, there cannot be a better solution in the foreseeable future for the people of Palestine. It would serve Kosovo and Bosnia to observe, note and learn from developments in this part of the world.
Will final settlement include an apology? History has witnessed miracles before. Will this be yet another? I somehow doubt it!
Toni Momiroski is associate professor at Jiaotong University specializing in social theory and English. The university does not endorse the above views; they are the opinions of the writer, whose website is at http://www.momiroski.com/ . Email -
toni@momiroski.com
(Copyright 2005 Toni Momiroski.) All rights reserved. You may republish under
the following conditions: An active link to the original
publication must be provided. You must not alter, edit or remove
any text within the article, including this copyright notice.
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
