|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Green Line Peacekeepers – A Trial Balloon by Dave Himmelstein No sane human being could be optimistic about entrusting the legitimate interests of the Palestinian people to the tender mercies of Ariel Sharon and George Bush. Aside from its grotesque absurdity in light of their respective track records (remember, Sharon's rap sheet goes back half a century), their recent declarations make it clear that a just and evenhanded "peace process" is a dream. Sharon has already ruled out the complete withdrawal from the West Bank that would be required under international law. And although Condoleeza Rice has uttered the word "contiguous" in connection with a future Palestinian state, Sharon is holding Bush to the latter's public acceptance of "new realities", i.e., the half a million settled-in facts-on-the-ground accumulated over 38 years of illegal occupation. It takes no special strategic or tactical insight to see what the current initiative has its sights set on. The envisioned Palestinian "state" amounts to a string of holding cells, each ringed by segregated roads and subject to constant military surveillance. Meanwhile – while not dramatic enough to be noted by the mainstream media – the day-to-day lot of Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories continues to be brutality, harassment and life-constriction at the hands of the Israeli military or settler vigilantes. From February 8, when the first meeting took place at Sharm al-Sheikh, to February 25, when a suicide bomber in Tel Aviv killed 3 and injured 38 Israelis, the media were too busy gushing about a "fragile peace" to take note of the 8 Palestinian civilians (including 3 children) who were killed and the 36 who were injured during that idyllic interlude. And, of course, every suicide bombing is a potential excuse for Sharon to scuttle a process he was dragged into unwillingly. Nevertheless, despite the unrelenting, US-sanctioned throttling that Palestinians are subjected to, most advocates of their cause are convinced that it will inevitably prevail. It is widely believed that an increasingly ostracized Israel will succumb to external and internal pressures (more about the latter in a minute). Long-term demographic developments are seen as pointing inevitably to a one-state solution. For many, including myself, a pivotal long-term factor is the emergence of a powerful "retro-domino" effect: as current issues are brought into sharper focus, they expose their roots in the past. The Occupation itself, for example, grew out of the 1967 War, which Israel has always portrayed as an unavoidable defensive action on its part. However, that claim has been stripped of credibility by no less an insider than Menachem Begin. Years later, he told Israel's Defence College: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" {New York Times, Aug.21, 1982}. Actually the cover had been blown less than a year after the war by Mordechai Bentov, an Israeli cabinet minister in 1967: "All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify annexation of Arab territory" {Le Monde, Feb. 28, 1968}. Similarly, the issue of refugee return evokes a retro-domino rewind back to the Nakba: specific atrocities and the overall expulsion strategy which drove them. And the thunderous silence of hundreds of plowed-over Palestinian villages. It has always been difficult to get the facts out about these issues—but the time is ripe and public attention is drifting to specifics of the case. A recent newspaper poll showed that the more Canadians learn about the Israel-Palestine conflict, the more likely they are to support the Palestinian side. In that sense, the long-term outlook seems promising. However, I feel increasing doubt about being able to afford the luxury of the long view. This skepticism is fueled by a wild card that has made its appearance on the table. On top of Israel's longstanding internal rifts – social, economic and religious – the emergence of an aggressive, fanatical and well-entrenched anti-withdrawal movement might very well be creating the critical mass that triggers a civil war in Israel. But lest anyone gloat, consider this: once armed clashes broke out, how long would it take Palestinians – those in the Territories and those holding Israeli citizenship – to become scapegoats of opportunity, convenient victims of "collateral damage"? Not too damned long, you can be sure. There exists a clear need to prevent this predictable mayhem. But how? What alternative is there to the Sharm charade and its sequels? It has to be the only game in town because the United States is the only superpower in the world. But, once again, there's a wild card in play. A different kind of superpower has appeared on the radar screen of many social commentators. That "second superpower" is progressive public opinion around the world. Launching the balloon The international scope of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cries out for an international framework. The problem should be returned to the organization which, while still in its own infancy, presided over the tumultuous birth of the State of Israel in 1948. Taken in the whole, hindsight makes a strong case for establishing a permanent international peacekeeping force along the boundary recognized by international law: the pre-l967 border known as the Green Line. Some will object that this would entail surrendering Palestinian refugees' right of return. That is, indeed, an exceedingly bitter pill, and I have no idea whether it would be swallowed by the refugee community. However, when it comes to refugee return, I can't imagine any Israeli government undertaking anything more than photo-op tokenism. I think that a Green Line peacekeeping solution would attract widespread, broad-based support around the world. In fact, I'm even convinced that it would resonate significantly with moderate Zionists who are weary of the heavy costs of the Occupation and disillusioned with Israel's leadership. This expectation has been strengthened by spontaneously positive reactions when I've floated this trial balloon to members of that particular constituency. One high-powered, fact-packed partisan of Israel immediately agreed with the idea, saying that peackeeper-secured borders would finally give both Palestinians and Israelis the chance to experience what it really is like to live in peace. In view of increasingly active fault lines within Israeli society, deployment of a permanent United Nations peacekeeping force along the Green Line deserves to be an urgent priority. An international framework that extends beyond the American provenance might prove to be the elusive "big tent", capable of accommodating a full range of support for Palestinian human rights. Dave Himmelstein is a writer and teacher in Montreal. Your Comments |
| |