Israel's withdrawal is both historic and deceptive

Red Ice Membership

Israel's withdrawal is both historic and deceptive
2005 05 20

By Rami G. Khouri | DailyStar.com.lb

Politically, the Israeli evacuation from the Gaza Strip that started Monday is significant, and potentially historic. Morally, for the Israeli government and the settler-colonists, it is a pile of garbage, deception and lies. Sorting out the significant from the merely sinful in this situation is useful for discerning whether or not better days lie ahead.

The Israeli colonization of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and other occupied Arab lands is a crime, by at least three compelling measures. It is explicitly prohibited by international law and the 4th Geneva Convention's proscription of an occupying power moving its civilians into the lands it occupies. It is condemned by name in dozens of UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. And it is rejected by the bilateral policies of the entire community of nations, which refuses to acknowledge Israeli sovereignty in the occupied lands.

Israeli settler-colonists are dangerous predators in territorial terms, and ugly anachronisms in historical terms. They represent the last, lingering link to a form of 19th century European colonialism that is now universally seen to be based on the racist principle that white Europeans could steal the lands of any other people in the world, because the darker natives in southern lands had lesser rights as human beings. There are very few active colonial enterprises left in the world these days. Israel's is the most dramatic example of this movement that once included grotesque European assaults on India, South Africa, South America, Southeast Asia and North Africa.

Therefore the widespread press depictions of the Gaza settlers' "emotional pain" at being sent back to their own country of Israel lack both credibility and relevance. Forcing a thief to stop stealing is not an act that should be depicted as inflicting pain on the criminal, but rather as forcing the criminal to abide by the law.

It is outrageous and insulting that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would say, even as he was evacuating Gaza, that he prefers to keep it. He said in his televised speech Monday night: "It is no secret that I, like many others, believed and hoped that we would be able to hold onto [the settlements of] Netzarim and Kfar Darom forever. The changing reality in the country, the region, and the world required a different assessment and a change in [my] position."

So, politically, in its unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and four small settlements in the northern West Bank, Israel is doing the right thing, but perhaps for the wrong reasons. This is why the move is unlikely to lead to a complete and successful Palestinian-Israeli or Arab-Israeli peace accord.

I am saddened but not surprised that Sharon says he is leaving Gaza because political and demographic realities have changed. It is a shame that so few voices in Israel or among Jewish communities around the world would come out and say in clear terms that Israel is leaving because occupation is illegal, morally wrong, and politically counterproductive. Or that the Palestinians have the right to live in freedom, independence and national dignity. What a powerful message that would have been, and what a tremendous impetus for peaceful negotiations and ultimate relations with all the Arab peoples, had the Israeli government acknowledged that military occupation and moving civilians to colonize occupied lands bring neither peace nor submission from the Palestinians and other Arabs.

Just as there is a virtually unanimous international consensus on the illegal nature of the Israeli settler-colonies, so is there also global agreement that Israel must leave the territories occupied in 1967, negotiate a fair settlement of the refugee issue, share Jerusalem and coexist in peace alongside a sovereign, viable Palestinian state. The deep skepticism about both the impetus and the impact of the Gaza withdrawal reflects the perception - rooted in historical experience - that Israel is behaving only according to its sense of how to ensure its security through the use of its force, rather than through compliance with international law and the will of the community of nations. There is something slightly politically devious about Israel's withdrawal. It does not have the compelling ring of authenticity and honesty that characterized the white South Africans' coming to terms with black majority rule, or Mikhael Gorbachev's coming to grips with his people's right to freedom and democracy. It seems to be an expedient, grudging, defensive, reluctant endeavor. It is the enterprise of a thief who decides to stop stealing in one part of town, only to steal more efficiently in other neighborhoods.

Nevertheless, its deceptive morality aside, Israel's realities of the day suggest that its unilateral withdrawal does have the potential to advance the long-stalled peace-making process. This move is significant in part because Israel is unilaterally withdrawing from occupied Arab lands, ending some of its settler-colonial excesses, and defining part of its border. These trends need to be encouraged on other fronts where Israel is occupying and colonizing Arab lands, and this is where the next steps to come will be so important.

If all concerned Arab, Israeli and international parties work harder than before to make it clear that peace and security can only be achieved for all through a peaceful political process, rather than force of arms, we might see progress towards a fair, permanent peace accord. This requires that Israelis and Palestinians both abide by global law, rather than defy it with guns. The key to this is not a racist, colonial-era demand that the occupied, dispersed and blockaded Palestinians behave like nice children before they can hope to enjoy their human and national rights; the key is rather that Israelis and Palestinians who both respect the law and UN resolutions can expect simultaneously to live in peace and security.

Simultaneity is critically important for peace, because only if both sides feel they are achieving their rights will they continue with peaceful means of conflict resolution. The Gaza withdrawal must be a sign that Israel is forsaking occupation as an instrument to ensure its own security, not that it is returning some Palestinian lands in order to hold on to others.

Rami G. Khouri writes a regular commentary for The Daily Star.

Article from: http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=17685