The Wages of Sages
President Carter and Chancellor Schmidt speak wisely; world
leaders don't listen.
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt often
speak on vital issues. Both have proven records of success in the areas in which
they speak. President Carter is the only U.S. President (1978-1982) who negotiated
an effective peace treaty between Israel and an Arab country (Egypt). Chancellor
Helmut Schmidt (1974-1982) steered Germany into becoming Europe's leading
economic power.
Unfortunately, world leaders aren't listening to these respected and courageous
statesmen. Carter's only outlet for his observations seems to be the Washington
Post op-ed pages. In a recent editorial (Sept. 23, 2003), the former U.S. president
commented on the principal cause of the Israel/Palestine crisis.
Helmut Schmidt prophesied the appearance of a future world in a lecture in Moscow
at the invitation of the Council for Foreign Defense Politics (June 24, 2003) and
before an audience of the German Historical Institute (Sept. 17, 2003). Helmut
Schmidt's erudite and important remarks received no attention from U.S. media.
A two-part article reviews the far-reaching political observations of these two
authoritative leaders. Their insights are used as springboards for additional
analyses and recommendations on vital issues.
Part I
Carter's comments on the cause of the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Carter's Comments
In an op-ed article: The Choice for Israelis, Washington Post, September
23, 2003, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter outlined his principal
recommendation for achieving peace in the Middle East, Dismantle Settlements.
There is an impressive continuity of unchanging basic issues, expressed
most clearly and succinctly in U.N. Security Council Resolution 242,
which was passed unanimously after the 1967 war. It requires, in effect, a
withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories, in exchange for ensured
peace and recognition from all Arab governments and other
organizations.
It has been recognized that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories
were a violation of international law and the primary incitement to
violence among Palestinians. Our most intense arguments at Camp
David were about their existence and potential expansion. The parties
agreed that all those in Egypt's Sinai region were to be dismantled, and
there was a strong dispute about their growth in the West Bank and
Gaza, then comprising about 4,000 settlers (Ed: Now almost 400,000).
During the first Bush administration, Secretary of State James Baker
said, 'I don't think there is any greater obstacle to peace than settlement
activity that continues not only unabated but at an advanced pace,' and
the president threatened to withhold American financial aid in order to
discourage settlement expansion.
But during the past two administrations in Washington and with massive
financial and political incentives from the Israeli government, the
number of new settlers has skyrocketed, with many settlements protected
by military forces and connected to others by secure highways. An
impenetrable fence is hastily being built, often through Palestinian
lands.
Speaking as an Israeli, Carter concluded his article with a choice he believes Israelis
must make:
Do we want permanent peace with all our neighbors, or do we want to
retain our settlements in the occupied territories of the Palestinians?
America's worst betrayal of Israel would be to support the second choice.
Israel's Position
Israel firmly retains the settlements and tries to convince the world that the
settlements, which have been ruled illegal in several UN resolutions, conform with
international law. The Israeli government states that foreign peoples of Jewish
origin, who have no legal attachment to the land, should be allowed to settle in
Palestinian territory, but will not allow any Palestinian to resettle in Israel, a land
which has been legal home to Palestinians for centuries. The inconsistency and
touch of racism in Israel's attitude are obvious.
The Quartet's Plan
President Carter's remarks coincide with one part of a "balanced" plan promoted by
the Quartet (U.S., European Union, Russian and the UN).
The Quartet plan calls for Israel and the Palestinians to take a series of
parallel and reciprocal steps, including an end to Palestinian terror
attacks and Israeli settlement activity in occupied territory and an easing
of Israeli restrictions on the Palestinians, leading to two states living side
by side in peace by 2005.
In its statement, the diplomatic group took issue with recent actions by
both sides. "The Quartet members condemn the vicious terror attacks of
August and September. They call on Palestinians to take immediate,
decisive steps against individuals and groups conducting and planning
violent attacks," it said.
While recognizing Israel's legitimate right to self-defence in the face of
terrorist attacks against its citizens, the partners called on Israel "to
exert maximum efforts to avoid civilian casualties" and reaffirmed that
"in accordance with the Road Map, settlement activity must stop."
UN News Centre, Sept. 26, 2002
Confusing the Issue - Media Manipulation of the Quartet's Plan
The Washington Post did not faithfully report the Quartet's plan. In a Sept. 30 editorial,
titled Negotiating Israel's fence, the Washington newspaper omitted the
Quartet's condemnation of the settlements.
Everyone in the Middle East, including the U.S. mission in Iraq, would
be far better off if the United States were still brokering peace instead of
a fence route. Yet for now the peace process has been blocked, largely
because of the Palestinian failure to construct a government that will
take action against terrorism. As a joint statement by the "quartet" of
the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations
said Friday, no progress is possible until a "rebuilt and refocused
Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted and
effective operations." In the absence of such steps, and with violence
continuing, Israel must defend itself.
This type of media reporting disguises the impact the settlements have in preventing
a peace process.
Truth and Reality of the Settlements
All Israeli governments have provided financial support and encouragement for
settlements. Taken to its eventual limits, the settlements, which include land
expropriations, water diversions, crop destructions, isolation of Palestinian
communities and strangling of the Palestinian economy, are bringing ethnic
cleansing, or possibly genocide, to the Palestinian people in their ancestral
homeland. Retaliation by Palestinian extremists to this threat is predictable. To
combat the retaliation, Israel has constructed a "security" wall which encroaches
further on Palestinian territory and Palestinian life.
The Israeli government realizes the settlements promote terrorism, cause Israeli
deaths and incite hostility to Jewish populations throughout the world. Why has Israel
continued settlements? The answer:
(1) The settlements encroach on Palestinian territory and life;
(2) The Palestinians respond with militant action;
(3) Israel can identify militants from their actions;
(4) Israel's overwhelming power locates and assassinates those who
can combat Israel in its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza;
(5) Assassinations of Palestinian militants promote terrorism;
(6) Israel uses the terrorist actions to legitimize its own terrorist
actions;
(7) Israel makes the terrorism it creates the overriding issue, and then
claims it cannot proceed with any peace initiative without an end to
terrorism;
(8) Without a peace initiative process, Israel is free to continue its
settlements and encroachments.
Whether deliberate or coincidental, the cycle of violence satisfies a plan: Israel's
intrusion into all of the former Palestinian lands and eventual displacement of the
Palestinian people, regardless of injury to Israeli citizens. As this plan evolves to its
ultimate conclusion, Israel uses the casualties of its own people to portray the
conflict as only a result of Palestinian terrorism. It presents antagonism to Israel's
actions as an example of world antipathy to Jews, rather than as a rejection of
Israel's policies. Another essential point:
Terrorism has greatly increased during Ariel Sharon's tenure as Prime Minister. This
leads to the question: Is Israel constructing the "security" wall to prevent present-day
terrorism or is Israel constructing the wall to further encroach on Palestinian lands
and life? Is the wall being planned as a barrier to all Palestinians who might want to
enter Israel after future policy reduces their life to desperation? By constructing the
wall, Israel makes a statement: It has no faith in a peace initiative and is prepared to
continue the conflict for decades.
The Construction of Settlements Demand a Call to Action
Focus on the settlements and resulting terrorism obfuscate the real impediment
to Middle East peace - lack of resolution to the 1948 and 1967 seizures of
Palestinian lands and property by Israel and the creation of 1.2 million refugees.
Israel has cleverly diffused the focus of the conflict, increased its chips, raised the
ante, cornered the Palestinians and left itself greater room for lesser compromises.
While it has overwhelming power, Israel won't permit any compromise. Israel won't
give the Palestinians a crumb.
Not all, but many of the terrorist actions are direct or indirect responses to the
settlements. The settlements are not a response to terrorist actions; they are
independent of those actions. Halting the illegal settlement activity is essential for
achieving Middle East peace. What can an ineffective world, that has allowed the
Israel settlements to continually progress for 30 years, do to halt the settlement
activity? If the UN cannot provide effective legal action, individuals and organizations
must provide the mechanisms. The urgency of the situation demands Israel comply
or face serious consequences. Several actions have been mentioned at various
times:
Apply economic reprisals against Israel by boycotting Israeli goods, similar to
the sanctions used against South Africa.
Prevent Israelis from invading U.S. institutions and using these institutions to
advance Israel's interests. Several French universities and British academics
have already instituted boycotts of Israeli academics in their universities.
Discourage the purchase of products from U.S. firms whose only purpose for
trading with and investing in Israel is to advance Israel regardless of negative
effects on U.S. industry. Several U.S. faculties, such as Harvard and MIT, have
petitioned their universities "to divest from Israel, and from US companies that sell
arms to Israel."
Israeli propaganda, which confuses the issues, must also be challenged:
Repulse and reject those who use the vicious terms, anti-Israel and
anti-Semitic, to attack those who propose solutions to the Middle East
conflagration, as happened recently when Howard Dean proposed that the
U.S. maintain a more impartial position. People are allowed to be against
American policies, French policies, China policies, against whatever, without
being labeled. Yet, those who express themselves as being against
oppressive Israeli policies often receive the anti-Israel epithet. This deception,
which is used to intimidate critics of Israel by those who lack facts and logic
for their arguments, is a sinister and dangerous aspect of the Middle East
debate.
Demand the registration of Israel lobbyists, a requirement for all lobbyists.
Campaign against politicians who display unequivocal support for Israel.
The First Step Towards Peace - Dismantle Settlements
The settlements are territorial expansion. Territorial expansion violates international
law. Nations that violate international law cannot be separated from their actions--
they are international outcasts. Those who assist nations in their violations are also
culpable. Words of U.S. administration officials, such as "We are against the settlements,
but still support Israel," are meaningless and contradictory. Deeds that promote
justice must accompany the words that excuse injustice.
If the Palestinians halt their militancy before withdrawal of the Israeli settlements,
they will have surrendered. If the settlements cease expansion and retreat, the
Palestinians will be challenged to halt their militant actions. President Jimmy Carter
is correct: The settlements are the principal obstacle to Middle East peace. The
"security" wall emphasizes the tragedy. On one side it will echo the anguish of
Palestinians barred from their former homes. On the other side it will shield
Israelis from seeing and hearing the despair and sighs of a vanquished people.
david c. laine
alternativeinsight
October 5, 2003
MAIN PAGE |
