| Israeli Tail Wags American Dog |
|
| The Financial Times |
| Thursday, August 26, 2004 |
|
|
|
Ariel Sharon's
decision this week to launch a new round of Jewish settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank is a further indication of his government's intention to foreclose on the possibility of a viable Palestinian state in the territories Israel conquered in the 1967 six-day war. While that is unsurprising, the Bush administration's decision to give something between a green and an amber light to this new violation of international law is inflammatory and irresponsible.
It further damages the already dented reputation of the US in the Arab and Islamic world, where the belief that Washington and its allies have launched a war against Muslims is no longer extremist but mainstream.
Mr Sharon, smarting from his nationalist Likud party's rejection of his plans to withdraw unilaterally from Gaza, has thrown a sop to the settlers' movement he has championed throughout his career. But this is not just about realpolitik.
In exchange for withdrawing 7,500 settlers from Gaza, where they live surrounded by 1.3m Palestinians, Mr Sharon expects to achieve his lifetime ambition of securing the lion's share of the West Bank for Israel. Indeed, the security barrier his government is currently constructing around three, discontinuous Palestinian cantons in the West Bank closely follows the contours of a "Greater Israel" map he drew up more than two decades ago. His real breakthrough, however, was to get President George W. Bush to agree this April that Israel would inevitably hang on to the great swathes of settlements it has built, especially in and around Arab east Jerusalem. Tony Blair also assented to this startling policy reversal, even though his government claims it has not changed its line.
Not only does indulgence of Mr Sharon's expansionism contravene international law and many United Nations Security Council resolutions. It also undermines moderate opinion among Israelis and Palestinians, of whom the majority still believe in a negotiated solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Israel claims it is only allowing for the "natural growth" of existing settlements. But that is, at best, disingenuous. First, "natural" expansion is explicitly forbidden in the "road map", the peace blueprint Washington is supposedly sponsoring. Second, while house sales last year fell 22 per cent in Israel itself, we are asked to believe there is a need for huge and subsidised expansion in the settlements, where already many houses stand empty, according to Israeli peace activists. Third, under international law, all settlements on occupied land are illegal.
The position could be summarised in the recommendation this week by Menachem Mazuz, the Israeli attorney-general, that Israel adopt the Fourth Geneva Convention. This details the responsibilities of occupying powers, and specifically forbids the occupier from "transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". What could be clearer?
|
|
