The online counterpart of the TEI subscriber newsletter

Bush-Sharon side-deal reinforces violations against Palestinians

by Ashahed M. Muhammad
Final Call Online Correspondent

A headline of the Chicago Tribune (April 15, 2004) announced to its readers “U.S. Backs Israeli Plan.” Pictured is the current Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and U.S. President George W. Bush in what appears to be a jovial moment during recent policy talks.

In an accompanying piece listed as an analysis, it was accurately pointed out that the Palestinians were sidestepped in the decision-making process.  This obvious omission is a consistently recurring theme regarding American foreign policy with regards to their treatment of the Palestinians in this conflict.

FACT: The conflicting elements in the ongoing saga are the Israelis and the Palestinians.
FACT: The U.S. would like to be viewed by the world as an honest broker, an even-handed mediator and a partner for peace in the Middle East.

Yet, how can a “mediator” not include both sides in a conflict—that has been fueled by hate and sustained for decades, continuing to affect the entire world—until both sides receive justice?

The definition of negotiation is “a discussion arranged to produce an agreement between separate parties”—or in this case, nations—“with separate goals, objectives and desires.”
It is not considered a negotiation if only one side is present at the table. This is commonly referred to as a “side-deal.”

What maintains balance during a negotiation is that all sides are represented by those vested with the power and authority to make decisions that are in the best interests of their constituencies. What are the chances that the needs, wants and desires of the Palestinian people and their viewpoints were represented fairly by either Mr. Sharon or Pres. Bush?
Consistently missing from mainstream news coverage across America are some vital details regarding the history of the Palestinian/Israeli negotiations.

The first thing that should strike you as being ironic is the reporting of this event as if it is news, as if something new with regards to the Palestinian and Israeli conflict has been introduced. For years, the United States government has consistently lined up behind the decisions of the Israeli government. Even in rare cases—for example, when Israeli helicopter gun ships murdered innocent civilians to take out leaders of organizations headed by the opposition—the United States responds with muted comments and statements like, “We find the actions of the Israeli government to be unhelpful with regards to establishing the cause of peace.”

In the media, this is being characterized as a sharp break from policies held by former U.S. administrations. However, much of what Pres. Bush represented through his comments after meeting with Mr. Sharon had been previously presented during the administration of former president Bill Clinton.  

The most recent arrangement between Israel and the United States involves three critical issues held by Israel:

1. U.S. recognition that Israel would permanently retain control of parts of the West Bank and the settlements the Israelis had built there. 
This recognition has already been given indirectly. The U.S. would never force a complete pullout, even though the Israeli establishment of the settlements on the land portions they desire to retain was an illegal move from the beginning. The inhumane treatment and displacement of the original inhabitants when the Israelis seized control of the land after the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 was unethical and improper in the first place.

2. Official U.S. support and acknowledgement of the permanent withdrawal of the Israeli presence from the Gaza Strip.

This issue was already on the table. Israelis were prepared for this several years ago. Stating it now represents nothing but disingenuous political brinksmanship.

3. U.S. rejection of the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees who fled during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. 

This prevents Palestinian descendants and relatives from returning to the land that is now called Israel. The effects of this further maintains the gross violations of human rights of the Palestinian people for self-determination.  

The end result of this shell game is that Prime Minister Sharon gives up something that is not really of any consequence to him and the Israelis—some settlements in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. 

In effect, the U.S. and Israeli plan is equivalent to someone moving  into the previously occupied home of another, then after removing them by force, subsequently kicking the original occupants out and telling them that they can never return.

According to officials within the Bush administration, the displaced Palestinian refugees would be able to return to a Palestinian state, once it is established. To the Palestinians, a Palestinian state already exists—however, it is currently occupied and called Israel.

One point conveniently left out of mainstream dialogue about the issue is that a majority of the members of Sharon’s Likud party and the most ideologically committed Israeli settlers are firmly against the establishment of a Palestinian homeland (state). They steadfastly cling to this position, brazenly ignoring human rights while they enjoy the benefits of an established homeland called Israel.

Baruch Goldstein, the murderer of dozens of Muslims in a mosque in Hebron, was among those settlers and other Israelis who believe that they belong in that part of the land as a result of God’s favor and desire for a divine Jewish province. Yigal Amir, who in 1995 assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, was also a part of that group.

President Bush has aligned himself with those who do not seek peace and do not desire justice.
Evidently, the governments of Israel and the United States have entered into a covenant that will ultimately lead to further bloodshed, destruction and the loss of life for many innocent people on all sides.  

© Copyright 2004 FCN Publishing, FinalCall.com

This article originally appeared in the Final Call Newspaper - Volume 23 No. 30
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1396.shtml (html version)
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/printer_1396.shtml (printer-friendly version)