The Palestinians Betrayed

by

Stuart Yates

I was a young child when I saw pictures of British soldiers strung up by Jewish terrorists in Palestine. I am not yet of retirement age so there are thousands of Palestinians out of the 700,000 Christians and Muslims ethnically cleansed by Jewish terrorists who are still living in refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza. Those thousands still living know just where their former homes are. George Bush yesterday condoned that ethnic cleansing with the following words: "It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state and the settling of Palestinian refugees there rather than Israel." This is in direct contradiction to both international law regarding refugees and the UN General Assembly's Resolution 194, December 11th 1948: "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." We are used to, but are wearying of being so used to, the US disregarding international law and the UN.

Israel, ironically in view of all the rhetoric unleashed from London and Washington about not giving way to terrorism, is the living proof that terrorism can work. Israel was born in and from of terror. A few examples, which have been specifically selected for their similarity to acts of terrorism that the US/UK axis regularly condemns when carried out by 'Islamic extremists':

Assassination of Lord Moyne in Cairo (1944) and the international mediator Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden (1948)

Bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the British Embassy in Rome (1946) and the Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem, killing the Spanish Consul (1948)

Letter bombs to British Ministers (1947 and 1948)

Bombing of Arab buses (1947)

Mining of railway lines (1948)

Ethnic cleansing, as mentioned above: 700,000 people 'cleansed', countless killed, nearly 400 towns and villages deliberately destroyed. (The policy in the Occupied Territories is nothing new)

These are not age-old atrocities, they have occurred in living memory and have been ignored by the world in general, but there has always been the belief that an eventual settlement would provide some redress for the victims of ethnic cleansing. This is the first betrayal of the Palestinians by the US.

The second betrayal concerns the illegal settlements in the West Bank (assuming that Israel does abandon the equally illegal settlements in Gaza). There is no doubt that the occupation itself and the settlements are illegal. UN Security Council Resolution 242 (November 22nd 1967) calls for : "1. (i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict. 2. (a) [the necessity] For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area." (never allowed by Israel in Gaza) and "2. (b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem" and UN Security Council Resolution 271 September 15th 1969: "Reaffirming the established principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible" and further "Condemns the failure of Israel to comply with the aforementioned resolutions and calls upon it to implement forthwith the provision of these resolutions." In addition, the UN Security Council's Resolution 446 (March 22nd 1979) included the following: "Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the middle East."

Yet the US, personified by George Bush said yesterday "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949" which can only mean that some West Bank settlements will remain. This is in flagrant breach of Resolution 242 cited above, yet Bush's previous sentence says "negotiations between the parties in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338." The two sentences are incompatible. If Israel is allowed to retain one square inch of territory not ceded to it in 1947 then UN Resolution 242 and others will continue to be flouted.

Further on Bush says: "I commend Prime Minister Sharon for his bold and courageous decision to withdraw from Gaza and parts of the West Bank." 'Bold and courageous'? For only partially offering to comply with UN Resolutions that are decades old? For offering to give up land that never belonged to Israel? I can only assume that the reference to 'bold and courageous' is to the hard-liners in Israel for whom even this partial compliance with international law is too much.

The third betrayal concerns the lie implicit in this sentence uttered by George Bush yesterday: "The United States will not prejudice the outcome of final status negotiations and matters for the parties." as he knows that yesterday's statement does just that. It aligns the US behind Ariel Sharon and Israel's determination to hold on to as much Palestinian land as possible and to deny any sort of justice to the ethnically-cleansed refugees. George Bush pathetically tries to maintain the lying cloak of being an honest broker whilst tearing off that cloak and standing naked to the world.

One further aspect of this whole agreement between Sharon and Bush is the most worrying. It is the contempt in which the Arab/Muslim world is held by the present US Administration, which will lead inevitably to more conflict, more terrorism. The Palestinians had little hope before and have had relatively little explicit support from their Arab neighbours. It points up the fallacy of the West's view of Arab/Muslim culture: this culture is not in fact particularly violent, it does not generally export its violence in pursuance of its aims. Al-Qaeda is a new departure, partly born at least of this neglect of the Palestinians' cause. The US President's speech yesterday can only strengthen al-Qaeda and strengthen the resolve of those people in countries such as Syria and Egypt who do want to take up arms.

I am white, late middle-aged, from middle England, a moderate Anglican, with no connections with Israel, Palestine, or any other Middle Eastern country. So when I experience, not a white-hot anger, but a clear, cold, penetrating, enduring anger, then I wonder just how angry those directly affected are by the past 50+ years and the statements from the US in the last twenty four hours. And I wonder what that anger will produce. Anger at such a blatant and callous betrayal.

April 2004