One of the main problems in solving the Arab-Israeli conflict today lies in the fact that Israel and the Palestinians do not come to the negotiating table with equal rights. However, the U.S. State Department, in playing the role of mediator, has decided to treat this conflict as if two equally deserving parties are fighting over issues to which each have equal rights.
Secretary Rice and the State Department attempt to equate Israeli and Palestinian rights to the disputed territories. One of the prevalent global misunderstandings today about the Arab-Israeli conflict is that Israel occupied the West Bank after conquering it in June 1967. What ought to be made clear, is that in order for land to be occupied, it needs to have belonged to a sovereign power first. From 1948 through 1967, Jordan controlled the West Bank after having illegally annexed it (and renamed it), but they were never an internationally recognized sovereign power. The West Bank was not Jordanian sovereign land when the Israeli army conquered it in 1967.
Another misunderstanding is that Israel violated the Fourth Geneva Convention, which addresses the laws an occupying power must abide by. This claim is unfounded. Israel did not forcibly transfer its own population to the newly captured territories and allowed full freedom of movement for Palestinians who wished to leave the West Bank on their own accord, as outlined by the Convention.
Israel’s detractors have long preferred to use the politically loaded term “occupation” since it conveniently lends emotion to their argument and falsifies the reality of the dispute. Just as land disputes in Northern Cyprus, Mont Blanc and Abu Musa are not considered occupied territory, the West Bank certainly cannot be considered as such either.
B’Tselem, a left-wing Israeli NGO calling itself an “Israeli human rights organization,” wrongfully declares on its website that Israeli settlement “in occupied territory is itself a breach of international law.” It is unclear from their site what specific law, if any, Israel is violating. B’Tselem proudly quotes the Fourth Geneva Convention as one of their reliable sources for their accusations but it is due to their misinterpretation of the article that they are mistaken. In the end, their vague accusations lend credence to their followers and provide them with a false base of support for which there exists no real documentation or proof.
The State Department consistently uses reports by groups such as B’Tselem to support their positions on various issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict. In light of the last paragraph, this is a worrying phenomenon and Secretary Rice needs to take responsibility for the positions she maintains especially if they are based on a misunderstanding of key documents and international agreements.
It is important to remember that in negotiations after a war, the losing side always makes the concessions. In a defensive war on non-sovereign land, the winning country always has rights to the land it conquered without being considered occupying it.
Secretary Condoleezza Rice’s statement at the Annapolis Conference that she understands “what it is like to hear to that you cannot go on a road or through a checkpoint because you are Palestinian” and “the feeling of humiliation and powerlessness” is very worrying. This comment is ultimately misleading since it equates racist whites with non-racist Israelis and lends value to Palestinian claims that Israel violates their rights.
The civil rights movement in 1960’s America cannot be compared to the 21st century Middle East conflict by any stretch of the imagination. Israel does not prevent Palestinians from going through a checkpoint because of who they are but because of the potential danger involved.
Furthermore, Palestinians seek to destroy Israel whereas the black population and their leaders did not seek America’s destruction and did not promote the terrorization of Americans. They also did not educate their youth to hate white people nor did they send them to summer camps for hate training. Secretary Rice is mistaken if she believes that she is being “even-handed’ and “fair” by equating the conflict and comparing it to America’s south.
The Palestinians, and the Arab leaders who have led them astray, are the ones responsible for their past mistakes. There are consequences in losing an aggressive war, and the Palestinians, as the aggressors, now must face up to their obligations and recognize that they do not have equal rights in this conflict.
The Americans must realize this too and, in lieu of trying to appease the Palestinians and show even-handedness, should be talking tough and making more demands of the Palestinians – not Israel.
The Arab-Israeli conflict cannot be resolved fairly unless the U.S. State Department resolves to be impartial in approach while simultaneously recognizing the differing degree of rights between the two sides.
