[Peace-discuss] Bush in Jerusalem: Rhetoric Trumps Substance

[Morton K. Brussel]

Perhaps we're giving this more attention than it deserves. Time will  
tell, if history has not already, whether there is any metamorphosis  
in the Bush/U.S. administration's policy regarding Israel/Palestine.  
However, here's another view, (from the US Campaign to End the  
Occupation--- http://www.endtheoccupation.org/) of the Bush rhetoric  
re. Israel/Palestine .

Bush in Jerusalem: Rhetoric Trumps Substance



January 18, 2008

After meeting separately with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in  
Jerusalem and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in  
Ramallah, President George Bush made a policy statement in Jerusalem  
on January 10.


Now that his whirlwind tour of the Middle East is over and we have  
had some time to digest the meanings of Bush's statement, the US  
Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation would like to share with you  
our analysis of Bush's rhetoric and its policy implications (or lack  
thereof).



* Overview. Bush's first trip to the Middle East as President had no  
impact on actual U.S. policy toward Palestine/Israel. While his  
statement in Jerusalem contained some interesting rhetorical  
developments, the substance of U.S. policy has not changed and  
remains in violation of human rights and international law. Although  
we can take some satisfaction in helping to shift the terms of the  
discourse in a positive way, the policy hasn't changed and we still  
have a lot of educational and advocacy work to do to fundamentally  
shift U.S. policy toward support for human rights and international  
law. While Bush claimed to call for an end to Israel's occupation, he  
has actually expanded the military aid and weapons provided to Israel  
that enable it to continue its military occupation. While Bush  
claimed to call for a viable and contiguous Palestinian state, he has  
undermined it at the same time by backing Israel's Apartheid Wall and  
supporting its annexation of massive settlement blocs on expropriated  
land. And Bush policy continues its failures by negating the rights  
of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, and by supporting  
continued Jewish privilege and inequality for Palestinians within  
Israel.

* Ending the Occupation. Perhaps the most rhetorically surprising  
element of Bush's policy statement was his call, apparently in  
response to regional pressures as well as changing discourse in the  
United States, for an end to Israel's military occupation of  
Palestinian territories conquered in 1967. Bush stated "The point of  
departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision  
seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in  
1967."

This was a stronger statement than the previous one by his  
administration, delivered by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell in  
a November 2001 speech at the University of Louisville, in which he  
stated that "For the sake of Palestinians and Israelis alike, the  
occupation must end and it can only end through negotiations."

The Bush administration's claiming the language of "ending the  
occupation" is, at a rhetorical level, a welcome development,  
reflecting the pressure the Bush administration has been under from  
the work of all of us who continue to challenge Israel's military  
occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip as a  
crucial component of Israel's systemic human rights violations  
against Palestinians. Bush's statement on occupation is also an  
indication of how far we have come in helping to shift and reorient  
U.S. discourse on Palestine/Israel; this type of a statement from the  
President of the United States would have been unimaginable just 10  
years ago.

But, while we can take some pride in helping to shift the terms of  
the debate, we are all too aware that rhetorical shifts do not mean a  
shift in substance. If Bush were serious in his desire to "end the  
occupation," then his administration would not have signed a  
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Israel in August 2007 to  
increase U.S. military aid by 25%, totaling $30 billion over the next  
decade. Israel's military occupation of Palestinian lands would be  
difficult—if not impossible—to sustain without the key military  
hardware and billions in military assistance that U.S. taxpayers give  
to Israel. Since the Bush administration signed the new aid  
agreement, US Campaign supporters have generated more than 10,000  
letters to Congress and the President opposing this military aid to  
Israel.As Congress begins the process of FY2009 appropriations in  
upcoming months, there is still time to register your opinion by  
clicking here.

Most importantly, when Bush speaks about "ending the occupation," it  
is clear that he does not mean a complete end of the occupation of  
territories conquered by Israel in 1967, as required by UN  
resolutions and international law (as we discuss below in our  
analysis of Bush's statement on the viability of a Palestinian state).

* Palestinian Statehood. In his statement, Bush claimed that the  
endgame of negotiations "must ensure that the state of Palestine is  
viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent." In more colloquial  
language, Bush also stated on this trip that "Swiss cheese isn't  
going to work when it comes to the outline of a state."

If they really reflected Bush administration policy, these statements  
could indicate recognition that a Bantustan-style Palestinian state  
would not be acceptable. They could reflect tacit acknowledgements  
that previous Israeli offers of "statehood" have not met the basic  
threshold test of viability. Ironically, these statements on the need  
for viability of a future Palestinian state also can push forward our  
work in helping to deconstruct the myth of Israel's "generous offer"  
at Camp David.Rhetorically, they are a far-cry from Bush's earlier  
attempts to paint then-Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat  
as a spoiler of the "peace process" for rightfully rejecting a "Swiss  
cheese" offer of statehood that Bush now claims to also oppose.

However, here again, the rhetoric has virtually nothing to do with  
Bush's actual policy. In January 2004, the Bush administration  
submitted a 112-page statement to the International Court of Justice  
(ICJ), arguing strenuously against the court's competence to judge  
the legality of the Wall that Israel had begun constructing in the  
West Bank. Instead of supporting international law and condemning  
Israel's illegal Wall, the Bush administration tried every trick in  
the book to shield Israel from any legal or political consequences  
for building the Wall. How can an administration that tried so hard  
to prevent the ICJ from taking action on Israel's Separation  
(Apartheid) Wall, which cuts up the Palestinian West Bank into  
isolated and disconnected open-air prison enclaves and is a central  
component of Israel's policies to consolidate Apartheid, expect  
anyone to believe them when they turn around and claim to support a  
"contiguous" and "viable" Palestinian state?

Most of all, Bush's claim of support for a viable and contiguous  
Palestinian state directly contradicts his officially-declared  
support for Israel's retention and annexation of huge swathes of  
territory and most of the illegal settlement blocs in the occupied  
Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem. In an exchange of letters  
with then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in April 2004, Bush  
stated that "In light of new realities on the ground, including  
already existing major Israeli [sic] populations 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."  
In other words, Bush promised Sharon that Israel's illegal  
colonization activities in East Jerusalem and the West Bank would be  
allowed to stand. No viable, contiguous Palestinian state is possible  
without the dismantling of all of Israel's settlements-and under  
international law ALL settlements are illegal—in the West Bank and  
East Jerusalem, and a complete end to Israel's occupation of all  
territory conquered in 1967.

Moreover, in his statement, Bush limited his remarks on Israeli  
colonization to the narrow focus of "ending settlement expansion and  
removing unauthorized outposts," rather than confirming the  
illegality of all Israeli settlements in occupied territories, as  
required under international law. (However, even Bush's tepid call to  
end settlement expansion is going unheeded by Israel. On December 23,  
Israel's Construction Ministry confirmed Olmert's post-Annapolis  
announcement that its 2008 budget includes plans to build 500 housing  
units in Jabal Abu Ghneim (Har Homa) and 240 housing units in Ma'aleh  
Adumim, both settlements built on occupied lands outside of Jerusalem.)

* Palestinian Refugees. Bush devoted one brief sentence to the issue  
of Palestinian refugees in his statement: "I believe we need to look  
to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international  
mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue."  
Several mainstream news stories and commentaries took note of the  
fact that this statement was Bush's first supporting compensation for  
Palestinian refugees and therefore represented a significant policy  
change. But although compensation absolutely should be one component  
of resolving the Palestinian refugee issue, Bush's statement actually  
consolidates his rejection of the real rights of Palestinian refugees.

Regarding the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes,  
UN General Assembly Resolution 194 states that "refugees wishing to  
return to their homes and live at peace with their [sic] neighbours  
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." In other words,  
compensation AND the right of refugees to return is not an either/or  
proposition. By the standards of human rights and international law  
recognized in all other cases of forced migration and displacement,  
Palestinian refugees and internally displaced persons have the right  
to return to their homes, to restitution, and to compensation for  
property destroyed or expropriated.

In this and previous statements, including the 2004 letter of  
guarantees to Sharon, Bush negates the internationally-mandated  
Palestinian right of return and replaces it with a vague compensation  
scheme coupled with a "resettlement" of some Palestinian refugees in  
the future Palestinian state, even though these refugees are not from  
the territory that would make up that state. This subversion of human  
rights and international law cannot be the basis upon which to build  
a just and lasting peace.As part of any peace agreement, Israel must  
recognize the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes  
and Palestinian refugees must be afforded opportunities to implement  
this right.

In his speech in Jerusalem, as well as in the guarantees provided to  
Sharon almost four years ago, Bush essentially took over the power to  
grant or deny Palestinians various rights guaranteed to them under  
international law. Rather than supporting a real peace process, under  
international rather than U.S. leadership, Bush simply announced  
which Palestinian rights were completely off the agenda, as if he  
were the legitimate arbiter of other people's human rights.

* Israel as a "Jewish State". Bush linked his position on Palestinian  
refugees to his so-called "vision" of "establish[ing] Palestine as a  
homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for  
the Jewish people."  Whether in that more nuanced formulation, or in  
the more direct terms he used earlier in his trip—"The alliance  
between our two nations helps guarantee Israel's security as a Jewish  
state"—Bush's support for recognizing the "Jewish" nature to the  
State of Israel is very dangerous as a tenet of U.S. policy.

All states have the obligation to serve and represent all of their  
citizens regardless of their ethnicity or religion.Privileging one  
group of citizens over another based on ethnic or religious  
affiliation is defined by international law as Apartheid- 
specifically, it is a violation of the UN's International Convention  
on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and the  
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial  
Discrimination. Such discrimination is considered a crime against  
humanity. Just as the civil rights movement in the United States  
fought—and continues to fight—to transform this country into a state  
of all of its citizens, so too must Israel be a state of all of its  
citizens.

Recognizing Israel as a "Jewish state" as a pre-condition of a peace  
agreement, as demanded by Olmert before the Annapolis conference,  
will consolidate and sanction the Apartheid laws of Israel that  
codify discrimination against its Palestinian citizens, who comprise  
at least 20% of its population.

The reality is that Israel, as it exists today, is a bi-national,  
multi-religious state whose composition defies Bush's—and Olmert's-- 
simplistic formulation of Israel being a "Jewish state" and Palestine  
being a "Palestinian state". No U.S. policy should be based on  
perpetuating Jewish privilege and Palestinian inequality inside of  
Israel, especially when this formulation also comes at the expense of  
the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes inside  
Israel.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080118/e54b55c6/attachment.htm