Dishonest Brokers

The European Union (EU) should be ashamed of itself. It has thrown aside the principals of democracy for partisan politics and hypocrisy. In the run up to the Palestinian parliamentary elections, the EU has addressed Palestinian politics and made threats in the process.

On December 19, the EU’s foreign policy chief Javier Solana stated: “All the political parties have the right to be part of the elections, but there is a certain code of conduct that has to be accepted by everybody.” He continued, “It's very difficult that parties who do not condemn violence ... can be partners for the future.” Solana later warned that if the Palestinian Authority (PA) let Hamas run in the parliamentary elections, the EU could cut tens of millions of dollars of funding to the PA.

Why should this call be limited to Hamas? It is quite clear that the EU should lambaste the Israeli government’s repeated use of violence against an occupied population. Is the EU planning on slapping sanctions on Israel for its constant aerial assaults on the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Are they going to take severe action against the continued expropriation of Palestinian land and resources? The EU, in its mission to prevent violence and find “partners for the future,” should at least take issue with the policy of extrajudicial assassinations, the bulldozing of homes, the expansion of settlements, and the multitude of restrictions that bring the Palestinian society one step closer to the third intifada.

There has been no word that America, who also opposes Hamas’ participation in the elections, will cut any of the 3 billion dollars in aid it gives to Israel annually. Furthermore, the Quartet hasn’t convened to discuss placing an arms embargo on Israel, cutting off the supply of American products such as tanks, helicopters, and bulldozers that are used in the occupied territories. If these democratic institutions are going to put forth a “code of conduct,” it’s only fitting that everyone abide by the code.

Who’s the Culprit?

The EU is trying to deligitimize Hamas at the behest of Israel, while the Palestinian people suffer under Israeli aggression. This double standard illustrates a fundamental flaw in the EU’s approach to the conflict and its disregard for international law and democracy.

According to Al Jazeera, Solona's remarks came after the United States government past a resolution that stated, "American support for the Palestinian Authority would be placed at risk by any Hamas participation in government." The US and the EU are not trying to tell the Palestinian people who they can elect: they are just willing to bankrupt Palestinian society in case the people partake in the democratic process.

The Palestinian Mentality

According to recent polls, the majority of Palestinian society is against attacks on Israel and wants to return to negotiations. However, the Palestinian people want the principals of the Sharm al-Sheik cease-fire enforced by Israel and the Geneva Conventions implemented.

Since the last suicide bombing in October, nearly 50 Palestinians have been killed, hundreds more have been wounded, while the campaign of mass arrests continues. Israel claims the people of Gaza are now free, yet incursions continue as the 1.4 million residents fall deeper into poverty, their trade flow halts and their borders close. Last week, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz decided that the bus convoys between Gaza and the West Bank, which were scheduled to start December 15, were not going to be initiated. Although the US “urged” Israel to make the deal go through, as promised to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Mofaz chose to revert back to unilateralist policy due to “security concerns.”

Armed Struggle and Civilians

The targeted attacks on the civilian population of Israel are in contradiction to peace. Saeb Erekat, a senior Palestinian negotiator, denounced the October 26 suicide bombing in Hadera, “We condemn this attack in Hadera, as we've always condemned suicide attacks on Israeli civilians, and we hope that we will not allow this attack or any attack to undermine the cessation of violence between the two sides.”

According to international law, the Palestinian people, including militant groups, have a right to armed struggle against an illegal occupation. Nevertheless, in this armed struggle, acts that target a civilian population are in violation of that right. Ironically, what was not mentioned by the EU or the US Congress is that Hamas has not been linked to a suicide bombing since the start of the Sharm al-Sheikh cease-fire and has, for the most part, held true to it.

Preserving Democracy

One cannot expect Hamas to renew the terms of the cease-fire if it’s punished by the international community for trying to adhere to democratic principles, while its "partner for peace" flagrantly violates the terms of the cease-fire. On December 21, Al Jazeera reported that a Hamas leader was killed by Israeli forces in the Occupied Territories. This should be condemned by America, the EU and the rest of the international community to prevent further flare-ups in the conflict.

Deterring democracy in the Palestinian territories will only bring Israel further away from peace. Hamas, who is moving in the direction of assimilation and non-violence, will be pushed back down the path of radicalization if they are cut off by the political process.

The US and the EU must be clear and even handed as brokers in the conflict: acts of illegal aggression must not be tolerated—by any party.

Tea for Two

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon—the little teapot, short and stout—is making a comeback. He ditched the outdated threads of his radical Likud to prance in the open fields of peace with favorite “doves” like Shimon Peres. The word on the street is that Sharon will be changing his last name to Gandhi before visiting with militant groups in the Occupied Territories to find out what they’re all so mad about. The people of West and the nearsighted Israeli public are biting this propaganda, hook, line and sinker, while the Palestinians are left to rummage through the trash bin of peace.

If one were to examine the mind of the Butcher of Beirut, one could see where “peace” will lead the Palestinian people. Peace will not lead the Palestinians to the internationally recognized 1967 borders (22 percent of historic Palestine) because Arik doesn’t believe in “land for peace.” What will the new “generous offer” be? A semi-autonomous Gaza Strip used as bombing practice by Israel and small non-connecting cantons in the West Bank cut off by settler roads, “security” checkpoints, and a towering “barrier” reminding Palestinians of what prison walls look like. Where do I sign?

According to the PM’s top advisor, Eyal Arad, Sharon will introduce a new equation, “security for independence.” Arad argued that the issue of land is not central to the conflict, contending that security is the real complication. Arad is correct in giving weight to security. Over the last five years Palestinians have been bombarded by Israeli gunship helicopters armed with hellfire missiles and occupied by tanks which have killed hundreds of lives and destroyed billions of dollars worth of infrastructure. We can’t forget the American made Caterpillar D-9 bulldozers that demolished thousands of Palestinian homes and helped build the insidious path of the Apartheid Wall. I wonder when the Palestinian people will feel one ounce of security from their occupiers?

Nevertheless, we must not overlook the importance of independence. The Palestinian people, as outlined in UN Resolutions 242 and 338, deserve independence from an illegal occupation. For the past 38 years Israel continuously violated the Palestinian people’s fundamental human rights. This ran concurrent to the killing of hundreds of Palestinian children by Israeli forces and the wounding of tens of thousands more. These tragedies were compounded by the annexation of Palestinian land, the instillation of curfews, checkpoints, and water deprivation, as well as the building and expansion of Israeli settlements, Israeli only roads, and military posts. While Sharon diminished the importance of land, Arad, speaking on behalf of the Palestinian people without permission, claimed that Palestinians only “really” care about independence. Arad claimed, “What the Palestinians sought was not really territories that they could control and run in the form of the Camp David proposal. What they really sought was independence.” Has Arad acquired the analytical skills to understand the Palestinian psyche or did he just take a chapter out of the South African Apartheid playbook?

The Israeli advisor claims that the 1967 borders for peace won’t work because, “If you look at the bare statistics, since the Oslo agreement terrorism has increased many many times.” What Arad curiously omits is that if you look at the “bare statistics,” illegal Israeli settlements that shatter the 1967 border have expanded “many many times” since the Oslo agreement.

The Palestinian people, including the refugees of 1948 and 1967, are well deserving of land, as stated under multiple UN resolutions. Resolution 194 explicitly states, “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.” The resolution continues to state, “the Governments or authorities responsible” should compensate “those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property.” In 1967, Resolution 242 called for Israel to withdraw from “territories occupied” and this call was reaffirmed in Resolution 338.

Arik bungled the equation. His military mind came up with “[Israeli] Security for [Palestinian] independence.” But now that he is training to become the new champion of peace he must realize that [Palestinian] land, security, and independence equal Israeli security. The problem with Oslo and every other “good faith” agreement is that they weren’t peaceful: they were interest-filled propaganda for the public, while the status quo was maintained on the ground. If the little teapot wants to rid himself of his disgruntled neighbor, he must revert to an equation that is fair for the Palestinian people, making the issue of security a problem of the past. History shows, however, that Mr. Short and Stout only tips one way and unfortunately it’s not in the direction towards peace.