Editorial
Review 22.11
8 August - 28 August 1997Yasser Arafat called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the July 30 double suicide bombing in Jerusalem. He said he was appalled by the bombing and denounced it. Netanyahu replied that denunciation wasn't enough, and Arafat must act against the perpetrators. Security coopera tion must be restarted, and genuine attempts made to stop Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Those doubting Arafat's sincerity in his condemnation of violence didn't have to wait very long. On August 5, less than a week after the Israeli men, women and children were blown apart, Arafat was preaching to his people the words of war. "The coming battle which we shall begin... as we have led previous battles... We are marching together with the blessing of Allah, my brothers, we are marching together to Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Jerusalem."
How can Israel negotiate with such a man? How can peace be achieved when 49 percent of the Palestinian population approve of terrorist attacks against Israelis? And is there any chance for an end to the violence if the international community, and the United Nations blindly ignore Palestinian violence and condemn Israel for construction of housing?
The response of the international community to the Israeli deaths is typified by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who said, "I appeal to all involved to avoid the use of bombs and violence and really get back to the negotiating table." While projecting a thin veneer of impartiality, the Annan statement is inherently biased. Israel is the target of the suicide bombers, yet it is disingenuously asked to avoid using legitimate force to stop such attacks.
Only the United States has focused on the issue of security as the key to real progress. On August 6 the Clinton administration issued several important statements, increasing its profile in the peace process, and apparently initiating two important changes in its policy.
The first is to put forward a sequential rather than simultaneous approach to the process. This means that the US expects the Palestinian Authority to make substantial efforts to enhance security cooperation with Israel and put a stop to the terrorism emanating from territory under his control. In a major speech, US Secretary of State Madelaine Albright said, "the sine qua non for progress is a mutual commitment to security against violence." This was followed by President Clinton describing Arafat as not giving "constant, 100 percent effort" in fighting terrorism - his first direct criticism of the Palestinian leader. The message to Arafat is that as long as he refuses to cooperate in combating terrorism, there will be no negotiations and no concessions, and no pressure on Israel from the US.
The second change in US policy is to accelerate the process to intensive negotiations, and put the US at the negotiating table rather than acting as a sponsor at arms length. The policy shift increases the stakes for the Clinton Administration, but also gives a revised Oslo process the possibility of a new lease on life, forcing the Palestinians, who have been refusing all recent attempts at negotiations with Israel for several months, to become serious about security and cooperation, and also putting pressure on Netanyahu to enter negotiations where Israeli concessions are expected. The interest and commitment shown to substantive measures to improve the peace process is markedly different from that of the majority of the international community, and specifically that of the UN General Assembly.
On July 15 the United Nations General Assembly passed, by a vote of 131 in favour to 4 against (14 abstained, including Australia), a resolution calling on Israel to halt all construction in Jerusalem and the territories and issuing the threat of an economic boycott. Despite the murder of 259 Israelis by Palestinian terrorists since September 1993, the UN General Assembly has not issued a single resolution of condemnation, or even regret. Israel is attacked for building houses.
But the Palestinian Authority of Yasser Arafat, that harbours and even glorifies the terrorists, is allowed to continue its language of violence, and abet the terrorists that launch attacks against innocent Israelis, without censure.
The UN resolutions this year (March 14, April 25 and July 15) over Israeli construction in The United States envoy to the UN, Bill Richardson, described the threats of Israel's expulsion in the General Assembly on July 15 as "a throwback to the ugly credentials challenges of the past decades." And tragically, most of the international community has apparently regressed to this state of affairs. Australia, on the other hand, stood out from the crowd in abstaining on the last two resolutions condemning Israel.
While it is clearly too early to judge, the abstentions are a good sign, and provide a precedent for Australia's voting in the forthcoming 52nd session of the UNGA, due to begin September 16. In this session at least 24 resolutions concerning Israel, the Palestinians and the Middle East peace process will be submitted to the vote. All but a few will be directly critical of Israel or advocate Palestinian sovereignty over territories which are yet to be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. In the past Australia has voted in favour of most resolutions. Because the best hope for peace remains a bilateral process based on direct negotiations, it is to be hoped Australia will maintain its positive role in not supporting destructive and one-sided UN resolutions.
Copyright © 1997 J.O.I.N.