By Kare Willoch and - -
OSLO, Sep 1 2006 (IPS)

The current American-Israeli Middle East policy has caused such enormous damage and such grave problems for both Israel and the West in general that other powers should feel more confident in criticising them and taking vigorous and concerted action, writes Kare Willoch, former Prime Minister and leader of the conservative party in Norway It is clearer than ever that peace in the broader Middle East is impossible without peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Efforts for peace cannot assume that the oppressed must first renounce all violence. History shows that oppressed peoples deprived of all hope for a life of dignity do not renounce violence. Attempts to pressure Lebanon to use force against Hezbollah would be counterproductive. The transition to a single Lebanese armed force will take time. Some may fear that Lebanon could be left defenceless if Hezbollah is disarmed faster than the Lebanese army is built up. And one can\’t expect complete confidence in the UN\’s ability to defend Lebanon after the discouraging experience with UNIFIL, which gave the country no real protection. And some may remember Bosnia, where the UN failed to prevent mass murders of Muslims, not unlike those that Ariel Sharon presided over in the Beirut of 1982.

The current American-Israeli Middle East policy has caused such enormous damage and such grave problems for both Israel and the West in general that other powers should feel more confident in criticising them and taking vigorous and concerted action.

Almost no one disagrees that the current tragedies in the Middle East have roots in the period before the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.

At the conclusion of World War I, instead of the promised independence, the Arabs received new rulers from the West, who demanded that those they were oppressing abstain from all violence. In Iran some may remember how the European powers wished to divide the country among themselves. In the 1950s the US infiltrated Iranian society to secure a government compliant with Western oil interests. Then during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the US aided Saddam Hussein.

But the events in Palestine from 1948 on overshadow almost everything else in their effect on the region’s thinking. Even before the state of Israel was established, Jewish terrorists instigated massacres of Palestinians. Israel drove over 700,000 Arabs from their homes and refused to allow them to return, in clear violation of the conditions set forth by the UN for the new state’s establishment.

This was the beginning of the enormous refugee problem which has poisoned the whole region ever since. Many of these desperate outcasts fled to Lebanon, and some of them resorted to violence against those who had used violence to drive them away. Israel thus saw Lebanon as a threat and invaded it several times.

The 1982 invasion brought massive death and destruction. The massacres in Sabra and Shatila, where then Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon let in mass murderers who killed 1500 unarmed Palestinians, were particularly horrifying. Israel’s decision to remain in Lebanon led to the establishment of Hezbollah, which received help from Iran to engage in armed resistance. This in turn led to new Israeli attacks against Lebanon in 1993 and 1996, which killed numerous Lebanese and reinvigorated Hezbollah. Israeli occupation forces withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 after suffering considerable losses. The result of Israel’s invasions was the creation of a more dangerous adversary.

In this year’s elections a clear majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas, which opened new possibilities both for stability in the Occupied Territories and for peace negotiations. Yet US and Israel imposed conditions for talks with the new government that they knew Hamas could accept only after negotiations, including renouncing violence and recognising Israel.

Hamas had indicated that it would recognize Israel if Israel recognised the Palestinians’ right to their own state in accordance with UN resolutions. But this Israel refused to discuss. Then by withholding all revenues from the new, legally-elected government, Israel and the West increased the misery and chaos in the Palestinian territories.

Israel was holding thousands of Palestinian prisoners when a single Israeli soldier was captured in a Palestinian raid. This was used as a pretext for an assault on Gaza that in six weeks killed over 200 Palestinians and gave rise to indescribable misery.

Not long after Israel’s assault on Gaza began, Hezbollah carried out an operation against a group of Israeli soldiers. This incident did not differ in any significant way from previous incidents which had been resolved with prisoner exchanges.

But this time Israel’s response was an assault on Lebanon which overshadowed even the suffering in Gaza. It was not the rain of rockets from Hezbollah that provoked the Israeli assault, but rather the Israeli assault on Lebanon that provoked Hezbollah’s massive rocket attacks.

This fanned hatred against Israel in the Arab and Muslim worlds and seriously weakened respect for the US. Terrorists in Iraq will feel more strongly motivated to fight against those cooperating with the US. Iran and Syria will be less restrained in their anti-Israeli policies. Arab regimes that wish to cooperate with the West will meet with greater opposition from their own people.

Israel’s situation will become critical if this hatred is not addressed before the West loses the capacity or the will to prevent a catastrophe. Those who talk about the need for both sides to renounce violence while ignoring the massively disproportionate use of violence on the Israeli side and the massively disproportionate loss of civilian life on the Palestinian and Lebanese side, render their criticism of Israel meaningless and increase the risk of Israel’s taking new steps towards a catastrophe that could have devastating results for both itself and its neighbours, to say the least.

It is clearer than ever that peace in the broader Middle East is impossible without peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Efforts for peace cannot assume that the oppressed must first renounce all violence. History shows that oppressed peoples deprived of all hope for a life of dignity do not renounce violence.

Attempts to pressure Lebanon to use force against Hezbollah would be counterproductive. The transition to a single Lebanese armed force will take time. Some may fear that Lebanon could be left defenceless if Hezbollah is disarmed faster than the Lebanese army is built up. And one can’t expect complete confidence in the UN’s ability to defend Lebanon after the discouraging experience with UNIFIL, which gave the country no real protection. And some may remember Bosnia, where the UN failed to prevent mass murders of Muslims, not unlike those that Ariel Sharon presided over in the Beirut of 1982.

It is time for vigorous and concerted action. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Kare Willoch and - -
OSLO, Oct 31 2003 (IPS)

There is a connection between a lack of military power to confront injustice and the use of terror. Nuclear weapons are an element of one party\’s crushing superiority in the Middle East. The West – with good reason – seeks to prevent other countries from acquiring them. But the US refuses to hear criticism of Israel\’s nuclear arsenal, writes Kaare Willoch, former leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister of Norway from 1981 to 1986. In this article, the author writes that one cannot expect non-Westerners to consider it more a more heroic act to bomb Palestinian homes from airplanes than to blow oneself up. US-financed missiles and shells are inflicting a much higher death toll on innocent civilians. It is only natural that many outside the West believe that we oppose only certain forms of violence and condone other far more lethal ones by ourselves and our allies. Western leaders must turn their attention to the root causes of terrorism and take action to eliminate them.

In recent days newspapers in several countries have been carrying large ads directed against suicide bombers. This is unlikely to be of much help in the so-called ”War on Terrorism”.

Opinion polls indicate an urgent need for a new policy. Over the last two years the percentage of the population with a favourable view of the US has fallen from 61 percent to 15 percent in Indonesia, and from 52 percent to 15 percent in Turkey.

There is a connection between a lack of military power to confront injustice and the use of terror. Nuclear weapons are an element of one party’s crushing superiority in the Middle East. The West – with good reason – seeks to prevent other countries from acquiring them. But the US refuses to hear criticism of Israel’s nuclear arsenal. On this subject Amir Moussa, leader of the Arab League, has said, ”This is a double standard which will destroy the war on terrorism.”

Former US president Bill Clinton argued during a recent visit to Oslo that ”in a world where it is impossible for us to occupy, capture, or conquer whoever aims to harm us, we need to work harder to achieve a world with more friends and fewer terrorists”.

The leaders of the Anglo-American coalition seem to hope that the war against those behind the September 11, 2001, attack on the US, and the removal of Saddam Hussein’s terrorist regime in Iraq, can put an end to such brutal violence. Ami Ayalon, former head of Israel’s security service Shin Bet, thinks otherwise: ”Those who want ‘victory’ against terror without addressing the underlying grievances want an unending war.”

At the New York conference on terrorism in September of this year, Pakistani president Pervez Musharaff mentioned some of these frustrations: ”Muslims feel that their claims are discounted, which leads to a feeling of hopelessness. This is a direct cause of suicide bombings and terrorism.”

Israeli logic holds that if one kills two out of ten terrorists, there will be eight left; by Palestinian logic, the new number will be twelve. This explains why Lt. Gen. Moshe Yalon, Israeli Chief of Staff, recently stated that his country’s harsh policy towards the Palestinians was, contrary to its intentions, strengthening extremists on the Palestinian side in opposition to its own strategic interests.

An example of the sort of attitude that exacerbates conflict is a recent statement by a well-known Norwegian Christian fundamentalist: ”What God proclaimed to the world through his angel and through Rebekah has indeed been fulfilled. The Arab people have been like a wild ass engaged in constant conflict, both among themselves and with other ethnic groups. They have always been especially hostile to the Jewish people. ” This type of view is shared by too many other fellow believers in the West.

Others look at the way we Westerners have waged the bloodiest wars in history amongst ourselves, turning the entire world into a slaughterhouse. They may wonder who we are to view Arabs as having a more ”wild-ass” mentality than our own? Moreover, it wasn’t Arabs but Europeans who committed one of the most grotesque crimes of history against the Jewish people. Nevertheless, the racist attitudes that Christian fundamentalists justify with the Bible still exert considerable influence on Western policies.

We should be grateful to the leaders of France and Germany and almost the entire range of Christian denominations (with the exception of the leader of the White House prayer group) who so strongly emphasised that this war was not a war between religions and was not a ”crusade”. If it had not been for them, the war in Iraq would have created even greater risk of an expansion of the conflicts giving rise to terrorism. But, regrettably, their opposition to the war has not sufficed to eliminate the perception of an aggressive Western world, a perception originating with the Crusades and reinforced every day with television images from Palestine and Iraq.

One cannot expect non-Westerners to consider it more a more heroic act to bomb Palestinian homes from airplanes than to blow oneself up. And if we’re shocked about suicide bombings, others may note that US-financed missiles and shells are inflicting a much higher death toll on innocent civilians. It is only natural that many outside the West believe that we oppose only certain forms of violence and condone other far more lethal ones by ourselves and our allies.

Some of the new crop of terrorists may also remember the results that Jewish terrorists achieved when they drove Palestinians out of areas which would become part of Israel. Many in the West now believe that the right of return for those who were driven out is unacceptable, even if this is what international law demands. In other words, one is in principle against terrorism yielding results for the terrorist, but makes exceptions when one has sympathy for him.

The Western leaders must turn their attention to the root causes of terrorism and take action to eliminate them. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Kare Willoch and - -
OSLO, Apr 1 2003 (IPS)

The formation of a new Palestinian government complies with one of the conditions imposed by President Bush for presenting his \’\’road map\’\’ for peace in the Middle East envisaging a separate Palestinian state by 2005, writes Kaare Willoch, former Prime Minister of Norway. But even this plan cannot produce lasting results if it breaks earlier promises to the weaker party, the author writes in this article for IPS. There is reason to fear that the \’\’road map\’\’ in the first round will call only for the removal of settlements established after March 2001 and an end to all further expansion within the occupied territories. But keeping the earlier Israeli settlements will make it impossible to establish a Palestinian state within borders that could render it viable. Accommodating Israel on this point is a certain path to lasting conflict. Under such circumstances, demands to make all further advances conditional on a complete cessation of violence will give the extremist groups veto power over peace. The Americans do not seem to realise that such demands represent a flight from reality.

The formation of a new Palestinian government complies with one of the conditions imposed by US President George Bush for presenting his ”road map”, a plan for peace in the Middle East envisaging a separate Palestinian state by 2005.

The Iraq War has seriously hurt the relationship between the West and the Muslim world, long poisoned by the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Even though it has no direct link to the question of Palestine, international terrorism is also stoked by this conflict.

The US has hoped to soothe the Palestinians with new assurances that they will get their own state, much as it did during the earlier war on Iraq. This immediately brought President George W. Bush into conflict with powerful circles within the US that argue against such a solution.

If President Bush nevertheless dares to follow up on his ”road map to a two-state solution”, in cooperation with the European Union, Russia, and the UN, a certain optimism is justified. But even this plan cannot produce lasting results if it breaks earlier promises to the weaker party.

Inasmuch as the UN is expected to back the ”road map”, it is only natural for the UN member states to voice their opinions about it. And their positions must be based on ”the UN track”. A peaceful solution for Israel and the Palestinians must fulfil the binding resolutions that the UN has adopted.

There are, however, strong indications that the ”road map” will not be based on these resolutions, since influential circles in the US will not accept such a solution. One can only hope that this won’t lead governments of other nations to neglect their moral duty of speaking out for the complete implementation of the UN resolutions.

There are, indeed, peaceful means of fulfilling the UN demands. If the US stops financing the military forces violating international law in the Palestinian territories and stops sending them weapons, the possibilities of continued defiance of the UN will be significantly reduced.

Both the 1947 resolution establishing a Jewish state and resolutions adopted at later dates give Israel an incontrovertible right to national security within recognised borders. But the 1947 resolution also has provisions that Israel set aside: the new state must show full respect for the human rights of all those already living in its territory, irrespective of race or religion.

In spite of this, hundreds of thousands of Arabs were compelled to flee the land that became Israel. The means of compulsion included massacres whose systematic cruelty towards men, women, and children was used intentionally to frighten away as many Arabs as possible. This conduct was later acknowledged by the Israelis.

As refugees began to stream out, the UN immediately adopted a new binding resolution stating that they must be allowed to return. Israel responded by adopting a law prohibiting their return.

This violation of the UN demand led to an enormous humanitarian problem, which must be solved if hope for peace is not to be destroyed by an irredeemable bitterness. Probably the only politically realistic solution today is for the refugees and their descendants to be given compensation for their loss, generous enough to be seen as fair.

But the ”road map” raises no credible hope that this might happen. Governments wishing peace in the region ought to emphasise that this must be done.

After the 1967 war, the Security Council called for Israeli withdrawal from the territories it occupied during the conflict, holding that the appropriation of territory by force is unacceptable.

Governments must base their policy on the UN’s legal position, namely that this is an occupation for which there are consequences under international law. States wishing to respect the UN and international order cannot accept any deviation from the demand that Israel withdraw from the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

According to The Economist magazine, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon aims to keep half the occupied territories. There is reason to fear that the ”road map to peace” implies accommodation to his claims and thus lays the ground for new conflicts.

The UN has also called for a stop to the building of settlements for Israeli citizens in the occupied territories, which is considered a war crime under international law. But Israel has not been willing to comply with this demand.

There is also reason to fear that the ”road map” in the first round will call only for the removal of settlements established after March 2001 and an end to all further expansion within the occupied territories. But keeping the earlier Israeli settlements, also built in violation of international law, will make it impossible to establish a Palestinian state within borders that could render it viable. Accommodating Israel on this point is a certain path to lasting conflict.

Under such circumstances, demands to make all further advances conditional on a complete cessation of violence will give the extremist groups veto power over peace. The Americans do not seem to realise that such demands represent a flight from reality. A lasting peace requires full implementation of the relevant UN resolutions. (END\COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: