WHEN WE attempt to reduce PLO leader Yasser Arafat's efforts at the Middle East peace process to a single word - terrorism - we do little justice to him, his organization, his people and our own intellect. The story behind what is taking place right now is a very complex one, rooted in years of struggle and sacrifice, and yet we as a society have managed to demystify the issue into a dichotomy of peace and rebellion, or more bluntly, the notion that Israelis want peace, and the Arabs want war.
The reduction of the Palestinian struggle to mainstream media-inspired labels is an insult to the reality of the situation.
For example, the justification of denying PLO statehood often lies in its supposed inability to honor its agreements. It's interesting that this definition of an agreement is the same that applies to a country when, for example, it joins an organization and agrees to abide by its rules in return for its services. Israel is such a member of such an organization called the United Nations.
The number of times Israel has broken its tacit agreement with the U.N.: 66.
In other words, Israel has ignored 66 U.N. Security Council Resolutions, which are binding on all nations. Just to name a few, there is Resolution 444 that "deplores Israel's lack of cooperation with U.N. peacekeeping forces." There's also Resolution 605 addressing Israel's practices in "denying human rights to the Palestinians," and Resolution 242 which calls on Israel to "deoccupy" the territories it captured in 1967 because of the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force.
So, before we begin blaming the PLO for breaking a null peace treaty because of its supposed unreliablilty, let's shed some light on these 69 ignored resolutions, dating all the way to 1947.
The Arab countries who remain in defiance of the state of Israel are anti-Zionistic, not anti-Semitic. Arabs are also Semites, and so to accuse them of deploring themselves is a little illogical. The key difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is that one denounces a race, while the other, a political and social movement.
The obvious example of this differentiation lies in the fact that the Arab-Jewish conflict is a relatively new phenomenon, fueled by the creation of an Israeli state. The Palestinians are not fighting a holy war to purge the world of Jews, they are fighting for the right to reclaim their home, which they believe was taken away by the Zionist movement.
Our concept of the Arab-Israel conflict is further muddled by a certain bias that has become an inherent part of U.S. foreign policy, namely, unconditional alliance with Israel. For whatever reason, the U.S. has supported Israel in its domination of the Palestinians and has helped create the state into a military powerhouse. To call Clinton and his predecessors unbiased leaders in the peace process is an anomaly in itself.
Out of the $15 billion budget for foreign aid in the year 2000, a whopping $3 billion was allocated to Israel, two thirds of which is solely for military purposes. Israel has received more aid from the United States than any other country since World War II.
Furthermore, between 1972 and 1991, the U.S. has vetoed 29 different U.N. Security Council resolutions, most of which have sought to curb violence in the region.
Some of these resolutions included measures to send U.N. observers into the occupied territories to monitor Israel's behavior and rectify the deplorable military actions in denying "human rights to Palestinians." Others provided provisions for imposing economic sanctions on Israel for refusing to cooperate with U.N. peace-keeping forces.
How can the leader of the free world claim to be an impartial negotiator in the peace process when the foreign policy of his own country supports one side over the other?
The stipulation of words such as "bully" for the Palestinians seems inapt at times when one consider sthe military might of Israel. One contender is a potentially nuclear power with one of the largest armies in the world fighting a largely refugee population with sticks and stones as ammunition. Yet, the PLO is the bully causing terror and destruction.
Since 1948, the Palestinian people have been fighting for one right which we should all hope is an uncontestable one in the same nation that saw the likes of Woodrow Wilson tirelessly fight for a world of free nations: the right to self-determination.
Let us also not forget that America was founded by "rebels" using guerilla tactics to fight a mighty power, for the right to govern themselves in their own home. Sound familiar?
Maybe one day we will realize that this long epic, covered in the stains of blood and sacrifice, is a struggle of an entire people, not just one leader. Let's stop pretending, and give the Palestinian people their due right.
(Faraz Rana's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | YesterdayThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
