By Stephen Zunes*
May 15, 2001
SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. -- Despite its best efforts, the report by a commission led former U.S. Senator George Mitchell on the cause of the most recent Israeli-Palestinian violence must be judged a failure, not so much for what the report contains as for what it omits.
The report makes the obvious observations that the Palestinian Authority needs to do more to curb violence and that Israel should end its widespread use of lethal force against unarmed demonstrators.
Yet, by failing to call for the creation of an international protection force, the commission displayed its unwillingness to support the decisive steps necessary to actually curb further bloodshed.
The report recognizes that the violence was not solely a result of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to the Islamic holy site of Haram al-Sharif in occupied East Jerusalem last fall. The report also does not find any evidence of a preconceived plan by the Palestinians to launch a violent struggle. Instead, it acknowledges that the roots of the current uprising can be traced to Palestinian frustration over the state of the peace process and their efforts to recover their lands.
And yet, the report refuses to call for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories in return for security guarantees, which Israel is required to do under United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and long considered by the international community as the basis for peace.
Instead of insisting that Israel withdraw all its illegal settlements from the occupied territories, the report merely calls for a freeze on further developments. This despite the fact that, according to Article 40 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it is illegal for an occupying power to transfer its civilian population onto territory seized by military force. U..N. Security Council resolutions 446 and 465, adopted unanimously with United States support, have called upon Israel to withdraw from these settlements..
As long as the settlements continue to exist as part of Israeli territory, any hope of establishing a contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank or including Arab East Jerusalem as part of that state becomes impossible. It's hard to fathom how future violence can be avoided without some type of guarantee to allow Palestinians to reclaim their lands seized by Israel in the 1967 war.
Ultimately, the report's failure can be its traced to its attempt to provide a "balanced" view of the situation. Such efforts fail to recognized the fundamentally unbalanced nature of a conflict between an occupied people and their occupiers. A balanced perspective which recognizes that both Israelis and Palestinians have the fundamental right to live in peace and security is critical. However, it is wrong to blame the Palestinians equally when it is their land which is being occupied, confiscated and colonized by the Israelis and when it is the Palestinians who are being denied their fundamental right of national self-determination.
Whatever faults Yasir Arafat's corrupt and autocratic Palestinian Authority may have, its positions on the outstanding issues of the conflict -- settlements, withdrawal from occupied lands, sharing Jerusalem and the return of refugees -- are far more consistent with international law, U.N. Security Council resolutions and the consensus of the international community than are the positions of either the United States or Israel.
In many respects, the mission was flawed from its inception. Its members were appointed by the United States, which has been the major financial, military and diplomatic supporter of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. A truly international committee, chosen by the U..N. Secretary General or other international leader, would have undoubtedly had more credibility. The United States opposed such a panel.
The commission's credibility was also damaged by the decision to include two former U.S. Senators who were strong supporters of Israel's occupation policies while they served in the Senate. Both supported billions of dollars worth of economic and military U.S. aid to Israeli occupation forces. Both opposed the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Neither senator demonstrated a strong record in support of human rights and international law in the Middle East or elsewhere, which, one would think, should have been a prerequisite for membership on such a commission.
Such concerns may be moot, however. Israel has already rejected some of the report's key findings, along with Arafat's call for a summit to consider the committee's recommendations. The Bush administration appears unwilling to push Israel to comply.
It appears, then, that the commission's effort to identify the causes of the current conflict and suggest ways of achieving peace has proved to be a wasted exercise.
Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor of the Foreign Policy
In Focus project. He is an associate professor of Politics and
chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University
of San Francisco.