The
next task, presumably, would be to put forward a proposal
so absurd the Palestinians are bound to reject it. Then
we can have a renewed intifada, which Sharon, unlike
the pusillanimous Barak, will put down mercilessly. That’s
the view of William Safire. Writing
in the New York Times, he declared airily: "For
years, on a settlement hilltop, he [Sharon] would hang a
map on a fence and show to visitors (including George W.
Bush two years ago) his concept of a defensible Israel next
to a contiguous state including virtually all the Palestinians
on about half the West Bank. Sharon’s potential proposal
is not as dreamily self-defeating as the Clinton-Barak bridge
to nowhere, but has this practical advantage the other never
did: Sharon in power can now deliver what he promises."
That is splendid news. The Palestinians had rejected Barak’s
idea of returning to them only 95 percent of their own land.
Now they can huff and puff and reject 50 percent of their
own land! Here is what the 1967 UN Security Council Resolution
242 – adherence to which is still allegedly official
US policy – states: "the fulfillment of Charter
principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting
peace in the Middle East which should include…[w]ithdrawal
of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the
recent conflict." Not withdrawal from 50 percent, or
75 percent or 90 percent. And it does not say: "from
all territories occupied in the recent conflict with the
exception of East Jerusalem because it is universally accepted
that Jerusalem is the eternal and indivisible capital of
Israel."
That
the William Safires, Charles Krauthammers and Martin Peretzes
of this world are unable to consider Arabs as anything other
than latter-day Nazis, who can only be crushed or appeased
is scarcely news. What was interesting about the US response
to Sharon’s extraordinary victory was what did not happen.
Leave aside for the moment Sharon’s checkered early history.
Many Americans remember the bloody carnage of Israel’s 1982
invasion of Lebanon – an act of aggression lacking
even the remotest justification in international law. Many
remember the Israeli bombing of West Beirut. And many remember
the scenes of decomposing bodies at the Sabra and Shatilla
refugee camps. Sharon had armed and trained the Phalangist
militia who carried out those massacres immediately following
the assassination of their leader Bashir Gemayel.
An
official Israeli Government inquiry declared that Sharon’s
"blunders" constituted the "non-fulfillment
of a duty with which the Defense Minister was charged."
One would have thought "blunders" was a rather
mild word to describe Sharon’s at best criminally negligent
conduct. Nonetheless, the Kahan Commission insisted that
Sharon was not fit to be Defense Minister and demanded his
resignation. Sharon refused to go. Eventually he gave way.
But he remained in the Cabinet as Minister without Portfolio.
The Kahan report is worth quoting at length since, emanating
as it did from the President of the Israeli Supreme Court,
was essentially an exercise in damage control. Sharon, needless
to say, was absolved of any war crimes or even responsibility
for the massacres. Yet Sharon’s collusion with the killers
is obvious from the following passage:
"It
is impossible to justify the Minister of Defense’s disregard
of the danger of a massacre…. There was the widespread knowledge
regarding the Phalangists’ combat ethics, their feelings
of hatred towards the Palestinians, and their leaders’ plans
for the future of the Palestinians when said leaders would
assume power. Besides this general knowledge, the Defense
Minister also had special reports from his not inconsiderable
meetings with the Phalangist heads…. In the circumstances
that prevailed after [Gemayel’s] assassination, no prophetic
powers were required to know that concrete danger of acts
of slaughter existed when the Phalangists were moved into
the camps without the IDF being with them . . . and without
the IDF being able to maintain effective and ongoing supervision
of their actions there. The sense of such a danger should
have been in the conscience of every knowledgeable person
who was close to this subject, and certainly the consciousness
of the Defense Minister, who took an active part in everything
relating to the war. His involvement in the war was deep,
and the connection with the Phalangists was under his constant
care. If in fact the Defense Minister, when he decided that
the Phalangists would enter the camp without the IDF taking
part in the operation, did not think that that decision
could bring about the very disaster that in fact occurred,
the only possible explanation for this is that he disregarded
any apprehensions about what was to be expected…. Responsibility
is to be imputed to the Minister of Defense for having disregarded
the danger of acts of vengeance and bloodshed by the Phalangists
against the population of the refugee camps, and having
failed to take this danger into account when he decided
to have the Phalangists enter the camps. In addition, responsibility
is to be imputed to the Minister of Defence for not ordering
appropriate measures for preventing or reducing the danger
of massacre as a condition for the Phalangists’ entry into
the camps."
In
other words, Sharon knew perfectly well what would happen
when he sent the Phalangists into the camps. And that is
precisely why he sent them in there. To absolve the Israeli
military of responsibility for what happened at Sabra and
Shatilla on the grounds that they were carried out by Phalangist
Christians and not Israelis is a little like absolving Hitler’s
SS of responsibility for genocide since some of the worst
atrocities were the work of local auxiliaries established
by the SS. Yet not once during the recent Israeli election
campaign or in the aftermath did any political figure in
the United States declare that Sharon would be "unacceptable"
as Israel’s leader. Not once did anyone suggest that he
should be arrested and put on trial for war crimes. Not
once did the US Government refer to Sharon’s checkered past
and deem him a threat to regional stability. There were
no threats of sanctions, no threats to withhold economic
assistance. Indeed, given the extent of US involvement in
Israeli politics, not to mention the economic and military
dependence of Israel on the United States, it should have
been a relatively straightforward matter for Washington
to secure Sharon’s defeat. A Prime Minster of Israel who
is unwelcome in Washington – that’s a nonstarter in
any election campaign. Affluent Austria can thumb its nose
at the world – as it did over Kurt Waldheim and Joerg
Haider. Israel is not in the position to do that.
Yet
not only did US officials raise no objections whatsoever
to the prospect of a Sharon-led Government, they may well
have encouraged a Sharon victory by suggesting, at least
tacitly, that Barak had made too many concessions to the
Arabs. After the failure of the Camp David talks last summer,
Clinton blamed Arafat for the debacle. Barak, Clinton explained,
had gone the extra mile while Arafat had been unprepared
to give an inch. By suggesting that Barak had been making
concession after concession without getting anything in
return, Clinton made the Israeli Prime Minister look a fool
and a weak one at that. Israel’s amen corner, working in
tandem with Sharon, pounced. The Palestinian uprising that
followed the Camp David collapse – a response to seven
years of frustration, not to mention 33 years of military
occupation – was interpreted as the act of a bully
who smells weakness in an opponent. Barak, the Chamberlain-like
appeaser, was getting his nose rubbed in it by Arafat, the
ranting demagogue in the Chancellery. Israelis, seeing to
their amazement that Washington was raising no objections
to Sharon, voted for him. Why would they not do so? If the
US Government has no problem about their country being ruled
by a man with his appalling record of brutality towards
Arabs, why not vote for him? If even the US Government thinks
Barak went too far, why bother with concessions?
US
equanimity about an Israel led by Ariel Sharon stands in
stark contrast to the hysterical vituperations continually
directed towards Yugoslavia. There is no daily "Sharon
to The Hague" drumbeat livening up the tedious State
Department press briefings. To be sure, there is a certain
consistency in our inconsistency. Contempt for international
law is the one abiding principle the US Government adheres
to unflinchingly. The United States has consistently refused
to hold its client-sate accountable for continued defiance
of innumerable United Nations Resolutions, whether they
concern the building of settlements on occupied territories,
return of refugees, or military attacks on neighboring countries.
US contempt for UN Resolutions is, if anything, even more
extreme than that of Israel. Interestingly, while Israelis
and Americans are equally contemptuous of the views of the
"international community," the Israelis at least
are decent enough not to label their view on how the world
should work the will of the "international community."
Last
year’s bombing of Yugoslavia was, as we all know, a violation
of international law. Following the end of the bombing,
the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1244
arranging for NATO’s seizure of Kosovo. Right from the beginning,
the United States had not the slightest intention of abiding
by any of its provisions. It began building a massive military
facility, Camp Bondsteel, sanctioned neither by UN Resolution
nor by permission of the Government of Yugoslavia. There
was something in Security Council 1244 about the United
Nations merely providing an "interim administration
for Kosovo under which the people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial
autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."
Yet as soon as NATO moved in, it set about creating an "independent"
client-state in Kosovo, with its own currency, it own laws,
its own administration. Yugoslav state property was simply
appropriated lock, stock and barrel by NATO.
Then
there was the promise that an "agreed number of Yugoslav
and Serbian personnel will be permitted to return"
to Kosovo to perform functions like "liaison with the
international civil mission and the international security
presence"; "maintaining a presence at Serb patrimonial
sites; "maintaining a presence at key border crossings."
Needless to say, Serbs have not been permitted entry and
there is very little likelihood of their ever being permitted
entry. The Resolution also states that "the responsibilities
of the international security presence to be deployed and
acting in Kosovo will include… Ensuring public safety and
order until the international civil presence can take responsibility
for this task…[and] Conducting border monitoring duties
as required."
Now,
of course NATO has resolutely refused to carry out any border
monitoring duties. This is why today there is a full-scale
insurgency in the Presevo Valley in Eastern Serbia. Armaments
and men are pouring across the border from Kosovo. The Liberation
Army of Presevo, Medvedja and Bujanovac – the KLA by
a new name, in other words – is determined to attach
the Presevo Valley to an "independent" Kosovo.
All this is happening right under the noses of US troops
who refuse to do anything about it. Indeed, it is hard to
believe that the Albanian terrorists are not being armed
and equipped by United States forces, just as they were
in the run-up to the 1999 bombing. It is hard also to believe
that the United States is not providing the revamped KLA
with information about the movement of Serb troops and police.
Moreover,
it now appears to be US policy that Yugoslav sovereignty
not only does not extend to Kosovo it does not extend to
Southern Serbia either. The new rulers in Belgrade, whose
attitude seems to be that they need to ask NATO’s permission
if they want to use the bathroom, have accepted the idea
that the United States should act as an impartial interlocutor
between the legitimate, internationally-recognized Government
in Belgrade and a bunch of terrorists. Last week, the US
supreme commander over NATO forces in Kosovo, Admiral James
Ellis, called on the United Nations to appoint a "facilitator"
to help resolve the differences between the Serbs and the
Albanians in the Presevo Valley. "I think these types
of challenges are best dealt with by international agencies
that are appropriately configured for the task," Ellis
explained, "I would hope that…one would come forward
to assume that responsibility." Government and terrorist
are on the same level. So much for Serb sovereignty!
NATO
Secretary General Lord Robertson called on the Belgrade
regime to improve the "rights" of ethnic Albanians
in the Presevo Valley. "We will continue to take robust
action to prevent them from getting the provocation they
seek," he blustered. As always, the way to deal with
Albanian violence is to hit Belgrade. Here’s Reuters’s take
on NATO policy in the Presevo Valley: "According to
NATO and EU diplomats, confidence-building measures for
the Presevo Valley include removing potentially provocative
Serbian security units." The Serb Government, cravenly
seeking international approval, recently put forward a plan
that involved the integration of the Presevo Valley ethnic
Albanians into the local administration and police. Serbian
Deputy Prime Minister Nebojsa Covic also suggested a step-by-step
demilitarization of the buffer zone by the Kosovo border.
He explained that the Belgrade regime wanted to resolve
the problems peacefully with representatives of the local
Albanian population as well as "the international community."
That Serb leaders can today still seriously entertain the
notion that the KLA would settle for anything short of an
ethnically pure independent state is a measure of the shame
that has befallen Serbia – a once proud nation. The
"new" KLA predictably rejected the Covic plan:
It would be "mercilessly fought against by all means,"
the organization declared.
Meanwhile,
according to Kosovo Albanian leader Ibrahim Rugova, he and
Secretary of State Colin Powell have an "understanding
in general" that independence for Kosovo should be
supported. Interestingly, the State Department did not deny
Rugova’s assertion, insisting instead that the "independence
issue never came up during Powell’s meeting with Rugova."
This of course is a lie. But then since almost every single
aspect of US foreign policy is shrouded in lies, this little
exchange received no attention.
Please
Support Antiwar.com
Send
contributions to
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
or
Contribute Via our Secure Server
Credit Card Donation Form
Your
Contributions are now Tax-Deductible
