U.S. policy must force Barak’s hype into real action

By Edmund Hanauer

Ehud Barak, Israel’s newly elected prime minister, was in the United States for discussions with President Clinton. Despite the hype, Barak and his government hardly offer an alternative to the hawkish policies of Barak’s predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu. As leader of the opposition, Barak supported violations of Palestinian human rights by Netanyahu's government.

These include confiscation of Palestinian land, destruction of Palestinian homes, collective punishment (penalizing a community for an alleged act of an individual) and torture of  prisoners.

He also supported the growth of more than 140 illegal Jewish settlements, containing close to 400,000 people, on the Israeli-occupied Palestinian lands of Gaza and the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem.

Barak appears more flexible than Netanyahu regarding peace efforts with Syria and Lebanon. But he is taking a hard line toward the Palestinians: most settlements will remain; Israel will not withdraw to its 1967 borders; there will be no compromise on Jerusalem; and Palestinian refugees will not be allowed to return to Israel.

In order to maintain the settlements, Israel will need to keep about 40 percent of the West Bank and one-third of Gaza.

As a result, Palestinians will be forced into enclaves surrounded by ever-expanding Jewish settlements, Israeli military outposts, and roads linking settlements with Israel to be used only by Jews.

Hence, two million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank will be given autonomy or a so-called state akin to reservations for Native Americans or bantustans for black South Africans under apartheid. 

Clinton and congressional and Jewish leaders should ask Barak if he plans to stop Israel’s violations of international law, such as its destruction of more than 6,000 Palestinian homes since 1967, its yearly torture of more than 850 Palestinians, its confiscation of Palestinian lands, and its diversion of scarce water resources for the use of Jewish settlers. All of this has been documented by B'Tselem, Israel’s leading human-rights group.

Clinton's rhetoric is good. He says the United States knows “how destructive settlement activities, land confiscation, and house demolition" are to the pursuit of peace. But Clinton refuses to link U.S. aid to Israel with Israeli compliance with international law and recognition of  Palestinian rights.

The contrast with U.S. policy in Kosovo is stark. Whereas the United States resorted to a bombing campaign to enable Kosovar Albanians to return home, for 50 years it has refused to use economic and diplomatic pressure to get Israel to recognize the right of return of 3 million Palestinian refugees, who were forced out or fled from the wars of 1948 and 1967. After the 1948 war, Israel destroyed more than 400 villages. Indeed, U.S. support has enabled Israel to deny Palestinian refugees their rights under international law for 50 years.

Clinton has stressed the need for the parties to solve issues through negotiations. But as Clinton must know, leaving the process to the parties without outside pressure in support of human rights will result in a peace imposed by Israel, a stalemate or more war—results that will gain neither justice for Palestinians nor security for Israelis.   

Given his religiosity, Clinton might heed a recent statement by more than 1,100 clergy, including 150 bishops, who urged Clinton to cut off aid to Israel and to Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority until they cease violating the rights of Palestinians. Most of the aid—more than $3 billion annually—goes to Israel. Fearful that Israel is destroying Christian communities in Jerusalem, 26 religious leaders also urged Israel to cease revoking the residency permits of East Jerusalem Palestinians.

Until Clinton, other politicians, and the media insist that all nations implement international law and respect human rights, Israelis will oppress Palestinians—to the benefit of neither party—and U.S. foreign policy will be a hypocritical sham.