Defiant In Solidarity
The Arab League summit was convened in Qatar, with a hero's welcome given to one of their own, Sudanese President Umar al-Bashir. That he faces an international arrest warrant on war crime charges is seen as an intolerable insult to all of Islamdom. This was the fourth trip Mr. al-Bashir had defiantly undertaken since the International Criminal Court in the Hague had issued that warrant early in March.Mr. al-Bashir stands accused of being the architect of mass murder, torture, and rape on a grand scale of atrocities committed against the people of Darfur. The summit is prepared to declare outright a rejection of the ICC's decision to place the warrant against Mr. al-Bashir, along with the accusations levelled against him. The 22-member Arab League, in solidarity with one of their own has pledged to 'step up visits to Sudan'.
Amre Moussa, secretary-general of the league, levelled accusations of 'selectivity' against the ICC for paying attention to Sudan, instead of toward Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip. Genocide occurred not in Sudan, but rather against the Palestinians in Gaza, according to Mr. Moussa. The alleged war crimes levelled against Mr. al-Bashir cannot compare in scale and vicious intent to the crimes Israel imposed upon Palestinian civilians.
Within the sacred confines of the United Nations and various UN bodies such as the Human Rights Commission, the Arab League has successfully and selectively levelled accusations of racism and human-rights abuses and intent toward genocide against Israel. Continual slanderous attacks against Israel take place within the United Nations with the yearly ritual of condemnations issued ad nauseum. No other country is ever sanctioned.
Israel is to anticipate a final ultimatum to be issued from the summit. Duly warned that it must be prepared to accept the league's demands calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all lands under Jewish occupation since 1967, inclusive of Jerusalem; from the Golan Heights and from Judea and Samaria in their entirety, along with acceptance of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as the capital; and finally, full acceptance of all Palestinian returnees.
Should Israel refuse this generous offer it will be withdrawn never to be repeated. In exchange for such an agreement that would effectively dilute the Jewish presence in Israel transforming it from a Jewish state to yet another Arab state with Jewish residents who may or may not be permitted to visit the most sacred of Jewish religious sites in a Jerusalem-held Palestinian state, the Arab states would agree to enter into a collective peace agreement with Israel.
And thus would the Arab-Israeli conflict be concluded. Enmities and war-mongering over. The dream of a Jewish state over, as well. This would satisfy the Arab League, Israel is assured. The league mentioned nothing of Hezbollah and Hamas both of which proxies of Iran love nothing so much as sacred jihad against the Jews. With the Jewish presence in the Middle East a historical anomaly, its remnants once again dispersed elsewhere around the globe, is satisfaction guaranteed?
Israel has been naively under the impression that it had the freedom as a legally constituted State to bargain in good faith with the Palestinian Authority to reach an agreement leading to peace, and the eventual presence of a border-contiguous sovereign Palestinian state. On the way to accomplishing this, the government of Ehud Olmert has been meeting with representatives of the Palestinian Authority.
Now outgoing, acting Prime Minister Olmert stated that he had offered the PA "more than any Israeli leader had offered in the past", but his offer had gone unanswered. Peace with the PA, he said, would result in "a dramatic, painful and heart-breaking compromise". In other words, even though Mr. Olmert exerted himself strenuously to meet the implacable demands of the PA, it was never enough. It never has been. It never will be, it appears.
On the other hand, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas claimed at the Arab League summit in Doha that Israel was promoting "expansionist ambitions" rather than a peace settlement. That Israel in fact, according to him is "far from abandoning the path of settlement and choosing the path of peace." Israel has prepared itself for sacrifices to obtain peace, sacrifices that would repeat the withdrawal from Gaza, among others.
Can two enmities seeking to reconcile however coolly, to advantage both sides' aspirations ever reach any meaningful compromise given their history?
Labels: Israel, Middle East, Political Realities
posted by Pieface @ Tuesday, March 31, 2009
<< Home