Contact/Join   
Amazon 
Visit Jordan
       

  Vol. 1 #33 April 3, 1999

Articles:   Kosovo Milosevic Cartoon Virtual Reality  Peace of the Brave Incitement
                     Kahane Cartoon     Prof. Said's Solution      

Kosovo: The Bankruptcy of International Law
By
Ami Isseroff

For months many watched in horror as Slobodan Milosevic’s Yugoslavian government proceeded to wipe out the population of Kosovo, using civil war as a pretext. Nobody seemed to care very much. Cynics said that Kosovo has no oil, or that President Clinton was distracted by his domestic problems. Milosevic continued to defy decency. No country and no group arraigned him before any bar of international justice. In fact, several countries worked actively to prevent any action. At last something was done. Perhaps the NATO bombing was not the most efficient and wisest tactic, but it upholds an important principle, and hopefully sets a precedent: No more genocide. It is possibly the first war that has been fought exclusively, or primarily, in order to stop genocide.

For us in the Middle East, the horror of Kosovo, illustrated by resident cartoonist Latuff , has many lessons. It is an example of what can happen to an ill-conceived multinational state of cantons. Anyone proposing such a solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict should keep in mind the example of Kosovo, and that of Bosnia. The NATO bombing also illustrates that it is not a good idea for any country to defy the United States for too long. For Israel, there are special considerations with regard to Kosovo, as there were in Bosnia. Alone among the Yugoslav peoples, the Serbs helped save Jews in World War II. The Jews also have given ‘hostages’ in Serbia, since there is still a small Jewish community there. So Israel must be careful. Israel also has, it is rumored, rather cozy relations with the Serbian military. Nonetheless, after some hesitancy, it seems the government is doing the right thing for once. PM Netanyahu condemned the Serb violence unequivocally. Foreign Minister Arik Sharon reiterated Israeli support for US policy. Israel has sent a symbolic plane-load of humanitarian aid, and Arik Sharon has ordered further assistance to be sent.

The case of Kosovo is also an object lesson in the bankruptcy of "International Law." One of the leading proponents of International Law  is Noam Chomsky, and many, including he, have applied it generously to the Palestine-Israel conflict. However, it seems that according to International Law, the intervention in Kosovo is wrong, or so Chomsky asserts. If we have to chose between the law and what is right, how are we to chose?

‘International Law’ is an august, resonant and self-righteous sounding term. One does not dare, after all, to defy such a shining, beautiful and wonderful thing as International Law. However, like so many wonderful phrases, International Law has proven itself to be empty and bankrupt. International Law did not prevent the extermination of European Jewry or the massacre of Serbs by Croats, or the massacre of Bosnians by Serbs, or genocide in Ruanda. It was not International Law that stopped Saddam Hussein from annexing Kuwait, but armed intervention. To me, there are three fundamental issues in Kosovo:

1. Is genocide morally wrong?

2. Is there a moral imperative to stop it?

3. Does the fact that in the past nations have gotten away with murder and genocide while everyone looked on, justify doing nothing and allowing it to happen again?

Number three is the main basis of Chomsky’s argument. If we follow Chomsky’s reasoning to its logical conclusion, slavery should never have been abolished, since it was once legal. There was no precedent for the aggression committed by the government of the United States against the sovereign Confederacy and its several sovereign states. The United States had permitted slavery until 1863, and courts had ruled repeatedly that slaves were property. Therefore, the freeing of the slaves was a great crime against the laws of nations.

Clearly that argument is absurd, and so is the argument that one should do nothing about Kosovo because there is no law against nations committing genocide.

Chomsky wrote:

The major recent academic study of "humanitarian intervention," by Sean Murphy, reviews the record after the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 which outlawed war...

It is comforting to know that war was outlawed in 1928. Why, we’ve hardly had any trouble at all since then! This clarifies the benefits and value of international law for anyone who had any doubts.

There is no doubt that the bombings have aroused mixed feelings and confusion. The ‘ethnic cleansing,’ a grim euphemism for genocide and mass eviction, has been stepped up by the Yugoslav government. Some blame this on the bombing. But the reason for the bombing was that left to its own devices, the Milosevic regime would eventually have completed its policy of gradual but total eviction or annihilation of an entire ethnic group. There were international observers, and there were negotiations, and there were UN meetings. The international observers observed and reported, and the negotiators negotiated, and the Yugoslav police kept killing people, and there were more negotiations and observations, and the Russians and others blocked any attempt to stop the killing, and the observers reported again, and there were more negotiations, and all the while people were getting killed. In the end, there would have been nothing to negotiate about. No more Kosovars.

The bombing began because it was apparent that the ‘cleansing’ was about to be stepped up. Perhaps the U.S. and its allies should have used ground troops, or more force, or less force, or better timing. But they could not do nothing. And nothing is what the ‘international community,’ represented in particular by Russia, wanted them to do.

Nothing is what Chomsky recommends too:

One choice, always, is to follow the Hippocratic principle: "First, do no harm." If you can think of no way to adhere to that elementary principle, then do nothing.

No doubt there was a better way to stop Slobodan Milosevic, just as it would have been better to stop Hitler in 1938 or 1935. Better and cheaper in terms of lives. The allied declaration of war brought needless suffering to France and England. Much harm was done. Germans bombed by the allies, even if they were anti-Nazi, no doubt reacted as anyone would when their home is bombed, and as many Serbs are reacting.

Chomsky wrote:

There are always ways that can be considered. Diplomacy and negotiations are never at an end.

That is what Neville Chamberlain thought too in 1938, but he was proven incorrect after Munich. Diplomacy and negotiations do come to an end when it is obvious that the other party is negotiating in bad faith. Even if "Diplomacy and negotiations are never at an end" the population of Kosovo would eventually have been at an end, because Milosevic was using the time bought by negotiations to shoot men in public squares and evict whole communities.

Chomsky hints, and he is no doubt correct, that neither the US nor Russia are acting only from altruistic humanitarian motives. The US has a large client organization, NATO, and it is anxious to justify its existence. Russia has the same interests in the Balkans that it did in 1914. After all, the physical geography of Europe has not changed, nor, it seems, the geopolitical thinking of the Russian foreign service. But in a world that is far from perfect, we must separate out the tainted from the absolutely evil. Hitler taught us that there is such a thing as absolute evil, and we must not forget that lesson.

Ami Isseroff,

Rehovot

Virtual Reality

Ami Isseroff

The only thing worse then approaching disaster - except for being there - is approaching disaster and convincing yourself that everything is fine. The Israeli government, and a large sector of the the Israeli public has been doing this for some months now, and there is a danger that they have lulled an entire nation to sleep. Inspired by our government and a sometimes cooperative press, there is a campaign to create a virtual reality in Israel. In that reality, there are no economic problems and the Government policy with regard to the peace process is a big success. Examples of these notions are the lead editorials that appeared in Israel’s Ma’ariv daily by Shmuel Shnitzer, this weekend and last weekend. In one, he claims success for the government’s peace policy, since there have been fewer terrorist attacks. Shnitzer, and all of us, should understand that we are in the position of a fellow who has put his finger on the outlet valve of a pressure cooker, rather than putting out the fire. We will have ‘quiet’ but only for a while. Palestinians are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with Yasser Arafat’s relatively mild leadership. Among students, the Fatah is losing ground to the Hamas. The absence of terrorist attacks is due in part to a concerted effort by the Palestinians to gain world recognition, and it is gradually succeeding. At the same time, Palestinian demands are becoming increasingly extreme. Yasser Arafat is now talking about the 1947 partition borders as a basis for negotiations. This is partly an expression of frustration. However it may also reflect a conviction that thanks to Israel’s inflexible policy, extremist Palestinian positions that would have been dismissed by world leaders a few months ago are now ‘respectable.’

In another editorial, Mr Schnitzer claims that all those who complain about the economy are simply ‘masochists.’ According to Schnitzer, the economies of several European countries are in worse condition and had less growth. He neglects to point out that those European countries did not have any immigration in the period studied. Israel’s slow growth, coupled with immigration, has resulted in a slight net decrease in GDP. Moreover, according to economist Sever Plutzker, the government unemployment figures are incorrect. In reality, Israel has far more than the approximately 180,000 or 210,000 unemployed measured by different measures. The real number is closer to 280,000. The difference is made up of people who are in retraining courses - but will not find work, and people who have just given up and left the work force. In a recent poll in Israel, the overwhelming majority of the sample agreed that their economic situation was the same or worse as it was three years ago, and only a very few thought it was better.

Similarly, as Bibi’s obstinacy evokes increasing signals of displeasure from Washington, certain Israeli commentators insist that all is well. The signs of increasing danger include snubs by Martin Indyk and Secretary of Defense William Cohen, reprimands by Denis Ross, demands by the State Department that Israel implement at least part of the Wye accords, and favorable receptions for Yasser Arafat in Washington and European capitals. These are all neutralized by wishful thinking and euphemisms.

Yes it is true that ‘nothing’ is happening now. But we cannot afford to delude ourselves into thinking that all is well. Historical ‘events’ and crises such as wars and depressions do not occur at random or all at once. They are prepared by processes that may be at work relatively quietly for a while. The signs of impending crisis are there for anyone to see.

The international crisis may come on May 4, 1999 if the PNA declares a state, or it may be postponed to a later time. If we persist in the current course, it is bound to come, and the longer it is postponed, the more Israel will find itself isolated in the international arena.

Declaration of Palestinian state should be interpreted as a certain sign of failure of PM Netanyahu’s policy. No doubt, however, people like the learned editor of Ma’ariv would take it as proof that PM Netanyahu’s anti-peace-process stance was correct all along, because the Palestinians prove to be ‘warmongers.’ And in fact, one of the arguments against declaring a state in May is that it would help PM Netanyahu’s chance to win the elections. On the other hand, as long as the quiet persists, the same people will claim that the same policy is correct because it achieves ‘results.’ Thus, the Israeli hard-liners can always prove they are right, and the Palestinians are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. But while Mr. Shnitzer is busy proving that the government is correct, Israel is losing respect around the world, and is reaping the ‘benefits’ of its ‘correct’ policy in UN condemnations and in US arms deals with Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Economic stagnation is less dramatic, but almost as dangerous as international recklessness. We can pretend all we want that there is no problem, but Israel will pay the price in terms of emigration and weakness. Those who are concerned about security should remember that in almost every modern war, the country with the strongest economy was the eventual victor. A year without economic progress cannot be made up so easily in the future.

It is past time to take off the virtual reality spectacles and deal with the problems as they are.

<Top>

Peace of the Brave = Incitement

22.3.99- The Israel General Press Office monitors PNA officials and media to prove that they are violating the incitement clauses of the Oslo accord. This is part of a speech by Chairman Yasser Arafat at a gathering to mark the anniversary of the battle of Karama:

"We carried out the longest intifada in history. They [ the Israelis] should know that we can start it again if they try to prevent us from exercising our rights. The state will be established with Jerusalem as its capital whether they like it or not. If they don't like it they can drink from the waters of the Dead Sea. We, the Fatah and the PLO, are ready to fight a new battle of Karameh every single day if anyone tries to stop us from exercising our rights, particularly that of proclaiming an independent state."

The Israel Government Press Office cited the above as proof of 'incitement,' giving Agence France Press of March 19 and the Jordan Times of March 20 as sources.

However, according to Middle East Media and Research Institute (MEMRI) Arafat also said: "...We adhere to the option of peace, the peace of the brave. We chose it of our own free will and we strategically adhere to it..."

Funny, the GPO forgot to translate that part.

Letter - RE above article:

Advocate for Israel

It is interesting to see who is so concerned about Palestinian incitement. Below is a letter from an anti-incitement guardian - who has a picture of his hero, Rabbi Kahana at his Web site.

Dear PEACE guys and girls,
Do you REALLY want peace?? Or are you just bent on supporting the Palestinians and antagonizing Bibi's government?? It seems from the above that you only single out ONE of the quotes. The PMO quoted FOUR. Why don't you decry the threats of violence from BOTH sides?? It makes your claim of supporting PEACE much more believable.

Mark Zelunka,
Director, The LINK
"THE LINK is the only student-led Israel advocacy organization in Canada.."
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/5598/
Canada

A. Isseroff replies

The King of Incitement

Dear Mark,
The Israel GPO release quoted one remark of Chairman Arafat only. By chance, I happened to know of another made at the same time. The other remarks were not made by Chairman Arafat and do not carry the same weight.

You want us to decry violence on both sides, as you write. Very well, please look at the PeaceWatch article by Anita Abu-Daya for example. At your web site there is not one word about Israeli violence or incitement or Israeli violations of the Oslo accords, but quite a bit about PNA violations.

PeaceWatch readers will be interested to know who is so concerned about PNA incitement, I am sure. Who is the advocate who has arisen to save Israel from us leftists? Astonishingly, on your page of Jewish Heroes you saw fit to include Rabbi Meir Kahana, along with Yizhak Rabin and Menachem Begin. Kahanists are not Israel advocates, but only a tiny, racist, outlawed segment of Zionist political life – a foreign graft that flourishes better in the soil of Brooklyn N.Y. then in Israel. Begin and Rabin would turn over in their graves to find themselves in the 'company' of that man. When it comes to incitement, Meir Kahana and his disciples make the PNA look like amateurs. Kahane supporters in Israel mobbed and nearly attacked the President of Israel when he visited Hebron, agitate for violence against Arabs and do everything they can to make peace impossible. Your 'battle' against 'incitement' evoked the following reaction from PeaceWatch resident cartoonist Latuff:

Hero?

With advocates like Kahana and his supporters, who needs enemies?

<Top>

Professor Said's 'Solution'

Edward Said, Columbia University's renowned professor of literature, is also a vocal critic of the Mid-East peace process. In recent articles in American and British publications, he advocates a "one-state solution" embracing both Israelis and Palestinians. His opposition to the peace process begun at Oslo remains, but is expressed in more conciliatory terms.

During the Rabin and Peres years, he opposed the very peace forces in Israel which he now seems to cultivate. As Prof. Said indicates, the idea of a bi-national state had many advocates in Israel at one time. Still, the Zionist peace camp has long recognized the two-state solution as an historical necessity. Prime Minister Netanyahu's government has given Said an easy platform to launch his argument against Oslo. As Said notes, predominantly-Arab East Jerusalem, most of the West Bank, and much of the Gaza Strip remain under Israeli control. He also states, correctly, that Yitzhak Rabin's chief aim in agreeing to Oslo was "separation." Netanyahu's policies, which encourage the expropriation of Palestinian property and the demolition of homes, sadly substantiate his view of Oslo as a formula for domination by Israel. But Said misses what should be obvious: One of the two contracting parties, the government of Israel, no longer believes in Oslo--certainly not in the same framework conceived by Rabin and Peres.

Prof. Said advocates that both peoples give up their maximal aspirations: "Greater Israel" and a Palestine which is "an inalienable" component of the Arab Islamic world. Both the Law of Return for Jews and the right of return for Palestinian refugees "have to be considered and trimmed together." The form of the state he envisions might consist of Jewish and Arab"cantons" joined in some sort of federal union.

Indeed, one can envision modifications to the Law of Return--e.g., "returning"Jews need not receive immediate citizenship and converts need not automatically be included, but Jews must retain the right of a safe haven from anti-semitism. And the Palestinians' "right of return" to their former homes (most of which no longer exist) might be replaced by an international compensation fund which assists Palestinian economic development.

However, Said's approach is flawed, as are most theoretical blueprints. It does not allow for both peoples to evolve organically a one-state solution should they come to grasp this as the best option. Both peoples need their sovereign rights to come to this conclusion on their own.

The task for those of us who care about the future of Israel is to cultivate conditions of maximum rights and dignity for Palestinians. This would defuse tensions which threaten violence and thereby engender maximum personal security for Israelis. Said wrongly belittles Israeli security concerns, but rightly points out that the lives of Palestinians are constricted both within Israel proper and in the territories. Palestinian rights to farm land and build homes are transgressed by Israel, and their civil liberties are trampled upon by Arafat's National Authority.

Like most pro-Palestinian critics of Oslo, Said would wish away the power differential between the Palestinians and Israel. He sees injustice in the fact of Israel's military superiority. But it is Israel's ability to defend itself, as Rabin sagely realized, that makes compromise possible. Israel's strength permits magnanimity toward the Palestinians. Said at least understands that neither side can totally defeat the other, and that both peoples must strive toward a new beginning that respects the rights and sensitivities of the other.

Ralph Seliger,
USA

Ralph Seliger is Secretary of Meretz USA, and co-editor of its publication, Israel Horizons (no relation to Horizon Magazine by the way).
<Top>

Mid-East Humor

A new Web site features satires on Mid-Eastern culture and political figures. No cows remain sacred:   http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2506/index.html

This is not a PEACE group initiative - but don’t we all wish it were? Humorous submissions are welcome!

Palestine-Israel-Zionism -History and Documents Additional documents at  Middle East History Pages of MidEast Web Middle East News Views History

and  Zionist source documents at Zionism and Israel Information Center

Background:

History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

History of Zionism and the Creation of Israel (from a Zionist point of view)

Zionism - a history and brief definition

Israel-Palestina - (Dutch) Middle East Conflict, Israel, Palestine,Zionism... Israël-Palestina Informatie -gids Israël, Zionisme, Palestijnen en Midden-Oosten conflict...  (Mostly in Dutch)

Zionism-Israel Pages

Back to PEACEWATCH - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Commentary and dialog

          ________________________________

While you are visiting us
Please Lk at These Features

New -  The Shalom Center - materials about making peace between Israelis and Palestinians - and much more.
The Australian Jewish Democratic Society Web site tells about their education for peace program and has important articles
about peace and the Israeli elections.

Click here for stunning photos of Jordan's archeological treasures.

Peace Final Settlement Declaration - Peace with security and dignity for everyone. Please view it and add your name!

Coming to Grips with Deir Yassin - Deir Yassin was the site of one of the many tragedies of the Palestine/Israel struggle. Our writeup was produced by Zionists. It includes materials available in English for the first time and an interview with an eyewitness.

Peace Resources - PEACE has posted a directory of Mid-East peace resources: dialog groups, documents, peace groups, education groups, political parties...  You are invited to link it - add to it, pass it on.

A new issue of Horizon Magazine - Pave Peace Through Culture and Literature - may be viewed at http://tx.technion.ac.il/~ada/horizon4b.html

Israeli election commentary: www.ariga.com    Party Time     Mirages

Mid-East News Service - In Depth Background on Regional Issues

What is PEACE?
PEACE is a Mid - East Dialog Group commited to peace and neighborly relations.We have no official political opinions. PEACE was started by Ameen Hannoun, a Jordanian/Palestinian and Ami Isseroff, an Israeli. You are welcome to join, and to contribute ariticles and ideas for promoting peace and dialog.  More about PEACE.