Washington's refusal to endorse a draft United Nations Security Council statement condemning Israel's siege of Gaza effectively advocated the collective punishment of 1.4 million Palestinian men, women and children. The US ambassador to the United Nations said that the initial draft statement produced by Libya was "unacceptable" because it did not mention Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. Therefore the Americans, who are trying to portray themselves as honest brokers in a renewed peace process, are in fact in perfect sync with their Israeli allies in excusing the starving and killing of Palestinian civilians on the basis that the Jewish state has a right to defend its citizens in towns like Sderot (formerly known as Najd, before the village was ethnically cleansed of all its Palestinian residents in 1948) by any and every criminal means possible.
Even if one were to accept a logic that allows for Israelis (but not Palestinians) to ignore basic human rights when it comes to "self-defense," several questions would arise. Do Israel's actions have any chance of guaranteeing the Jewish state's security in the long term? Does denying ordinary Palestinians "luxuries" like food and medicine do anything to undermine the forces of radicalism in Gaza, or do these gestures in fact bolster and compound the problem of extremism, giving rise to a new generation of angry Palestinians who will seek to retaliate against their oppressors? Is it not true that Israel's aggression is the most effective recruitment tool that the militants in Palestine and across the region currently have at their disposal?
Moreover, one must consider the impact of Israel's siege on surrounding countries such as Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Egypt. These states, all of which are at least temporarily home to large numbers of Palestinian refugees, have in recent days experienced the added strains of increasing public unrest. Does Israel's siege, which stirs so many passions in this region, in any way advance the goal of Jews to have a permanent homeland in the Middle East? Do Israel's actions bolster the region's "moderate" leaders who have friendly ties with the Jewish state, or do they in fact further weaken these leaders' credibility in the eyes of their outraged publics?
Finally, one must ask what effect Israel's siege is having on the public's confidence in the renewed US-backed peace process. Does US President George W. Bush remember that he has staked his credibility on the claim that he will conclude a Palestinian-Israeli peace deal before he leaves office? Does he really think that the people of this region will follow his lead and turn a blind eye as civilians are dying and suffering in Gaza? Is he aware of the message he is sending to the people of this region through his stunning silence on Israel's brutal siege, or through his muteness on the almost 2,500 new settlements that Israel authorized on Wednesday? Was he serious about his promise to build peace and a better future for the next generation, or was he simply feeding starving Palestinian children a diet of lies?
Front Page Features