AMERICA’S purblind opposition to the UN General Assembly vote demanding that Israel cease construction of its security wall on Palestinian land has caused both anger and deep disappointment in the Arab world. Here was a chance for George W. Bush to do something right for a change in the Middle East and he threw it away.
Even an abstention would have sent something like the right message to the aggressive Sharon regime but Washington could not even see its way to keeping its hands on the desk when the assembly vote was taken. Thus while 150 members voted for the resolution, including all the individual EU countries, the US representative joined the five other countries that voted against. Israel now therefore feels free to carry on precisely as it chooses in defiance of the overwhelming view of the world sure that whatever further violation of international law, it has once more duped the mighty American eagle into spreading its protective wings around it.
Washington has strengthened the widespread belief that it is not in truth acting in the Middle East as an honest broker. Its highly partial policy is dictated not by its own interests and judgment but by those of Israel.
What makes this error so much more regrettable is the fact that a simple analysis of the legality of the issue demonstrates that Israel does not have a legal leg to stand on. If it wants to build a security barrier it should build it on Israeli not Palestinian territory. It is no good claiming that the land in question is disputed and will be subject to a final settlement with the Palestinians. It is quite clearly not Israeli and therefore, as an occupying power Israel has no prescriptive rights over it. Its use of this land for its wall is simply illegal.
Thus the United States, which lays such claim to the pre-eminent importance of the rule of law, had every ground not to support Israel. It is not as if the dismantling of the wall on Palestinian land and its re-erection on Israeli territory is going to be such a difficulty for the Sharon government. The same claimed end — blocking the movement of suicide bombers — could be achieved. Had Washington backed the resolution, Israel would not have been placed at risk. However the Palestinians and the wider Arab world would have seen that there was actually a point at which the Americans would tell the Israelis that enough was enough. The impact of such a move by Washington upon the Middle East would have been startling. So much of the respect and trust which has been lost by the Bush administration’s ill-informed and blundering meddling in the region would have been restored. Those who still believe that the United States could play a useful and constructive role in the Middle East would have been vindicated.
If the US Zionist electoral vote really is so important to Bush this November, he should appreciate that the price of his re-election campaign is now going to be paid in yet more bloodshed and misery for the Palestinians.
