Leaving Aside International Law: Democrats are as Dangerous as Republicans
to Peace in Palestine
Its easy to discredit the foreign policy agenda of Trump, Pompeo, and other
Republicans as their aggressive, dismissive language and action are
unmistakably objectionable. The Democratic discourse, however, cannot be as
easily censured,
by Ramzy Baroud
February 18th, 2021
Mint Press
By Ramzy Baroud
There are obvious differences in the Democrats approach to the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but only in semantics and political jingoism,
not policy. This assertion can be justified if the Democratic
administrations official language on Palestine and Israel is examined, and
such language considered within the context of practical policies on the
ground.
Motivated by their justifiable aversion to former US President Donald Trump,
many analysts have rashly painted a rosy picture of how Democrats could
quickly erase the bleak trajectory of the previous Republican
administration. This naivety is particularly pronounced in the current spin
on the Palestinian-Israeli discourse, which is promoting, again, the
illusion that Democrats will succeed where their political rivals have
failed.
Take recent remarks, made by the new US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken,
during a CNN interview on February 8. Blinkens comments reminded us of the
clever albeit disingenuous US foreign policy under previous Democratic
administrations. His select words may seem as a complete departure from the
belligerent, yet direct, approach of former US Secretary of State, Mike
Pompeo.
Look, leaving aside the legalities of that question (meaning the illegal
Israeli occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights), as a practical matter, the
Golan is very important to Israels security, Blinken said. Later in the
interview, he went on to, once again, acknowledge, yet, at the same time,
sideline the question of legalities. Legal questions are something else,
he said, before continuing to speak vaguely and non-committedly about the
future of Syria.
Juxtapose Blinkens position on the illegal Israeli occupation of the Golan
Heights with statements made by Pompeo in November, just before the end of
Trumps Presidency. This is a part of Israel and central part of Israel,
Pompeo said, as he was accompanied by Israeli Foreign Minister, Gabi
Ashkenazi, and speaking from the occupied Golan Heights.
Pompeos position, which is a stark violation of international law, was duly
condemned by Palestinians and Arabs and criticized by various governments
and international bodies. Blinkens position, however, generated little
media attention and negligible, if any, serious reprimand regionally or
internationally. This should not have been the case.
Bliken Israel
Blinken with Israeli National Security Advisor Jacob Nagel and Foreign
Affairs Director Dore Gold in Jerusalem, June 16, 2016. David Azagury | US
Embassy
By acknowledging the relevance of the issue of legality, then leaving it
aside, in favor of the seemingly more pressing question of Israeli
security, Blinken simply defended the status quo, that of perpetual Israeli
military occupation, which is also championed enthusiastically by
Republicans.
Succinctly, this is the Democratic doctrine on Palestine and Israel, in
effect largely since the Bill Clinton era. The current Administration of Joe
Biden is, undoubtedly, following the same blueprint, which allows Washington
to offer itself as a neutral party an honest peace broker while helping
Israel achieve its strategic goals at the expense of the Palestinian and
Arab peoples.
The clear distinction between the Democratic and Republican discourses on
Palestine and Israel is a relatively new phenomenon. Interestingly, it was
the Republican George H. W. Bush Administration that, in 1991, established
the current Democratic narrative on Palestine. At the end of the First Gulf
War, Bush championed the multilateral talks between Israel and Arab States
in Madrid, Spain. Within a few years, a whole new American discourse was
formulated.
The September 11, 2001 attacks on the US supplanted the peace process
discourse in Republican foreign policy literature with a new one, which is
avowedly dedicated to fighting Islamic terror. Israel cleverly used the
new American language and conduct in the Middle East to present itself as a
direct partner in the US-led global war on terror.
To stave off the collapse of US global political leadership as a result of
the Iraq invasion of 2003, the Barack Obama Administration quickly restored
the traditional American position, once again offering US services as a
benefactor of peace in the Middle East. True, Obama labored to restore
Americas relevance as a peacemaker. His administration still utilized the
disingenuous language of the past, one which constantly put the onus on the
Palestinians, while gently reminding Israel of its responsibilities towards
Palestines civilian population.
Obamas Cairo speech in April 2009 remains the most powerful, yet indicting
document on the numerous moral lapses and legal blind spots of US foreign
policy, particularly under Democratic administrations. The speech, which was
meant to serve as a watershed moment in the US approach to the Middle East
region, fully exposed the caveats of US bias towards Israel, predicated
mostly on emotional manipulation and historical misrepresentations.
Obama deliberately fluctuated between the persecution of Jewish communities
throughout history and Israels right to ensure its security at the expense
of oppressed Palestinians, as if the systematic Israeli violence was carried
out as genuine attempts to prevent further persecution of world Jewry.
Contrastingly, Obama insisted, with little sympathy or context, that
Palestinians must abandon violence, thus painting the Palestinians and
their rightful resistance as the true obstacle to any just peace in
Palestine. Concerning Palestine and Israel, blaming the victim has been a
central pillar of US foreign policy, shared by Democrats and Republicans
alike.
Yet, while Republicans increasingly ignore the rights and, sometimes, the
very existence of the Palestinians, Democrats, who continue to support
Israel with equal passion, use more moderate although inconsequential
language.
For Democrats, Palestinians are the instigators of violence, although Israel
may have, at times, used disproportionate force in its response to
Palestinian violence; for them, international law exists, but can easily be
left aside to accommodate Israeli security; for them, there is such a
thing as internationally recognized borders, but these borders are flexible
in order to accommodate Israels demographic fears, strategic interests and
military edge.
Hence, it is easier to discredit the foreign policy agenda of Trump, Pompeo,
and other Republicans as their aggressive, dismissive language and action
are unmistakably objectionable. The Democratic discourse, however, cannot be
as easily censured, as it utilizes a mix of superficial language, political
platitudes, and historical clichés, worded meticulously with the aim of
placing the US back at the driving seat of whatever political process is
underway.
While the Democratic discourse remains committed to arming and defending
Israel, it provides Palestinians and Arabs with no meaningful change,
because substantive change can only occur when international law is
respected. Unfortunately, according to Blinkens logic, such seemingly
trivial matters should for now, be left aside.