What
You're Missing in Our Subscriber-only CounterPunch Newsletter
The Texas Wars of
Robert Gates:
On Affirmative
Action and Mexican Migrants
What's Robert
Gates's not-so-distant dirty past? Greg Moses turns over the
dirt in College Station, how Gates fought affirmative action
there and how Reagan and Bush's's slippery spook will run the
new Border War.The End of the Libération
Myth! Meet Libération, turncoat tool of neoliberalism.Pierre
Rimbert traces the decline and fall of one of radical journalism's
great hopes --the paper founded by Jean-Paul Sartre. Daniel Wolff describes how Bob Dylan
plays the music of the Apocalypse. Remember, we are funded solely
by the subscribers to the print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this
website by buying a
subscription to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you
won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation towards the
cost of this online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now
Just after the Iraq Study Group (ISG)
launched its long-awaited report, with its call for a "renewed
and sustained commitment by the United States for a comprehensive
Arab-Israeli peace," the House of Representatives passed
the Senate version of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006.
Why did the House pass the Senate bill? What is its significance
for US policy? What are the implications of the ISG report?
What Israel's
House Supporters Wanted - and What They Got
On 7 December 2006, the day
before the 109th Congress ended its term, the House rushed to
pass the Senate version of the Palestinian Anti Terrorism Act
(S2370), suspending the rules to do so by voice vote. The House
had initially passed its own bill sanctioning the Palestinians
- HR4681 - in May (the Senate's passed in June). However, the
House and Senate bills were not reconciled by year-end. The House
faced the choice of passing the much milder Senate version and
sending that to President George Bush for his signature, or not
having a bill at all. As one of the Act's supporters Tom Lantos
(D-CA), put it, "It was the best we could do." Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), who has the distinction of introducing the
largest number of pro-Israeli bills in the House during the 109th
Congress, gave notice that this was only the beginning "of
our efforts to deny Hamas...the economic resources, the political
legitimacy and the excuses to pursue their threatening agenda."
[1]
If the pro-Israeli supporters
in the House had had their way, all links between the US Administration
and the Palestinian Authority would have effectively ended, including
with its non-Hamas members, and Palestine Liberation Organization
offices in the US would have been shut. The original House bill
also targeted United Nations programs supporting the Palestinians.
By contrast, S2370 focuses its sanctions on the Hamas leadership
of the PA rather than the PA itself. It also allows for more
humanitarian relief; does not sanction non-Hamas members of the
Palestinian Legislative Council; and gives the president some
room for maneuver to support the PA president and the judiciary
if he believes it is in the national interest. [2] In fact, the
Senate version is not too different from US Administration policy,
as Ros-Lehtinen admitted.
So why did the House vote for
the Senate version? Partly to enable Israel's supporters to save
face, given that AIPAC (the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee)
strongly supported sanctioning the Palestinians. [3] Perhaps
more importantly, there is now the prospect of unprecedented
debate around the need for a different approach to the Arab-Israeli
conflict with the release of the ISG report. In addition, the
ISG report calls for talks on Iraq with Syria and Iran - the
latter has just pledged to give $250 million to the Hamas-led
PA in 2007. The rush by the House to adopt S2370 can be seen
in light of the determination of Israel's supporters to limit
the framework of debate on this conflict and maintain the siege
on the Palestinians. The battle lines are being drawn.
Current
US Policy Vs. the ISG Approach
US Administration policy towards
the Palestinians is hardly even-handed, and includes:
- The US works with the other
Quartet members (the UN, Russia, and the European Union), to
pressure Hamas to recognize Israel, recognize past peace agreements,
and renounce violence. The unilateral nature of these demands
ensures that Hamas cannot meet them. Thus, the international
community is effectively supporting Israel's military and economic
siege of the Palestinians. - The US suspended its own foreign
assistance program in the West Bank and Gaza, with the exception
of some emergency relief, after the formation of the Hamas-led
government. - Despite frequent references by Bush and Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice to a viable Palestinian state, they
are unwilling to get Israel to deliver on any of its commitments
- even those made to the US such as lifting restrictions on movement
in Gaza and removing illegal outposts in the West Bank. - Bush's
exchange of letters with former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon in April 2004 was widely interpreted as giving Israel
a green light to annex major settlement blocs in the West Bank
and East Jerusalem and rule out the Palestinian right of return.
Former Secretary of State James
Baker and the rest of the ISG want a very different approach:
a return to negotiations between Israel, Syria and Lebanon, and
between Israel and the Palestinians. They couch their recommendations
in terms of strong support for Israel, but the bottom line is
clear: land for peace. Israel must return the Golan Heights to
Syria and cede the occupied Palestinian territories in exchange
for peace. The ISG report
- Supports a Palestinian unity
government, without mentioning the Quartet's three conditions,
saying simply that Palestinians involved in talks must "accept"
or "acknowledge Israel's right to exist." - Reinforces
the reciprocal nature of the ceasefire reached between Israel
and the Palestinians in November 2006, one of the rare occasions
that Israel has reciprocated a Palestinian ceasefire. - Refers
to the Palestinian "right of return" rather than to
"refugees," a phrase that has already raised Israel's
hackles.
While the report may not change
US policy towards Iraq or the Israeli-Arab conflict in the near
future, it takes the debate about the issues in a new direction,
with a different language and tone. Hence the need for pro-Israeli
forces in the US to move fast and limit the debate. After all,
when the unthinkable becomes thinkable, it becomes doable. Israel
wants land and peace - Baker insists it can't have both. On this
issue, Bush would be well-advised to heed Baker.
Nadia Hijab is a Senior Fellow at the Institute
for Palestine Studies.
Additional research by Institute
staffer Brian Wood.
[1] All quotes from the Congressional Record. As of
this date, Bush had not signed the bill into law. If he does
not do so within 10 days of having received the bill, he will
effectively have vetoed it because Congress has adjourned.
[2] For a detailed comparison
of HR4681 and S2370, see the note prepared by Americans
for Peace Now.
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.
