Chutzpah

by Hassan A. Barari

"Thank God that the fate of Israel and the Jewish people is not decided in this hall," said the Israeli ambassador to the United Nation Dan Gillerman immediately after the General Assembly passed a resolution demanding Israel to comply with the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that the wall on Palestinian land is illegal and should be torn down.

This remark reflects a deep-rooted Israeli contempt for the United Nations. In total defiance of the will of the international community, statements coming from the Israeli side insist that the continuation of the construction of the separation wall is "in compliance with the international law as decided by Israel's high court". Implicit in such statement is that the higher court in Israel is above the ICJ. Obviously, Israelis have a short memory span, otherwise they would recall that Israel would have never been established as a legitimate state without the endorsement of the same General Assembly when it passed the partition plan in November 1947. One cannot help but say that Israel's chutzpah knows no bound.

Yet, there is dissimilarity between the partition decision, which barely passed the General Assembly, and the latest one, which enjoyed a sweeping majority of 150 nations. Notably, the whole European Union countries back this resolution.

Israel lobbied vigorously to bring about some kind of split in the votes of the most developed liberal countries, in order to devoid the expected resolution of its ethical strength, but to no avail. Israel's failure in this regard is a real blow for the Israeli government.

Israel's international isolation and frustration were reflected in its reaction to those countries that backed the resolution. The Israeli government let it be known that the European Union cannot play a role in the peace process, as though there were a peace process. The stated reason for this exclusion is that by backing the resolution, European countries ignored or denied Israel's right to defend itself against "terrorism".

This security argument, which is in fact a cloak to disguise the real intention of the Israeli government, has run out of steam. There is barely a European country which does not view Israel's occupation of the Palestinian land as colonial occupation and a reason for Palestinian violence. For this reason, Israeli meticulous attempts to brand those who criticise its expansionist policies as anti-Semite have outlived its usefulness. A growing majority of Europeans have learned to draw a line between being critical of Israel's policies and being anti-Semite. This is a blow for those in Israel who have mastered the art of silencing the Europeans by using the anti-Semite argument.

Interestingly, the Israeli government is still under the illusion that it can set the parameters of international interference in the conflict, by defining who is the honest broker and who is not. An honest broker, according to the Jewish state, is the one who adopts the Israeli right-wing version of the conflict. Only the country that backs Israel's aggressive and colonial polices against the Palestinians is qualified to play a role in the peace process. Put differently, to qualify as honest broker is to be in collusion with the most destructive colonial occupation in the modern history. Based on this yardstick, it appears that only the Bush administration is qualified to be an honest broker. This narrow definition is a blatant expression of the bankruptcy of the occupation's case.

Notwithstanding the Palestinians' mismanagement of the conflict and the peace process, it is certain that their case is just. Israel's futile attempts to deny them the right to self-determination and independence will not hold on for a long time, particularly when there is international consensus that Israel is an occupying state and that the Palestinians deserve to have their own independent state.

This article was published in the Tuesday, July 27, 2004 edition of the Jordan Times. It is used here with permission.