As the US eliminates references to Israel’s occupation
By Ramona Wadi
The latest US annual report on human rights violations, released last Friday, carried an intentional omission. There is no longer any mention of the occupied Palestinian territories. In a move which normalises Israel’s colonial project and military occupation yet further, the relevant entry reads: “Israel, Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza”.
A statement by the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates, published in part by Wafa news agency, described the change thus: “The American administration is not only biased towards Israel, but fully embraces its illegal policies to a point they have become part of US ideology and policies.”
There is no doubt that US President Donald Trump has supported Israel overtly, exposing the policies of previous administrations which maintained a more calculated, covert approach. With the unilateral declaration of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the forthcoming move of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to the Holy City, the US has set new precedents in normalising colonialism. In doing so, it has encouraged other countries supportive of Israel to follow suit, or declare such intentions.
Yet, there is an earlier precedent which was met with derision rather than preoccupation. When Trump failed to uphold the distinct and internationally accepted two-state paradigm, the media was more concerned with his lack of eloquence, rather than the significance behind the admission. At best, talk of a one-state solution was brought forward tentatively, albeit with little attention as to how the concept can be misinterpreted. Associating a one-state concept with equal rights for Palestinians prevailed. However, little was said about the pitfalls of implementation within the context of a colonial entity whose concept of a state is one that eliminates Palestinians and their legitimate rights in order to maintain a Jewish identity and majority.
Removing references to Israel’s military occupation of Palestine is undoubtedly damaging. There are, though, varying degrees of danger for Palestinians, including defining the military occupation without its settler-colonial context, one of the few instances where the Palestinian Authority is consistent. Both approaches reflect the normalisation of Israel’s colonial appropriation of Palestine. The complete omission as articulated by the US is just a step ahead of the PA and the international community in terms of isolating Palestinians in terms of politics and rights.
That the US has fully aligned itself with Israel is nothing new. On the other hand, the language used by the PA complements the fragmentation of Palestine which is promoted by Israel. The statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Ramallah is complacent and seeks to dismiss the US intent by insisting that it “does not eliminate the concept of occupied territory according to international law and international legality, but it reveals to the world once again the reality of the US positions, especially for those who refuse to see them as they are.”
If by this the PA is alluding to the apparent dismissal of the two-state compromise by the US, it should be remembered that, in the absence of a unifying anti-colonial alternative which the PA refuses to consider, there is little to indicate that Palestinians will be able to define themselves politically at an international level. This is due entirely to coercion from the coloniser and the circle of collaborators within the PA who keep insisting upon the obsolete “peace process and “two-state solution”. Meanwhile, Israel’s state violence against the Palestinians becomes the norm, and the international community led by the US is complicit.
(Source / 27.04.2018)