5th June
Bethlehem.
I was discussing the American presidential party nominations with an American friend-of-a-friend in a Bethlehem restaurant just two nights ago, and she declared her support for Barack Obama on the basis that he was the most pro-Palestinian of the candidates. I politely suggested that didn’t mean much, as none of them can be described as any such thing and sure enough, it didn’t take long after securing the Democratic Party’s nomination for him to show his true colours. Just hours after winning the nomination, and speaking to one of the most forthright of pro-Israel organizations in the US (I’m being polite), the American Israel Public Affairs Council (Aipac), he said that Israel was “unbreakable today, unbreakable tomorrow, unbreakable forever”.
Fine, so far. Meaningless rhetoric, you could say. However, the next proclamation was neither meaningless, nor was it mere rhetoric. “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.”
I have two complaints with this statement. One is the intent, which is immoral, the other is its accuracy, which is false. For something to remain, first it has to be, and Jerusalem simply is not the capital of Israel, and it never has been – this is Tel Aviv. Jerusalem is also emphatically divided, right through its heart. So what he meant to say, presumably, was “we will make Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel.” And this is a quite different statement altogether, becuase it is one that is an incitement to the further demolition of the tattered remains known as “International Law” which reveal Jerusalem to be occupied land. Time to track back.
When the UN partitioned Palestine in 1947, Jerusalem was maintained as an internationally administered city due to its unique appeal to Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. Within the walls of the Old City are important religious sites to all sides, such as the Western Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Al Aqsa Mosque. To give this city into the control of only one side was felt to be too problematic.
As a result of the fighting immediately following the creation of the State of Israel, Jordan took control of the West Bank, and therefore of East Jerusalem and the Old City. Jump forward 20 years, when during the Six Days War of 1967 Israel occupied Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem and we see at which point in time Israel took control of this land. History lesson over.
Now, we all know that one is not allowed, according to the now seemingly insignificant document known as The Geneva Convention, to gain territory through acts of war and therefore Israel’s “acquisition” (again, I’m being polite) of this land is illegal. So how have we come to the point where an American presidential hopeful thinks it is in his electoral interests to claim that a criminal act of war, resulting in an illegal occupation, is a good thing that must be bolstered by making a United Jerusalem the Capital of Israel? And, what exactly does he have in mind for the rather large number of people who live there who are not Israelis?
What has brought us to this, remarkable, state of affairs, is a thing known as “facts on the ground”. You will have heard this phrase mentioned from time to time during press conferences debating possible solutions to the “Israel Palestine Conflict”. When someone says that we must find a solution that takes into consideration the “facts on the ground”, what they really mean is “No, you can’t have your land back, because we’ve gone and built houses for Israelis all over it”. Whether these houses are right or wrong, legal or illegal is not open to discussion – they are there, and that is enough.
When I hear people in the position of Barack Obama saying things like this, I don’t know whether to be more shocked at his beliefs themselves, or with the fact that these beliefs (and don’t forget they are beliefs which support illegal acts of war) will gain him support in his home country of the USA. Many people are looking forward to the end of George W. Bush’s spell in the White House on the basis that it cannot possibly get any worse. Don’t be so sure, no matter who is his successor.
I am reminded of Rudyard Kipling’s poem, My Boy Jack, written in response to the death of his son at the Battle of Loos, during the early days of the First World War.
“Have you news of my boy Jack?”
Not this tide.
“When d’you think that he’ll come back?”
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.
“Has any one else had word of him?”
Not this tide.
For what is sunk will hardly swim,
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.
“Oh, dear, what comfort can I find?”
None this tide, Nor any tide,
Except he did not shame his kind—
Not even with that wind blowing, and that tide.
Then hold your head up all the more
This tide,
And every tide; Because he was the son you bore,
And gave to that wind blowing and that tide!
This poem seems relevant not only because it was written in connection to the First World War, the conflict which long ago sealed Palestine’s fate until now, but because Kipling was correct. Against the awesome forces he faced, Jack, along with the tens of thousands of others who died in the battle, stood no chance as he went over the top.
And against this wind, and this tide, Palestinians currently also stand no chance. Though we might accept this fact, we must not accept that Palestine’s fate has been sealed forever - we must realise that it is a case of changing this wind blowing, and this tide.
