The US Congress and the declaration of an independent Palestinian state
Palestine-USA, Analysis, 3/20/1999

The US Congress just voted and passed a non-binding resolution relating to the declaration of an independent state on May 4 1999.

The resolution states that the Palestinians should not declare an independent state on that date unilaterally, that is, without the approval of Israel, who is the negotiating party with the Palestinians.

Israeli-Palestinian negotiations following the Oslo agreement were to be about how to sort their affairs and arrange for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied Palestinian territories, and to have this "transitional period" whereby the Palestinians would be negotiating the final status of their self-government and other arrangements with Israel such as the final status of Jerusalem and the Issues of the Palestinian refugees dispersed throughout the world. All these negotiations are to be concluded by May 4, the date for the end of the negotiations where all these issues are supposed to be solved.

But that is not what happened or what is happening. Israel started reneging and obfuscating on implementing their part of the agreement, under the pretext that the Palestinians were not doing their part. They accused the Palestinians of inciting violence, not controlling the Palestinian press, violating security agreements and so forth.

The rest of the world, with no exception, recognized Israel as the guilty party in this regard. This included Israel's greatest supporter and its lifeline: the USA. The US urged Israel to abide by and implement the signed agreements to no avail. Israel, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, snubbed the USA, and it took strong efforts by US President Bill Clinton to bring Netanyahu to the negotiation table to sign another agreement (the Wye River Memorandum), which is nothing more than a restatement of previous agreements, with some modifications that were adverse to the Palestinians.

Still, Israel refused to implement this new agreement shortly after it had just pledged and signed in front of the world that it would do so. Even President Clinton's historic visit to Palestine and Israel failed to budge Netanyahu, whose action was justified by some Israelis as due to his weak coalition government.

So the negotiations stood still as they still are. Along with that, much progress in Israeli peace talks or relations that had been achieved on many fronts had been set back, such as with Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinians and other Arab states.

So the date of May 4, 1999 is fast approaching and the Palestinian President Yasser Arafat had assured that a declaration on that date would be made. The Israeli Labor opposition that had supported Netanyahu till that time in order to have him sign the Wye River Memorandum had threatened to withdraw support if Netanyahu continued his policy of obfuscation and not implementing the signed agreements. As a result, Netanyahu's government had weakened to the point of falling when Netanyahu was forced to call for early elections. The choice of May 17 for the Israeli elections, a date criticized at the time as being unnecessarily late, was seen also as giving advantage to Netanyahu if the Palestinians were to declare an independent state without Israeli approval, whereby the Israelis would react in a conservative matter, and reelect Netanyahu, who opposes such a declaration.

So the Palestinians are faced with the dilemma of whether to declare their state on May 4 which Palestinian leaders have referred to as a "sacred" day, giving Netanyahu a political advantage they do not want to, or to delay that declaration day until after the Israeli election day so that Israelis are given an opportunity to vote someone else, which would represent a clear sign of their will to move forward in implementing the signed accords and the declaration of the Palestinian state.

The Palestinians are seeking to maximize opportunities by seeking support from Europe for supporting the declaration of an independent state of Palestine, as that by itself would be a tremendous boost to the Palestinians in terms of giving them further leverage and options as to the date of the declaration. There is also the recent resolution adopted by the UN with 115 member countries where the UN General Assembly recommended that the signatories to the Geneva Convention should attend this conference at the UN office in Geneva where they would discuss whether Israel is in violation of the Geneva Convention, adding pressure on Israel with regard to any threats or actions it may take.

Netanyahu threatens strong actions if the Palestinians declare an independent state without Israel's consent, despite the fact that ministers in his Cabinet, the Israeli president and former Israeli prime ministers see this as inevitable, with many supporting a Palestinian state as "positive" for Israel as former PM Shimon Peres says.

At this delicate time in the Palestinian-Israeli efforts to sort this out, the US Congress produced this resolution, which has no force in law as it is merely a sentiment of the Congress, or as they say "a sense of the Congress." The resolution urges the Palestinians not to unilaterally declare an independent state outside of the Oslo accord, and the resolution does not add that Israel should also not act unilaterally, as it is doing on a daily basis, to violate the signed agreements with the Palestinians.

The White House and State Department have always made sure that they used such language as "urging 'both' sides" to abide by their agreements -- diplomatic language meant not to offend the stronger side, Israel. Nonetheless, it is a bit of recognition to the Palestinians that the USA recognizes that Israel is not implementing its obligations.

The US Senate passed the resolution overwhelmingly with one exception (Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia), and on the House side, 24 opposed , 2 voted present, and 28 did not vote, with 380 voting for the resolution. Amongst those who voted against the resolution where Congressman John Dingell, a senior Democrat, who said that this resolution is wrong and biased as it does not ask Israel not to act unilaterally adding that the timing is very bad as it plays to Israeli internal politics.

Republican Representative Tom Campbell said, "First of all, the resolution itself does not criticize any potential unilateral action on the Israeli side. Part of the debate in the Israeli political elections right now is the record of the Likud government, to bring about successful peace negotiations." He added "For this resolution, therefore, to have no criticism at all, no comment at all, about threatened unilateral actions which would jeopardize that peace process on the Likud side, plays into one side in that political battle. It supports Likud's characterization of the negotiations over that of Labor. Secondly, the mere fact that we are considering the resolution at this time influences the Israeli elections. I believe it is fair to say that the Likud government has argued that one of their advantages, which they present to the Israeli electorate, is that they are singularly able to have influence in the halls of Congress. The fact that we are taking this resolution up now, with the election pending, plays to that perception. It is a mistake; nevertheless, that would be the perception, and so the timing is wrong."

Representative Tom Campbell added, "Accordingly, I would urge my colleagues who cannot vote no to vote present as a way of saying that whether or not the matter is appropriate, it is not appropriate at this time. Lastly, I intend to vote no because I believe that the people of Palestine are entitled to their own country. That does not mean that they can threaten Israel. It does not mean that they will practically have a country until they reach an accommodation with Israel. I strongly strongly stand for the right of Israel to be free, secure and safe. All of that must be negotiated."

Senior Republican Representative Tom Delay speaking on this issue saw it as the duty of Americans to launch a "Crusade" in support of Israel. To the Arab citizens, a "Crusade" is a reminder of when in the name of Christianity and controlling Jerusalem, criminals where freed from European jails to kill their way to Jerusalem. In Arabic, the equivalent word to "Crusade" is "Jihad" and has the same connotation. Though irrelevant, it is worth mentioning that Christians compose a large part of the Palestinian community.

(As to why some in congress oppose the Palestinians), one person last year that explained this phenomena, on a trip to the Middle East, was ex-Congressman Paul Findley. Findley (who courageously supported and continues to strongly support Palestinian rights) said that there is no one in the congress today who "challenges what Israel is doing, or challenges US aid to Israel." The congress, he added, is just intimidated today, and, "I can say, with great regret, this is a fact; and the Israeli government has a major influence upon the American policy in the Middle East and may be more influential than professionals within the State Department."

US policy in practical terms is made in Israel not in Washington, Findley said. He went on that if the American people knew what was happening, they would certainly rise up, "I do not think by weapons. They would rise to bring about a fundamental change in US policy."

Findley said there are four factors that give Israel this tremendous strength in Washington.

One is ignorance. US citizens for most part are not interested in foreign policy. They do not like foreign aid for the most part, and when they hear about the US aid to Israel, the American people, he added, have no awareness about the level of the US aid to Israel.

The second factor is the strong Jewish community in the US. They are very active politically. They contribute generously to candidates for congress. They work hard in between elections to influence the attitudes of US legislators.

The third factor is fundamentalist Christians in the US who are convinced that a strong Israel is part of their plans. They may seem almost peculiar to some, he said, but they have a strong influence on 30 or 40 million Americans.

The fourth factor, he said, is the negative image of Islam in the US. Americans, he said, are misinformed about Islam. They think that most Muslims are terrorists. This is not true of course, but many Americans have this impression. They see the word Muslim linked to terrorism and think that the two go together, he said. That was most unfortunate, "but during the two last years the aspects of public policy that I am dealing with have been slightly changed." That was in July 98, and he had already seen early signs of change.

We know that the House is a political institution, and as such its actions are not surprising. But despite our remarks, we see great progress! We see a tremendous change that the USA as a whole has undergone, along with many of its institutions, in understanding, sympathizing and supporting the Palestinians to have a state and the Syrians to restore the Golan, and for Israel to withdraw its occupation from Lebanon, as these issues have become clearer and more accessible.

The US Congress was not calling for not declaring a Palestinian state in its resolution, but rather not declaring it "unilaterally." That is progress. More importantly, had the resolution been stronger, it would have received less support. Furthermore, had the resolution been binding, it would have received even much less support. That is why the resolution was watered down. It was to get a large majority.

It is typical of non-binding resolutions, that they find little resistance as they are structured so the cost of voting against the resolution is higher than voting for it, with the benefits minimal to those who oppose. Newly, the congress is discovering along with its better understanding of these issues that there is a higher cost for these kind of resolutions.

But Representative Tom Campbell opposed the resolution without bringing out his political calculator. The house of Jefferson has always had men and women who put political calculations aside and did the morally right thing to do. Enough of them existed to bring the US this far. On domestic issues, they acted because they understood the issues. Just now, they are starting to broaden their horizons, following the interest of their constituents who are leading the way.

Campbell did not just oppose by saying I oppose this resolution, but rather, he rose to the occasion and spoke to the morality of the issue. He saw human beings. He did not (advocate) his views in religious terms or nationalistic terms. He did not say that humanity is limited to the borders of the United States or that moral values apply only to Americans and their friends.

We know that about Rep. Campbell because he said, "To the child born in a refugee camp who has never known a home except a refugee camp, to the child born in Gaza whose parents go up to work through a chute, as though a cattle chute, every day into Israel, to the resident of the West Bank who cannot carry on the trade with Jordan, I say you have a country; and you have the right to say you do."

Campbell did not take away from the moral rights of others, he simply added to them as all good individuals acting within their spheres and powers do to make for a better world.

The Palestinians as well as others have suffered much due to misguided US congressional policy that in the past supported Israel blindly at great moral cost to the institution and what it represents. Real damage has been done and that is still ongoing on a daily basis. No one that has visited Palestinian refugee camps and is aware of their Diaspora is left unimpressed by the extent of their suffering. The US Congress in the days and years to come will have the opportunity to remedy and redeem some of the harm done. They should seize the opportunity and make a positive contribution that is worthy of this institution, and many of the men and women that inhabit it.

Previous Stories:
  Idea of Palestinian state is making its way, US Republican representative says   (3/18/1999)
  US - Israeli settlements   (3/17/1999)
  Egyptian foreign minister: Netanayhu's declarations on Jerusalem not binding   (3/16/1999)
  US Senate opposes unilateral declaration of Palestinian state   (3/12/1999)
  Arafat due to visit Washington next month   (2/26/1999)
  Israel opposes UN Geneva Convention conference on its practices   (2/11/1999)
  Deir Yassin massacre 50th Anniversay   (4/8/1998)
  Barefoot girl walking on snow   (1/17/1998)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search