Power Suits 17 August 2020
Palestinians rally against Israel’s West Bank annexation plans in Gaza City on 1 July.
APA imagesOn Friday, Minnesota Democratic Representative Betty McCollum introduced the Israeli Annexation Non-Recognition Act in the US Congress.
The bill prohibits US recognition of or funding for Israel’s potential annexation of additional Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank.
Its original cosponsors are six Democratic representatives: Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib, New York’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Massachusetts’ Ayanna Pressley, Wisconsin’s Mark Pocan, Minnesota’s Ilhan Omar, and Indiana’s André Carson.All seven representatives have strong track records of congressional advocacy for Palestinian rights – though Pressley last year broke ranks with progressives and voted for a resolution condemning the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.
Promoting equality
This bill is significant because it employs the language of human rights and equality in expressing opposition to Israeli annexation and proposes concrete means of holding Israel accountable should it move forward with annexation.
This framing is significant because most congressional initiatives that address Israeli-Palestinian policy issues do so from the perspective of Israel’s interests, express fealty to the discredited “peace process” and two-state solution, and dispense with any tangible consequences for Israel violating Palestinian rights.
By contrast, McCollum’s new bill is unambiguous in its condemnation of the illegality of Israeli annexation, deeming it a “flagrant violation of international law and a prohibited act of aggression under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.”
Rather than repeat the mantra of a two-state solution, the bill instead seeks to “promote equality, human rights, and dignity for both Palestinians and Israelis” as the basis of US policy.
Hinting at its opposition to current and future apartheid policies Israel inflicts on the Palestinian people, the bill categorically “rejects any undemocratic system or act of aggression in which Israel unilaterally exercises permanent rule over a Palestinian people denied self-determination and human rights.”
Consequences for Israel
As important as these rhetorical stances are, the bill is also noteworthy for its implications if enacted.
It would make it the “policy of the United States not to recognize any claim by the government of Israel of sovereignty over any part of the occupied West Bank.”
It would also prohibit the US government from taking any action or providing “any assistance in a manner that extends or implies United States recognition of such a claim of sovereignty.”
Not only would this prohibition apply to future Israeli annexations in the West Bank; it would also appear to apply retroactively to Israel’s de facto annexation of East Jerusalem – part of the West Bank under international law – in 1967 and its de jure annexation in 1980.
The bill also includes a long list of the types of US funding that would be denied to Israel to maintain its annexation of Palestinian land, including the “deployment of personnel, training, services, lethal materials, equipment, facilities, logistics, transportation or any other activity.”
Because the bill also prohibits US funding “to facilitate or support the unilateral annexation of such territory,” it could also create a mechanism to deny most or all US funding to Israel in occupied Palestinian territory.
This is because it is reasonable to suppose that all of Israel’s military occupation would be geared toward facilitating and supporting its annexation of Palestinian land.
Finally, the bill would create a certification and reporting requirement mandating the State Department to provide Congress with a detailed annual report specifying whether Israel violated the bill’s restrictions on US funding.
This potentially creates a future mechanism to hold Israel accountable for such violations.
UAE normalization “changes nothing”
In a strongly worded statement for publication in the Congressional Record, McCollum stated that annexation “will fuel conflict, injustice and an abhorrent system of apartheid.”
McCollum also dismissed the significance of Thursday’s announcement that Israel had agreed to suspend its annexation plans in exchange for normalization of relations with the United Arab Emirates.The agreement “changes nothing,” she said.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Donald Trump “have taken nothing off the table,” McCollum added. “Their promises and commitments are worthless. They have both proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted.”
“Grounded in human rights”
Original cosponsors of the bill offered similarly strong condemnation.
“The Netanyahu government receives $3.8 billion in US taxpayer-funded military handouts every year and, with the backing of the impeached president, they have worked to further entrench an apartheid system,” Tlaib stated.
Ocasio-Cortez termed the bill “an extension of our values, grounded in human rights, international law and a commitment to freedom, equality and justice for all people.”
“Our budgets are statements of our values, and we must state definitively and unapologetically that our US taxpayer dollars will not be used to support the unilateral annexation and ongoing oppression of the Palestinian people,” Pressley declared.
Omar decried annexation as a “land theft and an aggressive exercise of unilateral power.”
Such forthright criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights are still rare but are becoming increasingly prevalent in Congress.
Combined with the bill’s conditioning of US funding to Israel, the rollout of this initiative is historic in its tone and significance.
Groups supporting the bill, such as American Muslims for Palestine, have created action alerts for people to encourage other representatives to become cosponsors of the bill.
Comments
Bill
Permalink Frank Dallas replied on
Excellent move. Quite right to stress equal rights. That has to be the basis of a solution to the conflict. However, what chance is there of a unitary State? Chomsky's point that there is world-wide support for a two-States solution is potent. The Israelis will have to be out under enormous pressure to change course. That isn't going to happen vis-a-vis a unitary State; but it could for a two-States outcomes. Of course, two-States has been used as fig-leaf and delaying tactic, but that shouldn't blind us to the fact that pressure can be built behind it. It isn't a question of equal rights and democracy or two-States. The two can work hand in hand. But there's a very hard job to do: withdrawal from the settlements; the linking of the West Bank and Gaza; full autonomy for a Palestinian State on the 4th June 1967 borders. The right of the Palestinians to defend their country. Those would be no small victories. The danger is that the rhetoric of equal rights remains only that if a way of realising it isn't found that has a real chance of success. As Nye Bevan was fond of reminding people, those who want to do everything at once end up doing nothing at all. We mustn't let that happen. The world is behind a two-States solution. To push that first of all, as far as it will go, is the sensible strategy given where we are.
The times. Are they changing?
Permalink Nestor Makhno replied on
Is there something sliding in the US? I think so. What everybody can witness now was never heard of 10 years ago in the US. If US policy in the Middle East will change, Israel will hardly be able to exist. The dictators in the Gulf area will be on their own, so empty handed and not able anymore to continue their ruthless wars and financing of conflicts
With due respect, Nestor, the
Permalink Khalid Mufti replied on
With due respect, Nestor, the times may be changing, but at this rate no change in US policy in the Mideast can happen in our lifetime. If you believe otherwise, I want to sell the Eiffel Tower to you.
One State
Permalink Anon Ymous replied on
The make up of most middle-eastern countries dictates that the only viable path towards a long lasting solution to the occupation of Palestine is the one state solution. Without it there will be inequality and constant infighting which will lead to Apartheid.
A two-state solution will perpetuate instability and will undeniably prolong the desired purpose of inter-religious and inter-tribal peace and coexistence.
What most western civilians fail to comprehend is that the future of Palestine will set the tone and be the base model that will determine the future of all middle-eastern nations.
One state or two?
Permalink Grhm replied on
Ask yourself this:
If the world had been "behind it", would you have supported a two-state solution for South Africa?
One state for whites and one state for blacks?
Surely not.
So how is this any different?
The solution to apartheid is to END apartheid, not to entrench it.
PALESTINE'S RIGHT TO LIVE FREE
Permalink THOMAS W ADAMS replied on
There is one "War Crime" that is established on this Earth, which cries out for correction, restitution, and appropriate punishment of the perpetrators; the power or organisation which immediately takes action, to bring justice to it's long suffering innocent peoples, will be one we may then trust. Because correcting the "evils" of this criminal despotic, and merciless abomination, will, forever, establish, the true and ethical bona fide of the said "Power or Organisation".
The War Crime; The Crime against Humanity"referenced here is that Occupation; that murder of the innocent Palestinian Peoples, and their eviction and dispossession from their rightful traditional Home lands, the total denial exercised by the occupier, preventing all access to what we take for granted to be a Normal Human Existence.
Those who created this abomination, must be evicted, by force if necessary, and when they cry out in pain, complaining the hardships of this ultimately unavoidable exodus, let them remember, "they have sown the wind, and now must endure the whirlwind", they must harvest the "grapes Of Wrath", until they learn the lesson. Amen, It Is Written.
The Biden/Harris ticket is
Permalink Mushtaq Syed replied on
The Biden/Harris ticket is not getting my vote. Like the democratic establishment, both are Israeli "firsters," in the pocket of AIPAC. The democratic platform is mum on the occupation of Palestine. I will surely vote for the progressive democrats but not the Biden/Harris ticket. I don't mind suffering through another 4 years of Trump.