A Brief Analysis of Bob Rae's Chicken
Clucking on A Swiss-Cheese State of Palestine

Written March 2009

When I saw Bob Rae's latest article in the Toronto Star (seen here) entitled "Pro-Israel, Pro-Arab and Pro-Peace" I got the very same churn in my stomach every time I read some white-washed statement on how Palestinians deserve to be treated like human beings. While it is a nice diversion (I guess) from the typical line of how Israeli's have certain inalienable rights that Palestinians do not have -- in particular, that they should not be slaughtered by the thousands, horded into an open air prison where they are freely shot at with impunity, allowed to move around their environment without having to ask an Israeli officer for permission to purchase basic necessities and in general have the right to a meaningful state of their own -- it is difficult to move past Rae's chicken clucking. It is dishonest and prone to the same pitfalls of past efforts to 'mediate' on the issue which keeps the Palestinians under the boot of Israel.

While Rae's latest statement is a diversion from the Liberal line of outright rejection, the biggest flaw in this article (might have been done purposely and it is a BIG one) is to shift attention towards Iran, as if it had much of a bearing on settling this issue, and away from Israel's record of outright rejection. The historical record speaks for itself.

Israel has been rejecting the international consensus of what a "viable" Palestinian state should look like for over 20 years in clear isolation from the rest of the world. It is a matter of what Palestinians are legally entitled to according to the highest judicial bodies of the world, United Nations and every human rights organization. The fact that Bob Rae dodges all the important issues that plague this conflict and instead opt out for vague references of a "two-state" solution and for a "viable" Palestinian state is sneaky and suspect. Again, typical chicken clucking from a politician.

The basics are highlighted in lurid detail in every U.N. Resolution which I am glad that Rae finds relevant enough to even mention. Too bad that he does not seem to have any idea of what such a resolution entails. Instead, he talks of some vague "logic" behind the 1947 Resolution as opposed to the clear cut legal lines that have long been accepted by the rest of the world. Israel must completely withdraw from the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. These are all occupied Palestinian territory that had been illegally acquired through war. Israel has no iota of sovereignty over any of these lands. The relevant framework is what Palestinians are legally entitled to, not what Rae or Israel wants.

The fact that Bob Rae would refer to these lands as "deeply contested" should give an inkling of the framework he is working with. The ruling of the highest judicial bodies of the world (the World Court and the International Court of Justice), U.N. Resolutions and human rights organizations are clear: Israel must completely withdraw to the 1967 borders, all settlements are illegal under international law and must be dismantled. It is not a matter seen as a "provocation and a barrier to peace by even the most moderate of Palestinians", it is seen as that by the rest of the world.

Lastly, any "solution" must resolve the Palestinian refugee question: the right of return (or, if they choose not to, receive compensation -- not a small sum by any means). Depending on what Rae means by "two state", it would either be good or not. Hopefully, he means making Israel accountable to the world consensus and the rulings of the highest judicial bodies of the world, as opposed to focusing on Iran's rhetoric of not wanting Israel there as if it has any real bearing on the legal issues. The obstacle to peace is quite clear: Israel, the United States and now Canada. If the strongest resistance that can be offered by Canadian politicians is Bob Rae then the future remains grim for Palestinians, not to mention Israel who seems determined to march to its destruction.

It is very dangerous not to highlight such clearly drawn lines (Rae referred to it briefly but barely) as Israel could just have their way with it similar to Oslo which turned the "Palestinian State" into swiss-cheese: cantons of lands where the borders, land and air remained in the control of Israel -- a certified apartheid state. Of course, it had the same rhetoric of supporting "moderates" (during Oslo, Arafat and the rest of PLO collaborators) who are more than glad to hold on to its power in exchange to betraying the Palestinian struggle by accepting Israel's notion of a "two-state", a swiss-cheese Palestine -- ignoring everything Palestinians are legally entitled to and settling the most dire questions of the conflict. Not to mention shutting out the democratically elected government in Gaza in complete accordance to the Canadian democratic values.

While it is good that Rae recognized the fact that Arab leaders seven years ago launched initiatives to establish normal relations with Israel if they accepted the 1967 borders (Rae only mentions West Bank and Gaza -- apparently, East Jerusalem is not included), he could have gone further by mentioning the fact that efforts have been made since Sadat's days in Egypt.

According to Amos Elon, an Israeli commentator, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat caused panic in 1971 when he accepted the Gunnar Jarring proposal: full peace with Israel in return to the prewar Israel-Egypt border. Israel preferred expansion over peace as shown by Haim Bar-Lev of the Labor Party:

"I think that we could obtain a peace settlement on the basis of the earlier [pre-June 1967] borders. If I were persuaded that this is the maximum that we might obtain, I would say: agreed. But I think that it is not the maximum. I think that if we continue to hold out, we will obtain more.”

Before Arafat's PLO became the official collaborators of Israeli terror, there has been many Arab initiatives to normalizing relations.

Even U.N. Resolution 242 was rejectionist when it was originally formulated because it did not recognize Palestinian sovereignty until January 1976 when it began calling for a Palestinian state alongside Israel. The 1976 resolution was supported by nearly every single major Arab state, the PLO, nonaligned countries, the Soviet Union and Europe. The Israeli U.N. ambassador Chaim Herzog – who later became Israel's sixth President – said that the PLO prepared the plan themselves. Not unusual, Israel refused to attend the U.N. session and opted instead in attacking Lebanon again (more than fifty villagers were killed under the guise of a “preventive” attack).

These are just small snippets of the Israeli record. Putting aside the relevancy of the International Court of Justice, World Court, United Nation Resolutions and Charters, human rights organizations and article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, basically all meaningful legal rulings and questions of this conflict, I think Rae did a great job clucking like a chicken. It is great that he has finally joined in the growing chorus of people who have decided that Palestinians are human beings too and should not be butchered like cattles by the thousands. Not due to any pressing legal issue but out of the goodness of our own heart.

In the spirit of resistance,
Critical Mood