April 2, 2001

Palestinian Minister of Culture and Information Yasser Abed Rabbo issued the following statement:

“The full import of the United States policy of “disengagement” in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process has become evident in recent days following a flurry of statements by the US Administration. Such statements indicate not only unconditional support for Prime Minister Sharon’s measures and positions in the current conflict. They also indicate an alarmingly wholesale adoption of Sharon’s policies by the United States, rather than the formulation of an independent and unbiased United States policy.

These statements are counterproductive in both substance and tone. Attempting to characterize the current situation as a war-like conflict between two equal entities ignores reality – this is a conflict between a military occupation and an occupied people resisting that occupation. US adoption of Sharon’s claim that official Palestinian institutions such as “Force 17” are responsible for the conflict only supports Sharon’s blatant attempt to divert attention from the real root causes of the conflict, namely the continued Israeli occupation, and Israel’s disregard of its international legal obligations under the 4^th Geneva Convention and other international legal instruments.

The tone of the statements, couched in the form of “loud and clear” messages to President Arafat, seems designed to preempt what such messages purport to advocate, namely concrete measures to end the violence and pave the way for the resumption of political dialogue. Attempts to scapegoat the Palestinian leadership and to force it into taking specific, Sharon-designed measures will only complicate the situation and jeopardize the delicate process of restoring calm to the region. The Palestinian leadership has repeatedly reiterated its condemnation of violence and terrorism irrespective of the perpetrators. Such condemnations are not automatically illegitimate because they do not accord verbatim with Sharon directives unquestioningly supported by the United States. To suggest otherwise is both provocative and disrespectful.

The inability of the United States to form its own independent policy can be discerned on many levels. First, on the general political level, the “disengagement” policy ignores the fact that the peace process is not occurring in a vacuum, but rather after a number of bilateral Palestinian-Israeli agreements all of which were witnessed and guaranteed by the US. Israel is still in a state of non-compliance with a vast number of obligations under these agreements. By “disengaging”, the US is in effect supporting the status quo to prevail, a status quo, which allows Israel as the stronger party to operate unilaterally and without accountability. While the US, indeed, cannot “impose a timetable nor a settlement on the parties if they’re unwilling to accept it”, as President Bush indicated in explaining the recent US veto, the US also should not intervene in favor of one party to shield it from international pressure to implement agreements to which it is already committed.

Second, on the specific level relating to the current conflict, the US has adopted a worldview in which the Palestinian people living under occupation is the aggressor while the occupying military power is the victim. Accordingly, the Palestinians are called upon to “stop the violence” and to “arrest those responsible for the violence.” However, no such calls were made upon Israel, even though Israeli state and individual violence continues unabated. On March 30, six Palestinians were killed and scores wounded as, in the words of the BBC, demonstrations were met immediately with live Israeli ammunition fired straight into the crowd. Under the eye and protection of Israeli forces, illegal settlers in Hebron rampage through Palestinian neighborhoods burning Palestinian property and attacking residents with rocks and bottles. Indiscriminate shelling in the Hebron neighborhood of Abu Sneinah has caused mass population displacement. Yet, the United States does not seem to believe that any of these Israeli actions warrants a call upon Israel to “end the violence”. The US Administration, instead, expressed its understanding of the pressures Israel is under – Israel is only asked to “exercise restraint in its military response” and to “ease closures and remove checkpoints”. As far as the new US administration is concerned, assurances by Prime Minister Sharon that “his government wants to move in this direction” were sufficient, despite the fact such assurances contradict Israeli action on the ground. Within this picture, the root causes of the conflict, namely the occupation, disregard of international law, and incessant illegal settlement expansion, which is in itself one of the major forms of violence, are not mentioned a single time.

The failure of the United States to develop its own policy with respect to the current conflict has unfortunately been interpreted by Israel as a “green light” to reject concrete proposals to return to the negotiating table and to pursue a policy of escalation. In the absence of a US policy, Israel has rejected a Jordanian and Egyptian proposal to restore calm to the region through a resumption of negotiations, implementation of the Sharm El-Sheikh Understandings and a freeze on all settlement activity. The Israeli government has instead chosen to issue threats that “the period of Israeli restraint has come to an end”. The American acquiescence to these Israeli policies and practices threatens further instability and only contribute to Palestinian disillusionment with the entire peace process.

The Palestinian leadership, in the name of the Palestinian people who seek to live in freedom side-by-side with Israel, calls upon the United States whose original values were described as the defender of freedom for all peoples, to actively support the parties to this conflict in a courageous search for peace. We ask the United States to resume its leadership and mediating role in the current conflict. And we encourage the United States to develop its own independent policy with respect to the current conflict, a policy based on international law, a policy based on respect for the right of both Israel and Palestine to live in peace and security.