Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

In the Middle East a word can mean a lot

By Graham Cooke - posted Tuesday, 17 June 2014


The fact the Australian Government is surprised at the international reaction to what Prime Minister Tony Abbott now refers to as a "terminological clarification", over the word 'disputed' rather than 'occupied' regarding the status of East Jerusalem, reveals an appalling lack of knowledge of the sensitivities around the terms when used in the context of lands captured by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War.

Even worse, this appears to have emerged from some domestic spat between the Attorney General, George Brandis, and the Greens which Mr Abbott, half a world away on his overseas tour, jumped into with both feet.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who appears to have been a spectator to the imbroglio, has been left with the repair job, blaming the media (as usual) for its "overreaction".

Advertisement

If the media is overreacting it is certainly not alone. Israeli lobbyists have been virtually dancing jigs over the Prime Minister's announcement while Arab countries throughout the Middle East are now giving serious consideration to what kind of sanctions they can apply against Canberra.

An American diplomat and close friend, recently in charge of a well-funded program to strengthen Palestinian institutions in preparation for statehood, has written to me expressing incredulity at Mr Abbott's comments.

He now tries to say that nothing has changed and Australia continues to support United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338 aimed at finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation. However 242 specifically refers to territories 'occupied' by Israel in 1967 while 338 simply refers back to 242 on the question of occupation.

Mr Abbott cannot have it two ways. The very fact he has highlighted that Australia regards East Jerusalem as 'disputed' rather than 'occupied', puts Australia firmly in Israel's camp. It cannot, can never, be simply a question of semantics.

To explain further, I will quote the words of Robert Fisk, a multiple award-winning journalist who has covered the Middle East, first for The Times and subsequently the Independent newspapers for 38 years.

Writing in his book The Great War for Civilisation, Fisk recalls that in 2001, George W. Bush's Secretary of State, Colin Powell, issued instructions to US Embassies in the region that they were no longer to refer to occupied Palestinian territories as 'occupied' and should henceforth refer to them as 'disputed' – a ruling that was followed by most American publications and some British.

Advertisement

After Fisk continued to use the term 'occupied' he was asked to contribute to a BBC World Service program along with an Israeli Government spokesman.

"The moment I referred to the Israeli-occupied territories an Israeli voice boomed back: 'But Mr Fisk the territories are not occupied by Israel!' I waited for a second. Aha, I countered, so you mean that the soldiers who stopped me on the road to Ramallah and Jenin last week were Swiss! Or were they Burmese?"

But as he continues, this is no laughing matter.

"An occupied territory might generate violent resistance which could demand international legitimacy. But violence over a 'dispute' – a real estate problem, something which might be settled in the courts – was obviously illegitimate, criminal, mindless; indeed, it could be portrayed as the product of that well-worn libel 'mindless violence'."

There would be no problem with 'dispute' if there was a mechanism for the 'dispute' to be resolved; if the case could be brought before some impartial authority for judgement. But of course there is none, or at least not one that Israel will recognise. The International Court of Justice exists for disputes between states, and as Jerusalem will quickly point out, Palestine is not a state therefore the court cannot have jurisdiction.

So we are on the slippery slope. Palestine is not a state and its lands are subject only to a dispute. How long therefore before Israel claims the dispute is an internal matter, to be settled on its terms?

While in the Middle East in 2012 (by which time US diplomats had either abandoned or ignored Powell's dictum) I met a number of high-ranking Palestinian officials one, who on a strict condition of anonymity, set out what he believed to be a basis for settlement.

The official said the more isolated Israeli settlements on the West Bank would have to go, but others might be consolidated and incorporated into Israel providing an equal amount of territory could be swopped elsewhere, presumably in parts where Israeli Arabs were in the majority.

On Jerusalem he suggested that Israel and a future Palestinian state simply share a capital – "just because it has never been done before is no reason why it shouldn't be tried here". If these two things were agreed he believed other outstanding issues, such as rights of return, could be negotiated.

"But what happens?" he asked. "[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu keeps building more and more settlements on our land; the Israeli Army occupies large parts of the West Bank and launches raids into the rest when it feels like it.

"When we hit back and a settler is killed they call it a massacre and we are called terrorists; when the Israeli army bulldozes a house or shoots innocent women and children it is called a regrettable incident during an incursion.

"So we keep on throwing rocks. What else can we do?"

Which is why the Australian Prime Minister needs to choose his words more carefully if he insists on playing a role in Middle East politics.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

16 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Graham Cooke has been a journalist for more than four decades, having lived in England, Northern Ireland, New Zealand and Australia, for a lengthy period covering the diplomatic round for The Canberra Times.


He has travelled to and reported on events in more than 20 countries, including an extended stay in the Middle East. Based in Canberra, where he obtains casual employment as a speech writer in the Australian Public Service, he continues to find occasional assignments overseas, supporting the coverage of international news organisations.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Graham Cooke

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Graham Cooke
Article Tools
Comment 16 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy