In his October 31 column entitled “Palestinians crushed”, François Brousseau describes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as follows: “The confrontation can today be described, by one of the two camps (the Palestinian), as a minimal and desperate resistance to a victorious and almost total occupation. And by the other side (the Israeli), like a succession of anti-terrorist military-police operations, to crush the last gnats which still disturb public order”. This way of presenting a most complex and painful situation for both parties to the conflict leaves us perplexed. We have the right to expect that a newspaper of the stature of the To have to pays greater attention to accuracy of information, balance and impartiality.
This column raises several questions. When reference is made to Palestinian “minimal resistance”, do we imagine that reference is being made to the twenty or so Israeli civilians killed this year as a result of the ongoing wave of Palestinian terrorism? Is there also a reference to groups appearing in particular on the Canadian list of designated terrorist entities, such as Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad or the PFLP? Mystery, since they are not mentioned at all.
The chronicle raises the question of the morality of Israeli operations. However, there is no mention of the actions of Palestinian armed groups: deliberate bombardments against Israeli civilians, the use of human shields or the use of civilian infrastructure as missile launch pads.
Mr. Brousseau ignores the objective of the Israeli operations: to protect the Israeli population against attacks regularly committed by armed groups. Exit also the concept of self-defence, an inherent right recognized by the Charter of the United Nations.
Another interesting aspect of Mr. Brousseau’s text: if the negotiations are at a standstill, it is because Israel is not interested in the peace process, “for the Israelis, the question is settled”, he writes, and he insinuates that Israel pursues a policy aimed at crushing the Palestinian people. However, Israel formally recognized the Palestinian people and their right to self-determination in the Declaration of Principles of 1993. In addition, we will also mention the Abraham Accords, peace treaties concluded by Israel with the United Arab Emirates , Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco, which are a must in peace relations in the Middle East.
Without going through the history of the unsuccessful peace negotiations, we will mention that in 1948 the representatives of the Palestinian people persisted in their refusal to create an independent Arab state alongside the Jewish state of Israel, as desired by the international community under resolution 181 adopted by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947. On May 15, 1948, 24 hours after declaring its independence, Israel was invaded by five regular Arab armies, an offensive which joined the Palestinians. Since its creation, Israel has thus had to defend its right to exist.
In the years following Oslo, at Camp David in 2000 and then at the Taba Summit in 2001, Israel offered several territorial concessions, but to no avail. Another Palestinian refusal without a counter-offer in 2008, when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered the equivalent of the entire West Bank as part of US-brokered peace proposals that would have allowed the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Remaining silent about the responsibility of the Palestinians in the current diplomatic impasse and blaming only one of the two parties to the conflict does nothing constructive. The chronicle ignores repeated attempts to reach a final status agreement that would end the conflict peacefully through a two-state solution, nor does it mention Israel’s continued willingness to make painful compromises to achieve a such agreement.
Successive polls have proven that a two-state solution is the most desirable outcome for Israelis and Palestinians, as it would guarantee both peoples their right to national self-determination. But hey, neither does the law seem to matter when it comes to Israel.