by JM Thorn

Over the past few months, the United States and Israel have made a determined attempt to bring the current Palestinian intifada to a halt. Their latest ploy has to arrange a so-called ceasefire¹ brokered and monitored by the CIA. The CIA proposals back up the Israeli position that the source of violence is Palestinian resistance to occupation. They demand that the Palestinian Authority (PA) direct its efforts to bring the current intifada to an end. Only when this has been carried out would there be any prospect of a resumption of negotiations.  The ceasefire proposals allow Israel to enforce¹ and preserve¹ the buffer zones it has set up in areas controlled by the PA.   In effect, they legitimise the continued Isreali occupation. The responsibility for the violence is placed firmly upon its primary victims.
 

This has been the consistent approach of the US towards the Middle East.  While making pronouncements about being even-handed it has continued to back Israeli aggression.  Indeed, Israel¹s ability to wage terror against the Palestinians is largely dependent upon the military and political support of the US.  This is evidenced by the fact the CIA ceasefire proposals are based upon the report of the Mitchell Commission.  
 

It arose out a Palestinian demand for an international inquiry into the upsurge of violence which followed Ariel Sharon¹s provocative September 2000 Œvisit¹ to the Haram al-Sharif in East Jerusalem. As an alternative, Clinton dispatched a "committee of fact-finding" to the region.  Chaired by his favoured trouble-shooter George Mitchell, its task was to determine what was the cause of the violence and to establish a basis for a return to negotiations. Given his pro-Zionist credentials, the fact that he was one of the highest recipitants of Israeli lobby money and a supporter of  Israeli causes as a senator, the contents of Micthell¹s subsequent report were hardly surprising.
 The Mitchell Committee's Report on Israeli-Palestinian Violence¹ released on 21 May 2001, had very little to do with facts.  The report specifically refused to assign responsibility for the eruption and continuation of the violence¹.  Despite the fact the overwhelming number of those killed and injured were Palestinians, the report conveyed the impression that the Committee was investigating a confrontation between equal forces, each equally responsible for the violence.¹  In reality, one of the strongest and most technologically advanced military powers in the world was waging war against a largely unarmed civilian population.  

The language used in the report also reflected its pro-Israeli basis. Terms such as' violence¹ and 'terrorism¹ were identified with the Palestinians, while security¹ was identified with Israelis.  The term Œoccupation¹ appeared only four times (three times to describe a Palestinian point of view), illegal¹ twice (once referring to Palestinian weaponry), and human rights,¹ international law¹ and 'self-determination¹ only once each.    
 

As a confidence-building measure, the Mitchell report demanded that; the Palestinian Authority (PA)...make a 100 percent effort to prevent terrorist operations and to punish perpetrators...[and undertake] immediate steps to apprehend and incarcerate terrorists operating within the PA's jurisdiction.¹  In the context on the ongoing intifada, this could only be interpreted as a call for mass repression of popular resistance.  Mitchell's report made no call for an investigation of Israeli conduct  It  rejected the notion that Israel should be held responsible for gross violations of the human rights of Palestinians.

 In this schema, a reduction in brutality was seen as a confidence-building measure to which the PA should gratefully respond by cracking down on the raging revolt.  These perverse conclusions arose out of the fundamental deceit of the Mitchell Report that what is happening in the Middle East is an Israeli 'response¹ to Palestinian 'violence¹.  The reality is that what is happening there is an uprising against colonial occupation and imperialism.

The hollowness of the Mitchell Report was evidenced by the fact that it won the endorsement of the Sharon government.  It added the stipulation that the settlement freeze would only be discussed  after a 'full and complete cessation of all violence and terrorism,¹ the resumption of security co-operation and a cooling-off period of two to six months. In a public letter, George Mitchell himself  supported the Israeli interpretation of the report¹s position on settlements.

The aim of the Mitchell Report and the subsequent initiatives that have flowed from it is to end the intifada and revive the Oslo 'peace process¹. Yet it is the framework of the Oslo accords that has given rise to the intifada.  For the Middle east peace process has not been about establishing national rights for Palestinians.  It is based on the continued domination of the region by Israel and the United States, and on the denial of national self-determination for the Palestinians. All that is on offer to them is a return to negotiations that have the pre-determined outcome of ongoing subjugation.  To enter such a process would represent a defeat for the intifada and the waste of hundreds of lives.  However, as the uprising continues it is becoming clear that most Palestinians have not only rejected what is on offer from Mitchell, but the whole basis of the peace process.  .

The experience of the Middle East should also dispel any illusions that the likes of George Mitchell can play the role of 'honest broker¹ in any country, anywhere. People like him are intrinsically bound up with imperialism, and are only in the position of chairing talks or heading committees because they can be relied upon to deliver an outcome acceptable to their friends and backers .

FOURTHWRITE, PO BOX 31, Belfast BT127EE