Emad Gad explains why the Arab-Israeli conflict refuses to be resolved Many attempts have been made by regional and international parties to mediate the conflict in the Middle East to reach a political settlement. It is no exaggeration to say that the conflict in the Middle East has seen a veritable flood of plans, initiatives and proposals for political settlements. Similarly, the UN Security Council and the General Assembly have issued dozens of resolutions regarding the conflict, and several agreements and accords have been signed. Nevertheless, the region is still far from reaching a real political resolution that might lead to a comprehensive peace. Some believe that the difficulty and complexity involved in reaching a political solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict stems from the fact that it is a protracted social conflict. That is, it is a conflict governed by a discourse that speaks of a battle for existence rather than borders. The populations of all parties to the conflict are directly involved, and the roots of the conflict dig deep into the social structure, creating enmity between people. The foundations on which this division and enmity are based are usually one of the major forces for social division, race and religion. Resolving these types of conflicts require a long time and must be done over several stages. The Arab-Israeli conflict, particularly on the Palestinian front, is undoubtedly a protracted social conflict. The Palestinian people, the owners of the land, were expelled and made homeless, while those coming from abroad believed that Palestine was a land without a people that should be given to a people without a land, the Jewish people. Despite efforts to resolve the conflict and several international resolutions outlining the basis of a political settlement, no attempt has been successful, and no international resolutions have been applied. Nevertheless, dozens of other protracted social conflicts have been resolved, such as the Somali-Ethiopian conflict, the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict, and the conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo and Northern Ireland. While some of these resolutions at times suffer relapses and require international pressure or an international military presence to maintain the agreements, efforts to reach a settlement succeeded in bringing these conflicts under control and setting in motion the long-term process of eliminating the residue of the conflict through efforts to plant a culture of peace and coexistence among all parties to the conflict. Of course, these efforts can only begin after a political settlement is reached that takes into account the demands of all parties to the conflict. Among the many factors preventing the Arab-Israeli conflict from reaching the first stage of a true settlement is the role played by the world's sole superpower, the United States. Clearly, the US has no real desire for a just, political resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. A lack of desire here means the unwillingness to impose a just political settlement that, with time, can evolve into a true peace. This has been clear since the beginning of the conflict, specifically in UN Security Council resolutions regarding the Palestinian cause. No resolution has been issued under Article 7 of the UN Charter, which would require following up on practical means to implement the resolution and taking the necessary measures to do so, including the use of military force. Although the Arab-Israeli conflict lacks most of the conditions necessary to institute a political settlement that may lead to a comprehensive peace like that seen in other protracted social conflicts, the most influential factor here is America's absolute bias towards Israel, which has led Washington to base its stances and mobilise all its various powers in the service of the Israeli vision of the conflict. Indeed, perhaps US bias towards Israel is unprecedented in the history of post-war international relations and conflicts. In turn, this means that the conflict has remained an exception to political settlements; Palestine is the one nation that has not obtained its independence from a traditional colonialist system, using only the standard of territory occupied in June 1967. At the same time, Israel's exceptionalism has been cemented, and it has freed itself from the obligation to observe international law or abide by legitimate international resolutions. Indeed, America's adoption of Israel has led Washington itself to violate legitimate international resolutions and even delay the development of international law, as was the case with the International Criminal Court. A close reading of the address in which US President George Bush made guarantees to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon reveals several violations of the principles of international law and international resolutions. In recognising the facts on the ground -- or refusing to recognise the borders of Israel prior to 4 June 1967 -- the US has violated the principle that forbids the acquisition of territory by force, along with several UN resolutions that call on Israel not to change facts on the ground and reiterate that any changes made by occupation forces in occupied land will not be recognised. Moreover, the US acceptance of Israel's annexation of several settlements is a violation of international law and an attempt to twist facts by bestowing legitimacy on acts that violate accepted principles of international law. We should point out that the charter of the International Criminal Court considers settlement to be a war crime and settlers to be war criminals. The US adoption of Israel and its provision of political and legal protection to the country have led Israel to feel that it is above international law; it can violate laws as it wishes and commit war crimes as it pleases since it is certain that it will not be held accountable. This is the fundamental obstacle to a real political settlement to the conflict. Indeed, Israeli policies and behaviour born of hubris and the arrogance of power only serve to accumulate further enmity and escalate the impact of the factors latent in the protracted social conflict. Washington is the primary party responsible for Israel's crimes against humanity and the major obstacle to reaching a true political settlement in the region. For Arabs, it is thus the gate through which the land of Palestine was lost and its people made homeless. For all these reasons, it is extremely important that the US Presbyterian Church decided to divest its holdings from companies active in Israel after the International Court of Justice issued its ruling on the wall of separation. The church's decision will have a clear impact on the moral ground and will affect discussions of Christian fundamentalism and its links to the Zionist right. Arabs Against Discrimination issued a statement thanking the Presbyterian Church for its stance. "Arabs Against Discrimination would like to express its deep appreciation to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which recently decided to divest its holdings from selected companies active in Israel as an act of protest against Israeli actions towards the Palestinian people and, specifically, the construction of the separation wall in occupied Palestinian territory," the statement read. "In taking this step, the church is upholding its rejection of actions it judges to be harmful to humanity. As we reiterate our appreciation of and solidarity with the church's noble decision, we hope that it will encourage all those who cherish peace, justice, and tolerance to similarly work towards a better future for humanity." For further details on this issue, please visit the website of Arabs Against Discrimination (www.aad-online.org).
