Peace or permanent war Israel's choices

A British-born Israeli coloniser of the West Bank is attempting to sue the European Union in the sum of $20 million for the death of his wife and injuries to his daughter at the hands of two Palestinian militants. Stephen Bloomberg said: "My parents in England are paying taxes going in part to helping the EU which is pouring millions of euros every month into the Palestinian Authority".

EU commissioner Chris Patten has refuted Bloomberg's contention saying, "The EU takes allegations of misuse of its funds extremely seriously. We investigate all such allegations, but have found no evidence that our funds have been diverted into support of terrorism".

In the extremely unlikely event that Bloomberg should succeed in his mission, it could set a precedent, opening the gates for thousands of Palestinians to take the U.S. and the British governments to court for their pain and suffering. Without American taxpayers' money the State of Israel would not be able to function, and without American and British weapons it would not have the dubious status of being the third greatest military power in the world. In the case of Israel, proving state-sponsored terrorism shouldn't be difficult.

Further, if donor governments are to be held responsible for the brutal actions of their state proteges, then responsible officials in America and Britain could well find themselves implicated in war crimes. The American president has ensured that his citizens are immune from prosecution under the jurisdiction of the new International Court. The British are not so fortunate.

Britain now appears cognizant that its weaponry has been used to murder Palestinian men, women, children and babies and has imposed an unofficial arms embargo, which could mean that Israel may have to ground its Phantom fighter-bomber fleet.

While the American government emulates the three wise monkeys when it comes to the transgressions of Israel, the British cabinet is becoming increasingly uncomfortable watching the Jewish state oppress the Palestinians.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has expressed his desire for a speedy Mideast solution on numerous occasions, a message he has passed to the region's main players and to George W. Bush.

The American president has admittedly made numerous conciliatory statements addressing the concerns of the Arab world - his "visionary" roadmap and wish for a two-state solution - but while he talks the talk, he has yet to walk the walk.

In reality, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is calling the shots. He isn't ready to adhere to a timetable for peace, he says as much to the fast-greying Texan, the message gets passed down to Blair who has little choice but to shelve his grandiose plans once more. If we get down to the nitty-gritty we have to face the unpalatable fact that without enlightened and resolute American leadership, the Mideast conflict will never be solved.

George Bush has often said that he cannot impose peace on the two parties but, in reality, he could. All he would have to do is refuse to supply Israel with any more weapons, spare parts and aid until Ariel Sharon withdrew his troops from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as a prelude to the resumption of peace talks. Sound simple? It is, but this would infuriate the Jewish lobbies and the president's Southern Baptist, Christian Zionist support base.

Riding roughshod over Israel's wishes would be political suicide. Bush junior will recall that his father failed to be re-elected in 1992 all because he had delayed approving a loan guarantee in Israel's favour.

In the meantime, the Israeli government's crimes continue to grow. After all, it has proved to be immune from any kind of international censor. It has ignored more than 60 United Nations resolutions without having to face sanctions of any kind; it has waved away a UN fact-finding team set up to investigate Jenin, while its mentor the U.S. vetoed a recent Security Council resolution condemning Israel for the killing of UN employees. Israel has become a law unto itself.

Not only is Israel a protected country which views its critics with derision, its military literally gets away with murder. The Israeli army even ignores orders issued by Israel's own Supreme Court. On December 24 seven human rights organisations petitioned the Supreme Court to prevent the Israeli army from using Palestinian civilians as human shields.

The human rights organisations presented four new cases to the court, which fly in the face of an earlier High Court injunction banning the criminal practice. The Fourth Geneva Convention labels the use of human shields as a war crime, and yet cowardly Israeli soldiers still hide behind frightened, unarmed civilians.

The human rights groups also complained to the court about the contempt for Palestinian lives, which runs through the highest levels of the Israeli Defence Forces. Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon was quoted saying of the Palestinians in an interview with the Israeli daily Ha'aretz that they are a "cancer that should be dealt with through chemotherapy". The IDF's chemotherapy in this case appears to be a concerted effort to humiliate an occupied people whose lives it regards as inconsequential.

Nobody is asking why, at least not forcefully enough. Those who could make a real difference are instead turning a blind eye. It must be said, though, that there are Israeli reservists who can no longer stomach the behaviour of their fellows. More than 500 have refused to serve in the Occupied Territories and have been imprisoned in response. Last Monday, Israel's High Court rejected an appeal by eight reserve officers who wanted the state to recognise their refusal to serve as legitimate conscientious objection. The court not only ignored the contention that Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was illegal, but it also conveniently forgot the rulings of the Nuremberg trials.

At Nuremberg's International Military Tribunal, Nazis were charged with warcrimes. Most insisted that they had just been following the orders of their superiors. The court rejected this defence and instead the principle that "a soldier has a duty to refuse any order from a superior to commit a crime against humanity or a criminal act" was embraced.

Rather than be inspired by Nuremberg, which championed justice for Holocaust victims, Justice Dorit Beinisch said: "the considerations of state security and the integrity of Israeli society must be considered against the arguments of conscience and belief."

The integrity of Israeli society is being eroded in more ways than one and it will take a lot more than the judge's pronouncements to prevent its disintegration. The country is split over the issue of settlements, with many believing that they are the root cause of the conflict. There is also a division between hardliners and those who prefer the stance of Labor Party candidate Amram Mitzna who has promised to dismantle the settlements and reinstate the Oslo Accords if he becomes prime minister.

Israel's 20 per cent Arab population is also being alienated and may stay away from the booths during the upcoming Knesset elections now that Arab Israeli members of parliament Ahmed Tibi and Azmi Bishara have been disqualified from candidacy. The banning is generally perceived as a black day for Israeli democrac