IN MARCH 2002 THE NEW YORK TIMES DENIED THERE WAS AN “ILLEGAL OCCUPATION”
Annan’s Careless Language
Published: March 21, 2002
A redefinition of the Middle East conflict occurred last week when Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations called Israel’s occupation of lands acquired in the 1967 Six Day War ”illegal.” A new and provocative label of ”illegality” is now out of the chute and running loose, ready to wreak damage. The worst prospect is that Palestinians will dig in with a new feeling of righteousness and believe that the international community will force Israel to withdraw from its ”illegal occupation.”
In Middle Eastern politics, memory enables each side to nurture its grievances but there is little collective memory that might facilitate negotiations on the basis of shared assumptions. Few seem to care anymore that the 1967 war was a war of self-defense for Israel or that United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 referred to withdrawal from ”territories” rather than from ”the territories” — a crucial distinction that shows that the resolution does not necessarily require withdrawal from all of the land occupied in 1967. In this time of crisis and forgetfulness, using the term ”illegal” is destructive and dangerous. For the uninformed, the discussion will start with the secretary general’s labeling of the occupation as a violation of law.
Those who pay attention to the details of history know better. Resolution 242, passed right after the 1967 war, envisions a just resolution of the conflict and calls for withdrawal and mutual recognition, but it says nothing about legality. Resolution 338, passed after the 1973 Yom Kippur war, imposes an obligation on Israel and the Arabs to negotiate peace. Because it insisted that the Palestinians negotiate an end to the Israeli presence, the Security Council could not have thought the occupation itself violated international law.
Comments are closed.