Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay recognize Palestine within 1967 green line armistice boundary
Jim Miles
A curious turn of events is taking shape in Latin America, one that demonstrates at least two levels of international
change. The leaders of Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay have stated their recognition of a Palestinian state within the
‘green line’, the 1948 armistice line between Israel and the Palestinians.
The first level of international change is the recognition of the green line itself as the Palestinian-Israeli boundary,
representing an area about forty-five per cent larger than the area proposed for the Israeli state by the UN General
Assembly. In that sense, even recognizing the green line is a significant concession to Israeli claims and makes a very
generous offer of Palestinian land to be recognized as Israeli territory. As it stands now, with the settlement patterns
breaking Palestine into four or five bantustans, with Gaza nothing more than a large open air prison, there truly is no
manner in which a sovereign contiguous state of Palestine existing side by side with an Israeli state can be formed.
This of course is exactly what the Israelis wish and have always wished for since the Six Day War of 1967. In truth it
is a demographic fear of the original Zionists that the population of the Palestinians would either be too strong a
minority or conceivably overwhelm the Jewish settlers by sheer numbers and make the establishment of Eretz Israel
impossible. The Zionist leaders understood full well that they would face resistance to establishing settlements in then
British controlled Mandatory Palestine. The 1948 nakba served the purpose of the new Israeli state by destroying
hundreds of villages and towns and causing the displacement of about 700 000 Palestinians into refugee camps scattered
within and throughout the region. Returning to the present, it is ironic that with a de facto single state of Israel,
the population ratio is very close to 1 : 1 with another 5 million or so refugees in surrounding countries potentially
able to exercise their right of return under international law.
In response to the Latin leaders recognition, P. J. Crowley of the U.S. State Department, whose interests lie in
homeland security and internet advocacy of U.S. interests (propaganda in other words, it’s always better to change one’s
image rather than one’s actions according to most U.S. State Department personnel) stated:
“We believe earnestly that final status issues should be negotiated between the parties…um…and we…uh…think at this
stage…you know…um…bringing these issues to the United Nations will just distract us from the important business at hand
of…of charting a way forward and tackling the core issues.” al-Jazeerah, December 11, 2010. “Palestine turns to UN for statehood”]
Negotiation between parties? This is a misleading myth that is perpetuated continually in western and U.S. media,
operating under the implication that the two parties are equal contenders in the situation. The reality is that one
(Palestine) is completely dominated by the other (Israel) and without outside support there can be no fair and equal
negotiations. The U.S. has pretended to play the role of mediator but its ongoing support of Israel economically and
militarily, and its ever declining ability to say anything against Israeli wishes as witnessed by Obama’s capitulation,
there is no chance the U.S. can act as an honest broker in the situation. U.S. actions speak only of support for Israel
while it seeks its own control of the Middle East for hydrocarbon resources and geopolitical control of Russia and
China. That of course is truly “the important business at hand” for the U.S., while for Israel it is creating more and
larger facts on the ground called settlements, illegal under international law.
There is no “charting a way forward” for a peaceful resolution with the Israeli leaders. Again, it is about demographics
and an illegal occupation of Palestinian land. Under the Bush administration, Ariel Sharon received approval that
“ensured, irrespective of the demands and requirements of international law…permanent control over large swathes of the
West Bank, and all of Jerusalem.” The result of the Sharon-Bush agreements according to Dov Weisglass, Sharon’s senior
advisor, was to have received “The formaldehyde that’s necessary so that there will not be a political process with the
Palestinians.” By freezing the process, “you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state…the Palestinian state has
been removed from our agenda indefinitely…with authority and permission [and the] blessing and the ratification of both
Houses of Congress.” [Saree Makdisi. Palestine Inside Out - An Everyday Occupation. W.W. Norton & Company, N.Y. 2008. p. 91.]
Anyone watching and studying the current President Obama
’s cave-in to Israeli settlement demands and reading Netanyahu’s total disdain for Obama and the U.S. in general, will
know the truth behind Sharon’s statements. As the only powerful third party to be involved, a highly emasculated power
at the present, the U.S. has done nothing to assist with the “consideration of the settlements” - except as a media
smokescreen - the major form of “confrontation” utilized by the Israelis in the global context.
Behind all this of course is the Israeli created myth that there “is no partner for peace,” a rather difficult situation
when the “partner’s” leaders are systematically killed in extrajudicial murders or are imprisoned or are in conflict
with each other through the manipulations of Israel as the dominant power.
The second area of international change? Foremost is the ability of those long repressed or intimidated, economically or
militarily, to stand up and be heard, against the authority of the U.S. The sane voice of the three Latin American
countries now realizing their true strength, released from the shadow of U.S dominance, recognizes and calls for a much
firmer consideration of the Palestine-Israel problem based on the 1948 green line. The weight of even more independent
Latin American voices will help overcome the tired inertia of the U.S. supported ‘peace talks’ and create a more
positive approach towards an internationally recognized legal settlement.
ENDS