Apartheid Analogy Fails for West Bank and Gaza
Neither does the apartheid analogy hold water in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, despite the undoubted hardships which Palestinians face in their day-to-day lives. Given the sizeable number of Israelis who support a withdrawal from some or all of these areas, as well as former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s decision to disengage from all settlements in Gaza and parts of the West Bank, it is abundantly clear that Israel does not want to indefinitely rule over the Palestinian population of these territories. Israel’s stance in that regard was confirmed by its decision to sign the Oslo Accords, which created the Palestinian Authority, and in its peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan.
- In South Africa, around 12 million disenfranchised Blacks were crammed into Bantustans (impoverished autonomous homelands whose borders were designed to exclude economically viable land) to be used as a reservoir of cheap labor. Four of the 10 Bantustans were proclaimed ‘independent’ – meaning that residents lost even the handful of limited rights they had in South Africa – but were not recognized as such by foreign governments.
- Israel could not be further from imposing a Bantustan solution on the Palestinians. Not only has the Israeli government and the majority of the Israeli public accepted the idea of a Palestinian State but – as Israel has made clear in the past – genuine guarantees of security will result in important territorial concessions. Israel’s goal is to achieve both its own security and Palestinian self-determination. In direct contrast to the Bantustans, which were frozen in a legal no-man’s land, a Palestinian state will enjoy both international recognition and generous aid: recent pledges include $3 billion from the World Bank alone. Rather than being ruled by a puppet leadership appointed by Israel, the Palestinians elect their own leaders. Finally, it should be recalled that apartheid South Africa intended to deport all of its Black citizens into the Bantustans; in the case of Israel’s Arab citizens, such an idea is abhorrent to the vast majority of Israelis.
- The importance of Israel’s security was noted by Nelson Mandela, the symbol of the struggle against apartheid, who remarked, in 1999, that he could not conceive of Israeli withdrawal ‘if Arab states do not recognize Israel within secure borders.
The world is rightly concerned about the humanitarian impact of checkpoints and curfews on the Palestinians. Such measures are driven not by a racist ideology, but, in the main, by legitimate security concerns on Israel’s part. These measures, along with the security fence, are the consequence of a campaign of terror by Palestinian groups such as Hamas and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, which, in deliberately targeting civilians, have claimed over 1,000 innocent Israeli lives.
Some analysts argue that Israeli policy is also informed by its need to secure a Jewish majority within defined borders. It is perhaps more accurate to say that Israel wishes to safeguard its democratic character and its status as a haven for the Jewish people. Permanent occupation of another people who wish to rule themselves is, therefore, not an option, which is why Israel has committed itself to disengagement and future negotiations.
- In South Africa, around 12 million disenfranchised Blacks were crammed into Bantustans (impoverished autonomous homelands whose borders were designed to exclude economically viable land) to be used as a reservoir of cheap labor. Four of the 10 Bantustans were proclaimed ‘independent’ – meaning that residents lost even the handful of limited rights they had in South Africa – but were not recognized as such by foreign governments.
- Israel could not be further from imposing a Bantustan solution on the Palestinians. Not only has the Israeli government and the majority of the Israeli public accepted the idea of a Palestinian State but – as Israel has made clear in the past – genuine guarantees of security will result in important territorial concessions. Israel’s goal is to achieve both its own security and Palestinian self-determination. In direct contrast to the Bantustans, which were frozen in a legal no-man’s land, a Palestinian state will enjoy both international recognition and generous aid: recent pledges include $3 billion from the World Bank alone. Rather than being ruled by a puppet leadership appointed by Israel, the Palestinians elect their own leaders. Finally, it should be recalled that apartheid South Africa intended to deport all of its Black citizens into the Bantustans; in the case of Israel’s Arab citizens, such an idea is abhorrent to the vast majority of Israelis.
- The importance of Israel’s security was noted by Nelson Mandela, the symbol of the struggle against apartheid, who remarked, in 1999, that he could not conceive of Israeli withdrawal ‘if Arab states do not recognize Israel within secure borders.
The world is rightly concerned about the humanitarian impact of checkpoints and curfews on the Palestinians. Such measures are driven not by a racist ideology, but, in the main, by legitimate security concerns on Israel’s part. These measures, along with the security fence, are the consequence of a campaign of terror by Palestinian groups such as Hamas and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, which, in deliberately targeting civilians, have claimed over 1,000 innocent Israeli lives.
Some analysts argue that Israeli policy is also informed by its need to secure a Jewish majority within defined borders. It is perhaps more accurate to say that Israel wishes to safeguard its democratic character and its status as a haven for the Jewish people. Permanent occupation of another people who wish to rule themselves is, therefore, not an option, which is why Israel has committed itself to disengagement and future negotiations.
posted by Jordan | 7:50 PM
4 Comments:
"it is abundantly clear that Israel does not want to indefinitely rule over the Palestinian population of these territories"
just the land eh ;-)...
"In South Africa, around 12 million disenfranchised Blacks were crammed into Bantustans (impoverished autonomous homelands whose borders were designed to exclude economically viable land"
economically viable land eh...that wouldn't be like the west bank's water resources (which, shimon peres said was the true intent of the separation wall).
"as Israel has made clear in the past – genuine guarantees of security will result in important territorial concessions"
just not the '67 borders ;-). that would be asking for too much, especially all that water...
"Some analysts argue that Israeli policy is also informed by its need to secure a Jewish majority within defined borders. It is perhaps more accurate to say that Israel wishes to safeguard its democratic character and its status as a haven for the Jewish people."
and the difference is...semantics??? ;-)
Let's take it from the top shall we...
"just the land eh ;-)..."
I believe I have stated that Israel does not endeavour to keep the land that would make up the Palestinian state. They have proven this by giving up Gaza and parts of Samaria. As well plans have been announced to give up the remaining parts of Samaria and Judea.
"economically viable land eh...that wouldn't be like the west bank's water resources (which, shimon peres said was the true intent of the separation wall)."
Not only could I not locate that Vice Premier Peres made such a statement, I do know what water you refer to. The largest body of water is the Knerret. And part of it is shared with Jordan. To say Israel is stealing water is an unfounded claim.
"just not the '67 borders ;-). that would be asking too much, especially all that water..."
Israel in past negotiations has offered as much as 97% of the 1967 borders to allow the creation of a modern Palestinian state. The rest is claimed as a security measure. Surely, you cannot suggest that Israelis are not in any danger.
"and the difference is...semantics??? ;-)"
The difference is much more than that. Israel much be secured as a place where Jews from all over the world feel safe. Even when Israel is under attack daily as it is, Jews feel safe there. However, this is threatened every time another person blows themself up on a bus...in a cafe...or in a discoteque. This is about much more than semantics. It is about quality of life.
"I believe I have stated that Israel does not endeavour to keep the land that would make up the Palestinian state."
the land that 'you' think would make up the palestinian state or the land the palestinians think would make up a future state??? also, settlements??? guess they wouldn't be part of a future palestine eh ;-).
"Not only could I not locate that Vice Premier Peres made such a statement, I do know what water you refer to. The largest body of water is the Knerret. And part of it is shared with Jordan."
actually, it was a claim he made in private conversation with people on a tour of israel with the JNF. also, i was referring to the vast aquifers...check out a map of the areas hydrological resources and compare it to the route of the separation wall/security fence; notice any coincidences ;-).
"Israel in past negotiations has offered as much as 97% of the 1967 borders to allow the creation of a modern Palestinian state. The rest is claimed as a security measure."
this is where int'l law and negotiations are in discord. all the land is legally not israel's, but it's a zero-sum game; any land given up by israel is a loss for them and gain for the palestinians...as such, negotiations are beyond difficult. in negotiations' speak, israel's best alternative to a negotiated settlement is to stay away from the negotiating table and pursue the status quo. as an aside, all states' claims of "security measures" need to be taken with a grain of salt...to put it mildly...lest we be total pollyannas.
"Israel much [sic] be secured as a place where Jews from all over the world feel safe."
ok...i take it you aren't in favour of a one-state solution then ;-).
"Even when Israel is under attack daily as it is, Jews feel safe there."
well, my friends tend to feel alot safer when they get back to canada from the birthright tour, but what do they know ;-).
"the land that 'you' think would make up the palestinian state or the land the palestinians think would make up a future state??? also, settlements??? guess they wouldn't be part of a future palestine eh ;-)."
Prime Minister Olmert has stated on numerous occasions prior to the war with the Hizbollah that he intends to give to all of Gaza, Samaria and Judea to the creation of a modern Palestinian state. Unfortunately that includes the destruction of homes. You would call those homes settlements. It must be very easy to detatch oneself from reality in such a way.
"actually, it was a claim he made in private conversation with people on a tour of israel with the JNF. also, i was referring to the vast aquifers...check out a map of the areas hydrological resources and compare it to the route of the separation wall/security fence; notice any coincidences ;-)."
I could not find any information to back up this statement. If you could provide a link or site the information, it would be much appreciated.
"this is where int'l law and negotiations are in discord. all the land is legally not israel's, but it's a zero-sum game; any land given up by israel is a loss for them and gain for the palestinians...as such, negotiations are beyond difficult. in negotiations' speak, israel's best alternative to a negotiated settlement is to stay away from the negotiating table and pursue the status quo. as an aside, all states' claims of "security measures" need to be taken with a grain of salt...to put it mildly...lest we be total pollyannas."
You make the claim that all of the land is legally not Israel's. By a United Nation's vote, it is. And agreed that any land Israel must give up is a loss for them and a gain for the Palestinians. Unfortunately that must be the case.
"ok...i take it you aren't in favour of a one-state solution then ;-)."
In fact I am. The greater international community seems to be in favour of a two-state solution. But I would hope that under a singular multi-cultural state we would see Israel remain a haven for the Jewish people.
"well, my friends tend to feel alot safer when they get back to canada from the birthright tour, but what do they know ;-)."
I'm not sure who your friends are, but as someone who has been to Israel on more than one occasion I sometimes feel safer there than here. Moreoever, I have never in all the people I have spoken with regarding the birthright trip speak at all of the fear they experienced in their personal safety.
Post a Comment
<< Home