 |
| Map of Israel, the Palestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip), the Golan Heights, and portions of neighbouring countries. Also United Nations deployment areas in countries adjoining Israel or Israeli-held territory, as of January 2004. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
 |
| Dam, 17 Mei 2008 During the 1948 war with the nascent state of Israel it is estimated that around half of the 1.4 million Palestinian Arabs were driven from their homes or fled, to neighboring Arab states. This period of Palestinian history has come to be known as al-Nakba, ‘the catastrophe’. Of the 750,000 displaced Palestinians, approximately 110,000 (mostly from northern Palestine) sought refuge in Lebanon. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
 |
| English: Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, U.S. president Bill Clinton, and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
It has occurred more by happenstance than design but in
recent weeks much of my world seems to have been concentrated on the
Israel/Palestinian dilemma. I have reported in this column on a couple of
excellent recent films or TV programmes that have dealt intelligently with the
issue. And this week I attended a speech
by the estimable Canadian-Palestinian activist Diana Buttu, who has been on a
Canadian tour which brought her to McGill University under the auspices of the
effective pressure group, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East.
A week or two ago I heard her say, as part of an AlJazeera
discussion, that the single state, which is increasingly posited as the most likely
long-term solution to the issue, “already exists,” which means that the main
issue now is “apartheid.”
That apartheid undoubtedly exists in the area administered
by Israel can no longer be doubted, a melancholy development in a state that
began its existence with such high hopes.
I should probably pause here to qualify that statement:
after all, Israel was founded on the territory of an ancient people who had
occupied the land for countless generations, so I suppose the problems that
have persisted throughout its history were built-in to the original concept.
Ms Buttu, who apparently lives and works in Ramallah, on
the West Bank, and who was for some years an adviser to the Palestine
Liberation Organization, said emphatically in Montreal this week that she has
always believed in the one-state solution. But she didn’t suggest its
establishment is likely in any foreseeable future, or perhaps I should say she
realistically faces the obstacles to creation of any single, democratic and
acceptable state at least in the next decade.
Her account of the current situation rings true, and is
depressingly negative (except that she still places great hope in the
resilience and determination of Palestinians, which has kept them plugging away
in their efforts to regain their place on the lands that Israel has, literally,
stolen from them.)
She said that even within the borders of the state of
Israel, at least 50 laws have been passed that discriminate against non-Jewish
people, the majority of whom happen to be Palestinian Arabs. And her
description of the situation in the West Bank showed that in terms of international
law, everything has been turned on its
head. For example, in international law, the onus on a nation that occupies
another nation is to guarantee the security of the occupied people. But in
Israel, in the mindset of Western governments apparently it is the occupied
people that are being called on to guarantee the security of the occupiers.
On the question of Israel’s recognition as a Jewish state,
a similar onus is placed on the occupied people. In not one of the treaties,
agreements or accords that Israel has signed with other countries has the other
country been called on to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, she said. Yet
now, said Ms. Buttu, that demand is being made of the people whose lands Israel
now occupies --- illegally, according to international law --- a situation
which, it seems, is very much akin to demanding of them that they
shoot themselves in the foot (or, perhaps more appropriately, the heart.). The
meaning of Israel as a Jewish state, she said, was perfectly clear: one race or
religion would be given priority over the other, in other words, one race would
be discriminated against to the advantage of the other. No other construction could be put on this
demand.
Ms. Buttu also spoke against the Palestinians having
always to think of getting rid of the settlers
--- 550,000 of them at last count --- now living in their lands. Israel,
unique among modern states, apparently has no clearly defined borders. And, as
Ms. Buttu spoke, I was reminded of a
moment in the AlJazeera programme, Head
to Head, when former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami was being
pressed to say what percentage of non-Jewish population would be acceptable to
him. He appeared confused by this questioning, said something like “I don’t
know….20 per cent.” How about 51 per
cent, asked his interviewer. “I suppose
so,” he said, and added vaguely that the Jewish majority would have to be
preserved.
If the two-state solution which is the objective of all
Western-world negotiating on the issue is as dead as most observers seem to think it is, then
either Israel has to get busy making itself over into a really modern,
democratic state, or it will have to confront hostility from a growing number
of its neighbours and countries around the world.
Either suggestion at the moment seems far off. But the
more likely to see the light of day, if you ask me, would be the second of
these two choices.
No comments:
Post a Comment