For Israel’s leaders, the writing is on the ‘Apartheid Wall’

20140428-214957.jpg

The ‘A’ word, Apartheid has become inextricably linked to the ‘I’ word, Israel. The latest warning by the weary US Secretary of State, John Kerry, that Israel risks becoming an Apartheid state if the two state solution expires is not the first time the link has been established. In fact past Israeli Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert both warned this association was on its way.

In its editorial on the 28th of April, Haaretz confirms that Apartheid is already practiced through the planning system in area ‘C’, though this is also the case in East Jerusalem where securing planning permission for Zpslestinians is neigh on impossible.

But Apartheid in the West Bank is even more obvious through separation of Jews and Palestinians whether through settler only roads, busses or Jewish only settlements.

Israel of course denies that it practices Apartheid, and numerous pieces have been written analysing the racist practices in Israel and those under Apartheid on South Africa. You wonder whether those authors prefer Israel being called a racist state to an Apartheid state. Either way, it is a state that discriminates as a way of life. Jewish Israelis have full citizens’ rights but no other group does.

When it comes to the Apartheid comparison, you would think that South Africans know best. When eminent figures like Desmond Tutu says Israel practices Apartheid, we should all take note.

The US Secretary of State is beating his head against a brick wall in trying to warn the current Israeli Government about the future. He sees the ‘danger’ to Israel if becoming a single Apartheid state if the two state solution dies. But Israel’s leaders just don’t get it. They only see an opportunity to build more Jewish only homes in the West Bank including East Jerusalem. After all they did this in the past and they became facts on the ground. ‘Major settlement blocks’, they say will not be evacuated in any ‘peace deal’.

The more they build the less chance there is of a Palestinian state. They are right if course. But, what happens to the Palestinians? That is the question current Israeli leaders cannot openly answer at this moment in time but they think that they can cope with it.

They thought joint Israeli-US pressure would have brought the Palestinians to their knees in the current round of talks. They thought President Abbas would have signed a surrender deal that would have ensured a ‘peaceful occupation’, but they seem to have miscalculated.

There is a general consensus that failure of the talks was due to Israeli actions. After all they carried out illegal acts in building more settlements whereas Abbas pursued legal acts through seeking membership of UN agencies and other accords and worked to unify his people.

Israel’s Hasbara has failed miserably. It is increasingly isolated and the BDS campaign is registering success after success. There is no room in the 21st century for a state to practice Apartheid with impunity. The writing is on the Wall, the Apartheid Wall!

Update 28/4

Helpful fact sheet from Institute for Middle East Understanding ‘An Overview: Apartheid South Africa & Israel

A peace process must deliver justice

20140412-230208.jpg

Secretary’s Kerry’s efforts to deliver a peace agreement between the 63 year old Zionist state of Israel and the PLO was doomed from day zero. The basis for starting the talks was for Kerry to promise enough behind closed doors just to get the two sides to meet without a clear framework. The framework he has ended up working to offer at the end of the nine-month period should have formed the basis for the talks.

The framework should have been based on International Law, which is clear and uncomplicated. Israel cannot extend beyond the ‘Green Line’. The West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza are occupied and Israel’s presence in them including its settlements is illegal. The Palestinian refugees have a right to return and compensation. The framework therefore should have been simply a timetable for withdrawal if Israel and Israelis from the occupied territories.

Call me naive and that is fine, but that is what international Law says and if the US wants to go round the world referring to International Law then why exempt Palestine?

Many were struck by the hypocrisy in the way the ‘International Community’ dealt with the Ukraine crisis and were asking why this occupation is different.

Another example was the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait for which a coalition was built to reverse it.

It is clear that Kerry is not willing to tell Israel, the game is up, the occupation must end in concordance with International Law. The pro Israel Lobby would have him strung up for even thinking it.

But for real genuine peace to come to historic Palestine a first crucial step is needed. Israel and individual Israelis must come out of the closet and acknowledge the Nakba. They must accept that the Palestinians paid a heavy price for the Holacaust with their land, rights and lives. They did not ask to be occupied and they have no apology to make for not accepting the theft of their land, freedom and dreams.

An acknowledgement of the Nakba , an apology and a reconciliation process would pave the way to genuine peace that would end the conflict. At that point the politics can assess whether a one or two state solution is implemented.

Without justice there can be no peace. Without an acknowledgement of the Nakba there can be no justice.

A peace process must deliver justice

20140412-230208.jpg

Secretary’s Kerry’s efforts to deliver a peace agreement between the 63 year old Zionist state of Israel and the PLO was doomed from day zero. The basis for starting the talks was for Kerry to promise enough behind closed doors just to get the two sides to meet without a clear framework. The framework he has ended up working to offer at the end of the nine-month period should have formed the basis for the talks.

The framework should have been based on International Law, which is clear and uncomplicated. Israel cannot extend beyond the ‘Green Line’. The West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza are occupied and Israel’s presence in them including its settlements is illegal. The Palestinian refugees have a right to return and compensation. The framework therefore should have been simply a timetable for withdrawal if Israel and Israelis from the occupied territories.

Call me naive and that is fine, but that is what international Law says and if the US wants to go round the world referring to International Law then why exempt Palestine?

Many were struck by the hypocrisy in the way the ‘International Community’ dealt with the Ukraine crisis and were asking why this occupation is different.

Another example was the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait for which a coalition was built to reverse it.

It is clear that Kerry is not willing to tell Israel, the game is up, the occupation must end in concordance with International Law. The pro Israel Lobby would have him strung up for even thinking it.

But for real genuine peace to come to historic Palestine a first crucial step is needed. Israel and individual Israelis must come out of the closet and acknowledge the Nakba. They must accept that the Palestinians paid a heavy price for the Holacaust with their land, rights and lives. They did not ask to be occupied and they have no apology to make for not accepting the theft of their land, freedom and dreams.

An acknowledgement of the Nakba , an apology and a reconciliation process would pave the way to genuine peace that would end the conflict. At that point the politics can assess whether a one or two state solution is implemented.

Without justice there can be no peace. Without an acknowledgement of the Nakba there can be no justice.