Apartheid is real

“… the establishment of the Palestinian state is not our Nakba, or disaster — provided that upon its establishment the word ‘Nakba’ be deleted from the Arabic lexicon in referring to Israel.”

This is from the address by Tzipi Livni at Annapolis. The Nakba means the “catastrophe” and refers to the expulsion and dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes and land in 1948. Almost 60 years ago, more than 60% of the total Palestinian population was expelled. More than 530 Palestinian villages were depopulated and completely destroyed.

To date, Israel has prevented the return of approximately six million Palestinian refugees, who have either been expelled or displaced. Approximately 250 000 internally displaced Palestinian second-class citizens of Israel are prevented from returning to their homes and villages. And now Livni calls for the word “Nakba” to be deleted.

There have been many statements on how Annapolis was a failure. And there have been many “official” statements and discussions on how Annapolis has proved that a “two-state solution” remains the only possible and legitimate outcome. In fact, the creation of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem remains the mandate of the United Nations and international law, and the official Palestinian position.

But the creation of a viable, contiguous and independent state in all the 1967 territory, as mandated by the UN and international law, would require the dismantling of huge blocs of settlements and the removal of more than 450 000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem.

The settlements continue to expand, and the speech by Olmert at Annapolis did not even touch on what is currently the biggest obstacle to a solution. Together with the apartheid wall, these “facts on the ground” are increasingly making a two-state solution nearly impossible.

Do many Israeli and US policymakers intend the anointing of a Palestinian “virtual state” with passports and a seat at the UN, internet identity and a telephone country code all of its own? Would it be made up of Gaza and less than 50% of the West Bank in the form of a set of non-contiguous bantustans linked by Israeli-controlled roads and bridges, with Israel remaining in control of borders, air space, military and security capacity, and more? What Palestinian state would this be?

As the creation of a viable Palestinian state becomes less realistic, the alternative of recognising all of historic Palestine — including what is now Israel as well as the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem — as one country, with equal rights for all its citizens, begins to look like a more realistic option.

The idea is apparently gaining more currency, with the failure of previous political processes to address the conflict’s underlying tensions. An alternative to the exclusivist ideologies — that are probably going to perpetuate suffering in the region — is desperately needed and is on offer from disparate groups in Israel, Palestine and the rest of the world.

I think it was Allister Sparks who said: “… if I, as a white South African, can live in a secular, non-racial state with a black majority and feel perfectly secure in my own identity, can you not do the same in Israel?”

What concerns me is how this proposal could go horribly wrong — if (and in some ways, like South Africa) the previously oppressed, dispossessed and exploited community is merely given rights that were due to it all along; if there is talk of land and wealth distribution that takes forever to happen; if those that had benefited from the systems of apartheid were allowed to keep their loot; if those responsible for crimes of colonialism, racism and ethnic cleansing get away scot-free; and if this causes the world to turn away thinking that the struggle is over now. That would be yet another catastrophe, another Nakba!