Representing, and thus dealing with the conflict as one invented and
sustained by Arab greed and Palestinian terrorism helped Israel garner
sympathy, while simultaneously convoluting what should have been an
urgent example of injustice, predicated on colonialism and ethnic
cleansing.
More, depicting the mere existence of Palestinians as a 'threat', a
'problem' and a 'demographic bomb' is inhumane and actually a
full-fledged form of racism. Throughout its 60 years of existence,
successive Israeli governments have treated Palestinians — the native
inhabitants of historic Palestine — as undesired and thus negligible
inhabitants of a land that was promised only to Jews by some divine
power thousands of years ago.
This archaic concept has managed to define mainstream politics in
Israel, and increasingly the US, allowing religious doctrines to
discriminate and brutally repress Palestinians, both citizens of Israel
and residents of the occupied Territories.
Needless to say, neither a figurative Iron wall, like that proposed by
Vladimir Jabotinsky in 1923, nor an actual massive and menacing
structure as the one being erected in the West Bank can really separate
Israel from its 'problem', the Palestinians. An area roughly the size
of the US state of Vermont cannot sustain such a complex model — a
country that is open unconditionally for all Jews who wish to
immigrate, and an oppressed population that is caged in between walls,
fences, and hundreds of checkpoints — without inviting perpetual
conflict.
What Israel has created in Palestine belies its own claim that its
ultimate wish is peace with security. While occupied East Jerusalem is
entirely annexed by an Israeli government diktat, 40 per cent of the
total size of the West Bank is used exclusively for the purposes of the
illegal Jewish settlers and the Israeli military. How can Israel's
claim of wanting to live in peace be taken seriously if it continues to
invade the lives, confiscate the land and usurp the water of
Palestinians?
When Israel invaded East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, the
Jewish citizens of Israel celebrated the 'return' of biblical Judea and
Samaria and the reunification of Jerusalem. Nearly 300,000 more
Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, adding to the many more who were
evicted from historic Palestine in 1948.
Yet, most Palestinians have remained hostage to the Israeli-invented
limbo that suggests they were neither citizens of Israel, nor of their
own state, nor deserving of the rights of an occupied civilian
population under the Geneva Convention.
Despite this, Israel's insistence on employing military 'solutions' in
its dealing with Palestinians have constantly backfired. Palestinians
naturally rebelled and were repeatedly suppressed, which only worsened
the feud and heightened the level of violence.
The PLO's acceptance of Israel's existence, and UN Resolution 242 as a
first step towards a two state solution was both ridiculed and rejected
by the Israeli government, which continued to arrange for its own
ineffective and ultimately destructive solutions.
Throughout the years, Israel translated its military strength to erect
more settlements and move its population to occupied Palestinian
territories. Even after the Oslo Accords of September 1993, the
construction of settlements didn't slow down, but rather accelerated.
After the most recent peace talks in Annapolis in November 2007, Israel
continues to grant more permits to build more homes in illegal
settlements under the guise of 'natural expansion.'
But it may have gone too far, leaving itself and Palestinians with few options now.
In a November 29, 2007 interview with Israeli daily Ha'aretz, Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert warned that without a two-state agreement, Israel
would face "a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights" in
which case "Israel (would be) finished." It's ironic that Israeli
leaders are now advocating the same solution that they vehemently
rejected in the past. However, the Israeli version of the two-state
agreement hardly meets the minimum expectations of Palestinians.
Without Jerusalem, without their refugees' right of return as enshrined
in UN resolution 194 and with a West Bank dotted with over 216
settlements and scarred by a mammoth wall, asking Palestinians to
accept an Israeli version of the two-state solution is asking them to
agree to their eternal imprisonment, subjugation and defeat — which
they have rejected generation after generation.
If Israel is indeed interested in a peaceful resolution to this bloody
conflict, one that is based on equal human and legal rights, justice,
security and lasting peace, then it must add a new word to its lexicon:
coexistence. Jews and Arabs coexisted peacefully prior to the rise of
Zionism, and they are capable of doing so in the future. Any other
solution would simply institutionalise racism and apartheid, undermine
democracy and human rights and thus further perpetuate violence.
It's time for a secular, democratic state to cease being part of a
removed academic discussion, and instead be integrated into mainstream
debate, if not dialogue in Palestine and Israel. This is the right,
moral and indeed urgent course of action required now.
Ramzy Baroud (
www.ramzybaroud.net)
is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been
published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is
The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle
(Pluto Press, London)
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
