Myth 3: "Israel has no partner for peace." On the contrary, Palestinians have no partner for peace. No Israeli offer has ever come close to fulfilling Palestinian human rights. Camp David II in 2000, often referred to as former prime minister Ehud Barak's "Generous Offer," would have annexed 10% of the West Bank into Israel, including some of most fertile and water rich areas, home to 80,000 Palestinians. The 10% was spread around the West Bank, separating the "future Palestinian state" into a nonviable archipelago of isolated cantons, separating Palestinians from their land and each other. Finally, the proposal maintained Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem (and some control by Palestinians under that sovereignty) and ignored the human rights of the Palestinian refugees, who represent the vast majority of the Palestinian population.
Offers by Palestinians and the Arab world including significant compromises have been consistently rebuffed by Israel:
In the 1970s, the PLO endorsed a comprehensive peace plan with Israel in exchange for its full withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. Israel rejected the offer.
In 2002, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, along with 21 other members of the Arab League, proposed not only peace but normal relations and regional integration with Israel in exchange for an end to the occupation and a "just solution" to the issue of refugees. Israel rejected the offer. The Arab Peace Initiative was reiterated in 2007 and again refused.
Hamas has repeatedly offered a 30-year ceasefire with Israel in exchange for an end to the occupation. Israel has dismissed this possibility and refused to talk to the elected Palestinian government on grounds that it refuses to renounce violence, recognize previous agreements, and recognize the existence of another people's state in historic Palestine. Interestingly, Israel is guilty of all three of the very things for which it faults Hamas.
Myth 4: "An end to the 1967 occupation would be an end to the injustice." This one is more prevalent in the peace and justice community. While an end to the occupation is a condition for peace, it is only one part of restoring Palestinian human rights. The rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel also need to be addressed. What does it mean to be a citizen of a state that does not represent you, and systematically discriminates against you? (Mossawa is a good source for information about discrimination of Palestinians inside the Green Line.)
Moreover, the vast majority of Palestinians are families of refugees from 1948, who were forced to leave their homes in order to create a Jewish majority in a land where most people were Christian and Muslim. Still today, I, as a Jewish American, could go and live on land that was stolen from Palestinians and is now reserved exclusively for Jews. Meanwhile, a Palestinian born on that same land is forbidden simply because of his or her ethnic and religious background. An end to the occupation and a return to the 1967 borders solves the immediate problem of many (but not all) of the 4 million Palestinians living under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but it does not address the primary grievance of the vast majority of Palestinians, namely that they have been exiled from Palestine and can't go back because they are not Jews. Their right to come home and live at peace with their neighbors is reaffirmed year after year in the United Nations; it is not debatable, it's a right that belongs to all refugees, no matter what color their skin is.
The Israeli boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement has been growing on college campuses across the country. How much traction is this movement gaining in terms of pressuring the Israeli government and its policies?
A lot. The successes are too numerous to name, but the Interfaith Peace Initiative compiled a comprehensive list of global actions to date, filling 88 pages. The number of actions has doubled since the Flotilla attacks. They include divestment by universities, churches, unions, and governmental institutions. Musicians and sports teams have refused to play in Israel. The 2005 Palestinian-led call has been endorsed by some Israeli and Jewish groups, among hundreds of others. In five years, the BDS movement against Apartheid Israel has achieved more successes than the BDS movement against Apartheid South Africa had in its first twenty years of existence. The success of these campaigns is evidenced in the mass hysteria presented in Israeli newspapers. This is seen as a great threat to the status quo, which is the goal. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." Privilege is given up only when it comes at a cost.
Many people today are referring to Israel as an apartheid state. Do you agree with this characterization and what evidence have you seen that indicates that apartheid exists in Israel?
The 1973 UN International Convention on Apartheid defines the crime of apartheid as any systematic oppression, segregation, and discrimination to maintain domination by one racial group--"demographic group,' in Israeli parlance--over another, as through denial of basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, education, movement, and nationality; torture or inhuman treatment; arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment; and "any measures designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos," the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group" or to members thereof."
The definition clearly cites crimes perpetrated by Israel both in the 1967 Occupied Territories--where the situation goes so much further that the Archbishop Desmond Tutu himself maintains that the occupation is worse than apartheid--and within the state of Israel itself. 1948 Palestinians (the descendants of the small number of Palestinians who remained in 1948 in what became Israel), aka "Palestinian citizens of Israel" (or "Israeli Arabs," which many see as an offensive title that ignores their Palestinian national and historic identity), are subject to countless discriminatory laws that deny them many of the same human rights and freedoms as their counterparts in the 1967 Occupied Territories. Although Israel calls itself a "democracy," it does not hide its determination to maintain its demographic domination of Jews over non-Jews. 1948 Palestinians are referred to as the "demographic bomb" in reference to their increasing percentage of the population due to reproduction and the emigration of many Jewish Israelis. Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman openly advocates the forced transfer of 1948 Palestinians out of Israel.
Although 1948 Palestinians are citizens of Israel, they are not "nationals," because Israel is not the state of its citizens but rather the state of the Jewish people. Palestinians were denied the right to work in dozens of jobs reserved for Israelis who have served in the Army (from which Palestinians are excluded). Additionally, 93% of the land in Israel is managed by the Israeli Lands Administration, an extension of the Jewish National Fund, rendering it either very difficult or outright impossible for non-Jews to move to. Most of this land was taken from Palestinians in 1948.
These are just a few examples of apartheid within Israel. The most comprehensive compilation I've seen documenting these cases and many more is Jonathan Cook's article, "The Unwanted Who Stayed," published by Americans for Middle East Understanding.
There is a phenomenal booklet compiled by Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions-USA summarizing a legal study by the Human Sciences Research Center of South Africa. It's called "Is Israel an Apartheid State?" and in 7.5 pages systematically goes through seemingly every one of Israel's laws that discriminate against Palestinians in the 1967 Occupied Territories as fits the crime of Apartheid (it acknowledges its limitations of not having pursued the same exploration within Israel--yet). I read examples I'd never even known about. It's very shocking and it's a great organizing tool to draw parallels compelling communities that took the step of divesting from Apartheid South Africa to do the same against Apartheid Israel today.
Peace talks are taking place as we speak in Washington DC. What aspects of these negotiations are people not seeing in the media? What kinds of context and/or issues are getting buried from stenography reporting that we're used to seeing?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
2
