Israel Lobby Watch
\nCountdown to Apartheid
\nJeff Halper, The Electronic Intifada, 27 May 2006<\/p>\n
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert\u2019s address to both houses of Congress was perhaps the most skilled use of Newspeak since George Orwell invented the term in his novel 1984. (He had help: author and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Weisel reportedly drafted large sections of the speech.) Just as Orwell\u2019s totalitarian propagandists proclaimed WAR IS PEACE and Israeli government signs placed at the Wall (sorry, fence) at the entrance to Bethlehem greet Palestinians with the blessing PEACE BE UNTO YOU, so Olmert declared in Washington: UNILATERAL REALIGNMENT IS PEACE.
\n
\nBecause of Olmert\u2019s use of Orwellian language (can anyone, including President Bush or members of Congress, explain to us what \u201cconvergence\u201d and \u201crealignment\u201d mean?), we must listen carefully to what is said, what is not said and what is meant.<\/p>\n
What was said sounds fine if taken at face value. Olmert, extending \u201cmy hand in peace to Mahmoud Abbas, the elected president of the Palestinian Authority,\u201d declared Israel\u2019s willingness to negotiate with him on condition that the Palestinians \u201crenounce terrorism, dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, accept previous agreements and commitments, and recognize the right of Israel to exist.\u201d If they do so, Olmert held out Israel\u2019s commitment to a two-state solution.<\/p>\n
What wasn\u2019t said? While reference to a Palestinian state sounds forthcoming, two key elements set down in the Road Map defining that state were missing: an end to the Israeli Occupation and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. \u201cA settlement,\u201d says the text of the Road Map to which Olmert and Bush constantly declare their allegiance, \u201cwill result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel. The settlement will\u2026end the occupation that began in 1967.\u201d<\/p>\n
Olmert\u2019s \u201cconvergence plan\u201d (now renamed a \u201crealignment plan\u201d because it sounds better in [Newspeak] English), based on the massive \u201cfacts on the ground\u201d Israel continues to impose unilaterally with overt American support, cannot possibly give rise to a viable Palestinian state. The \u201cSeparation Barrier,\u201d which will be declared Israel\u2019s permanent \u201cdemographic border,\u201d takes 10% of the West Bank. That may not sound like much, but consider this: It incorporates into Israel the major settlement blocs (plus a half-million Israeli settlers) while carving the West Bank into a number of small, disconnected, impoverished \u201ccantons\u201d \u2013 hardly the basis for a viable state. It removes from the Palestinians their richest agricultural land and all the water.<\/p>\n
The convergence plan also creates a \u201cgreater\u201d Israeli Jerusalem over the entire central portion of the West Bank, thereby cutting the economic, cultural, religious and historic heart out of any Palestinian state. It then sandwiches the Palestinians between the Barrier\/border and yet another \u201csecurity\u201d border, the Jordan Valley, giving Israel two eastern borders. Palestinian freedom of movement of both people and goods is thus prevented into both Israel and Jordan but also internally, between the various cantons. Israel will also retain control of Palestinian airspace, the electro-magnetic sphere and even the right of a Palestinian state to conduct its own foreign policy.<\/p>\n
The Road Map, like international law regarding the end of occupations in general, also insists on a negotiated solution between the parties. Olmert made a great issue of Palestinian terrorism (playing on American sensibilities to this buzz-word), placing pre-conditions on negotiations. Israel is willing to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority, he said, of it renounces terrorism, dismantles the terrorist infrastructure, accepts previous agreements and recognizes the right of Israel to exist (a right Israel has not recognized vis-\u00e0-vis the Palestinians). What is not mentioned is Israel\u2019s Occupation which, regardless of an end to terror and negotiations, is being institutionalized and made permanent. For neithersecurity nor terrorism are really the issue; Israel\u2019s policies of annexation are based on a pro-active claim to the entire country. Virtually no element of the Occupation \u2013 the establishment of some 300 settlements, expropriation of most West Bank land, the demolition of 12,000 Palestinian homes, the uprooting of a million olive and fruit trees, the construction of a massive system of highways to link the settlements into Israel proper or the tortuous route of the Barrier deep in Palestinian territory \u2013 can be explained by security. Terrorism on all sides is wrong (let it be noted thatIsrael has killed four times more civilians than the Palestinians have), but to demand that resistance cease while an occupation is being made permanent is unconscionable.<\/p>\n
And, finally, what was meant? Apartheid. The \u201cA\u201d word was missing from Olmert\u2019s speech, of course, but the bottom line of his convergence plan is clear: the establishment of a permanent, institutionalized regime of Israeli domination over Palestinians based on separation between Jews and Arabs. Within 6-9 months, according to Olmert\u2019s timeline.Olmert may believe that Jews can succeed where Afrikaners failed, but history teaches us that in the end injustice is unsustainable. And convergence\/realignment is nothing if not manifest injustice.<\/p>\n
Jeff Halper is the Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) and a candidate, with the Palestinian peace activist Ghassan Andoni, for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. He can be reached at jeff@icahd.org.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Israel Lobby Watch Countdown to Apartheid Jeff Halper, The Electronic Intifada, 27 May 2006 Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert\u2019s address to both houses of Congress was perhaps the most skilled use of Newspeak since George Orwell invented the term in … Lees verder