 |
Olmert Compares Palestinians' Struggle to Apartheid? |
 |
In the wake of the Annapolis summit Prime Minister Ehud Olmert addressed Israelis on the dangers of allowing the conflict between their state and Palestine to continue without resolution.
"If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished," Olmert told the Israeli daily Haaretz. As justification for his comment, he pointed to the likelihood that a rift with the Pro-Israelis in the US that would result if "equal voting rights for all its [Israel's] residents" are not realized. In the process, he implied that crumbling support in the US would be the nation's undoing.
There is much to recommend his point. Without the United States as an ally, Israel's position would become more tenuous, its hostile neighbors more provocative. Without a strong political base among US citziens, politicians would have less incentive to be the staunch supporters of Israel they have historically been. A hostile, or even indifferent, stance towards Israel is currently political suicide for many Washingtonians. A significant drop in US citizens' support for Israel changes that scenario.
Nevertheless, there is a serious flaw in Olmert's line of reasoning: support for Israel is forged from much stronger ties than he acknowledges. Few would break, or, in my opinion, even waver in their support if became clear that the repression of Palestinians would continue indefinitely.
Olmert, however, has good reason to paint the picture as he does — it deflects criticism over his participation in the talks, and offers the stakes in a dramatic fashion. It is also correct, but not because a collapse of the two-state solution would erode support in the US. Rather, it would further ignite an already restive portion of the world.
The most compelling part of this statement, however, is not its truth or falsity. It lies in the analogy made.
Olmert's mention of South Africa is significant. While many pro-Palestinians have compared the apartheid of South Africa to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, I have never heard a pro-Israeli individual, let alone the Prime Minister, bring the two together so directly in the same sentence (though Olmert delicately gave a similar view in an interview four years ago, linked in the Haaretz article).
His acknowledgment that the continued repression of Palestinians may lead to a "South African-style struggle" (ie, a struggle that pits freedom vs. violent, racist oppression) prompts the question — why would the decades-old struggle change in definition with the passage of more time and the loss of the small bit of autonomy granted to the PLO through the Oslo accords?
To me, it seems an acknowledgment that there is something inherently unjust in the way Palestinians are being treated at present. A situation does not become comparable to apartheid simply by failing to achieve what has never been. It must have already, always displayed elements of the system. I am sure there are many others do not interpret the quote as I do, and many who will immediately dismiss Olmert's comments, but if one admits that Olmert's comment is germane, I see no other conclusion.
What do you think?
I think you're right in your analysis, especially about Israel's base of support in the US. Which means to me that to solve this issue, the US will have to put its support on the table, and to do that, a politician will have to take a big risk. If he or she puts support for Israel in question and then solves the problem, that is a huge victory. If not, well…
I think you're right on, though I would add statements made by Olmert at the conference also convey heartfelt acknowledgment of Palestinians' mistreatment. On the same thread, a friend (who happens to be Arab) just sent me this NY Times article by Edward Said, also anticipating the inefficacy of a two-state solution. Though it was written in 1999, it is highly topical in light of Annapolis. Said (who was of course Palestinian) states the need for Palestinian intellectuals to discuss openly with Israelis their deeply-ingrained feeling of victimhood, also pointing out some high-profile Jewish thinkers who've advocated a binational state in the past. At the end he argues that the solution may well be a post-apartheid South Africa-style reconciliation: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00EFDC143EF933A25752C 0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1