- Details
-
Written by Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada
-
Category: News News
-
Published: 14 February 2009 14 February 2009
-
Last Updated: 14 February 2009 14 February 2009
-
Created: 14 February 2009 14 February 2009
-
Hits: 3423 3423
Whenever Israel has an
election, pundits begin the usual refrain that hopes for peace depend
on the "peace camp" -- formerly represented by the Labor party, but now
by Tzipi Livni's Kadima -- prevailing over the anti-peace right, led by
the Likud.
This has never been true, and makes even less sense as Israeli parties
begin coalition talks after Tuesday's election. Yes, the "peace camp"
helped launch the "peace process," but it did much more to undermine
the chances for a just settlement.
In 1993, Labor prime minister Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo accords.
Ambiguities in the agreement -- which included no mention of
"self-determination" or "independence" for Palestinians, or even
"occupation" -- made it easier to clinch a short-term deal. But
confrontation over irreconcilable expectations was inevitable. While
Palestinians hoped the Palestinian Authority, created by the accord,
would be the nucleus of an independent state, Israel viewed it as
little more than a native police force to suppress resistance to
continued occupation and colonial settlement in the West Bank and Gaza
Strip. Collaboration with Israel has always been the measure by which
any Palestinian leader is judged to be a "peace partner." Rabin,
according to Shlomo Ben-Ami, a former Israeli foreign minister, "never
thought this [Oslo] will end in a full-fledged Palestinian state." He
was right.
Throughout the "peace process," Israeli governments, regardless of who
led them, expanded Jewish-only settlements in the heart of the West
Bank, the territory supposed to form the bulk of the Palestinian state.
In the 1990s, Ehud Barak's Labor-led government actually approved more
settlement expansion than the Likud-led government that preceded it
headed by Benjamin Netanyahu.
Barak, once considered "dovish," promoted a bloodthirsty image in the
campaign, bolstered by the massacres of Gaza civilians he directed as
defense minister. "Who has he ever shot?" Barak quipped derisively
about Avigdor Lieberman, the leader of the proto-fascist Yisrael
Beitenu party, in an attempt to paint the latter as a lightweight.
Today, Lieberman's party, which beat Labor into third place, will play
a decisive role in a government. An immigrant who came to Israel from
the former Soviet republic of Moldova, Lieberman was once a member of
the outlawed racist party Kach that calls for expelling all
Palestinians.
Yisrael Beitenu's manifesto was that 1.5 million Arab Palestinian
citizens of Israel (indigenous survivors or descendants of the
Palestinian majority ethnically cleansed in 1948) be subjected to a
loyalty oath. If they don't swear allegiance to the "Jewish state" they
would lose their citizenship and be forced from the land of their
birth, joining millions of already stateless Palestinians in exile or
in Israeli-controlled ghettos. In a move instigated by Lieberman but
supported by Livni's allegedly "centrist" Kadima, the Knesset recently
voted to ban Arab parties from participating in elections. Although the
high court overturned it in time for the vote, it is an ominous sign of
what may follow.
Lieberman, who previously served as deputy prime minister, has a long
history of racist and violent incitement. Prior to Israel's recent
attack, for example, he demanded Israel subject Palestinians to the
brutal and indiscriminate violence Russia used in Chechyna. He also
called for Arab Knesset members who met with officials from Hamas to be
executed.
But it's too easy to make him the bogeyman. Israel's narrow political
spectrum now consists at one end of the former "peace camp" that never
halted the violent expropriation of Palestinian land for Jewish
settlements and boasts with pride of the war crimes in Gaza, and at the
other, a surging far-right whose "solutions" vary from apartheid to
outright ethnic cleansing.
What does not help is brazen western hypocrisy. Already the US State
Department spokesman affirmed that the Obama administration would work
with whatever coalition emerged from Israel's "thriving democracy" and
promised that the US would not interfere in Israel's "internal
politics." Despite US President Barack Obama's sweet talk about a new
relationship with the Arab world, few will fail to notice the double
standard. In 2006, Hamas won a democratic election in the occupied
territories, observed numerous unilateral or agreed truces that were
violated by Israel, offered Israel a generation-long truce to set the
stage for peace, and yet it is still boycotted by the US and European
Union.
Worse, the US sponsored a failed coup against Hamas and continues to
arm and train the anti-Hamas militias of Mahmoud Abbas, whose term as
Palestinian Authority president expired on 9 January. As soon as he
took office, Obama reaffirmed this boycott of Palestinian democracy.
The clearest message from Israel's election is that no Zionist party
can solve Israel's basic conundrum and no negotiations will lead to a
two-state solution. Israel could only be created as a "Jewish state" by
the forced removal of the non-Jewish majority Palestinian population.
As Palestinians once again become the majority in a country that has
defied all attempts at partition, the only way to maintain Jewish
control is through ever more brazen violence and repression of
resistance (see Gaza). Whatever government emerges is certain to
preside over more settlement-building, racial discrimination and
escalating violence.
There are alternatives that have helped end what once seemed like
equally intractable and bloody conflicts: a South African-style
one-person one-vote democracy, or Northern Ireland-style power-sharing.
Only under a democratic system according rights to all the people of
the country will elections have the power to transform people's futures.
But Israel today is lurching into open fascism. It is utterly
disingenuous to continue to pretend -- as so many do -- that its failed
and criminal leaders hold the key to getting out of the morass. Instead
of waiting for them to form a coalition, we must escalate the
international civil society campaign of boycott, divestment and
sanctions to force Israelis to choose a saner path.
Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah is author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse (Metropolitan Books, 2006). A version of this article first appeared on the Guardian's Comment is Free website with the headline "No peace for Israel."