Uncertain Outcomes: The Israeli-Palestine Question

I focus our attention to a brilliant article by Jim Miles, who is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of opinion pieces and book reviews to the website, Palestine Chronicle. Miles "interest" in the Israel-Palestine issue originated in environmentalism, "which encompasses the militarization and economic subjugation of the global community and its co-modification by corporate governance and by the American government." The opening paragraph is an epiphany, where his work on "examining the various landscapes", led him towards an "advocacy position of Palestinian rights", a position that is similar to one that I encumbered, although not quite so indirect such as his. It's amazing how this conflict touches upon not just Jews, Arabs, Americans but others not connected personally to the region (like myself), and also manages to ring the bell for others seeking justice of even a different plane altogether. It does make one feel more optimistic that there is a light at the end of the Israeli oppression.

The first section is a great inside look at how central the Israeli-Palestine Question is to most conflicts in the news today. Miles also examines the ethnic cleansing, the continuation of annexation of Palestinian lands, the settlements, a book review of Abuminah's One Country - A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse, as well as the meddling of American foreign policy and its effects, a debate by an advocate of One-State against a Two-Stater, and the plausibility of either solution (which I also examined earlier). In it, the examples of Northern Ireland and South Africa are upheld as a paradigm for future models of the Israel-Palestine conundrum. Are we ready for this long fight for a state for all its citizens? I quote Miles,

"While chances at the moment seem highly improbable, the goal, the vision, the possibility needs to be maintained, for its own end, and also to guard against the bleak view of seeing only a prison landscape. A better world is possible and while it may be well over the horizon at the moment, the hope for it needs to be maintained."

Uncertain Outcomes: The Israeli-Palestine Question

By Jim Miles

After 9/11, 2001, when I first started examining the various landscapes – physical, political, cultural, military – of events relating to that day, I had no real idea that it would lead me into an advocacy position of Palestinian rights, but everything about the American empire at the time pointed towards Israel and Palestine as the then current focal point of the majority of the Middle East, European, and Asian political problems. I had long been familiar with American arrogance and patriotic jingoism, with its various wars of suppression supposedly in the name of protecting the free world from communism, with its corporate mentality as witnessed by the failed Multilateral Agreement on Investments as supported by the World Trade Organization and others in the group of the Washington Consensus, and with its military supremacy, its phoney antagonism to communism, but most notable in its formidable yet essentially unusable nuclear arsenal. I had a lot of the pieces for the puzzle, but had not put them together into a coherent framework. When that framework did materialize and I was able to see the big picture quite distinctly – yet still with puzzle pieces missing – Palestine-Israel appeared to be the central focus. There are many other nuances in different areas of the globe, but the central feature remained Israel and the Middle East.

Now with events in Iraq and Afghanistan becoming predominant within the newscasts, Israel-Palestine has not seemed to be central to the picture. Unfortunately it still is, as the Zionist lobby in America has the ear – and foremost its wallets – of many Americans in its thrall, and those same groups are now clamouring for an attack on Iran because of Iran’s alleged desire to completely destroy Israel and Israel’s self-willed fear of Iranian nuclear power. Regardless of that global centrality, even if it were not there, the question of what will happen in Israel-Palestine remains.

That basic Palestinian-Israeli question relates to what will be the ultimate kind of country that rises from the current conflict. The ‘status quo’ has never held the same within Palestine-Israel except for the one factor of the power dominance of the Israelis in most aspects of life over the Palestinian people. The geographical situation has changed over time: from the initial Jewish immigrants; the rebellions against the British by both the Palestinians and the Jews; through the sudden and swift changes forced by the nakba and twenty years later the Six Day War (or the naksah); to the gradual and seemingly inexorable pace of settlement colonies in the occupied territories. It has seen government structures within Palestine grow and develop, from a relatively unconstituted state of subjection by conquest to an acceptance of the PLO as the Palestinian representatives, the creation of the Palestinian Authority, and finally the democratic victory of Hamas denied and subverted by everyone caught out on the weak limb of their own democratic discourse. Still the question lingers as there have been no political settlements, only vague negotiations for future status, roadmaps that lead nowhere, and ‘horizons’ that do as all horizons do by simply retreating as the searcher advances. The question remains. What will be the outcome of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?

It is obvious that the current situation will not remain that way for long. Events within and outside the area both provide momentum towards some kind of change towards some kind of settled outcome, of which there are several, some kind, some not.

Ethnic Cleansing

The worst possible scenario, the most repugnant of the choices, is that of genocide/ethnic cleansing. While few actually advocate this, the refrain is still evident in some Israeli voices. And while few actually advocate measures that would apply ethnic cleansing in one grand large gesture, it could be argued that most of the events that have occurred in Palestine-Israel over the past half-century are in essence a prolonged form of ethnic cleansing. The UN “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” states that genocide “is a crime under international law” which involves various acts “with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such.” Of the five acts listed in Article Two the first three are apparent within Palestine-Israel: “(a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” Along with genocide, Article Three finds punishable, “(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide” [1] Obviously there will be arguments and rationales from the Israelis about defence of their country and the fight against terrorism, but the overall presentation of information coming largely from Jewish revisionist scholarship is that if the above three parameters are applied to Israel, then they are participating in genocide/ethnic cleansing. [2]

Even before the nakba the Zionist plan included settlements placed intermittently within the Palestinian population to prevent and block a contiguous Palestinian geographic area. The nakba provided a focus in which over five hundred Palestinian villages and towns were destroyed quickly and ‘efficiently’, if terror, murder and expulsion can be considered ‘efficient’. After the 1967 Six Day War colonial settlements became the norm again, continuing the earlier Zionist plans to split the Palestinian areas into non-functional territories surrounded by a Jewish state. Certainly there have been incidents of killing, either in groups as with Tantura, Jenin, Sabra, and Shatilla or within the ongoing IDF interventions during either of the intifadas or as basic ongoing crime and punishment within the daily lives of the occupied Palestinian territories.

To date this settlement pattern has been successful for the Jewish state as the majority of Palestinians reside in small non-contiguous areas, many cut off from their former agricultural areas, water sources, cultural centres, and employment, having to communicate on back roads threaded under and around roads preserved for Jews only. The situation within these bantustan style cantonments very deliberately inflicts “conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” with the Israeli voice expressing the idea that hopefully conditions will be made so miserable that the Palestinians will “choose” to leave. This ‘status quo’ will not remain; the pressures are much too great. Gaza is essentially an immense outdoor prison camp; the Westbank is divided up into three small areas, none of which have any control over any aspect of what could be considered state-hood, except when acting as proxies for the Israelis.

Guarding a series of prison-based cantonments is not a viable means of achieving peace for the region, nor of establishing a democratic state. While the situation with Iran remains tenuous, the direction that Israel will take is also uncertain, and while I am loathe to enter into conjecture about the future, an Iranian ‘venture’ on the part of Israel or the U.S. could open up the path to more severe and impulsive genocide/ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population.

While genocide/ethnic cleansing is an illegal and morally repugnant manner to have a final outcome (especially in consideration of the Jewish trauma from their own holocaust), the path to the other two main solutions are also highly problematic, although much more favourably arguable from a moral-legal perspective. Those two aspects, first the “two state” outcome, secondly the “democratic state for all the peoples” outcome, will require enormous efforts by both sides to make them agreeable, and while not everyone can be satisfied, the majority would hopefully improve the lot of both groups such that peace and a healthy social-cultural-political interaction could grow between the parties.

Yankee Go Home

The path would be made much easier if one of the main protagonists would simply ‘butt out’. For while there are two cultures, two identities trying to achieve a peaceful home, it is compounded by a third group that is there only for the fortune of political and geostrategic considerations – the Americans, who really do not care about the Palestinians at all and are only supportive of Israel for their grand strategy towards the Middle East. To a lesser but still influential sector, the American Christian right simply wants the Jews to succeed and fulfill Christian prophecy so that they can come in afterwards and establish their own Christian kingdom. A further complicating factor is the Jewish lobby, most highly recognized under the acronym AIPAC, but extending into many more organizations and operations that influence American politics. Even with full and open ended approval of the Bush administration, the Israelis have not progressed to a Palestinian final settlement as expressed above, perhaps recognizing deep down the complete moral contradiction that would have in light of their own history; or perhaps as they recognize that the moral force behind the situation has turned against the use of more explicit violence and relocation, they hesitate to do so unless conditions become suddenly more catastrophic. One of my favourite refrains, “yankee go home”, would not solve the situation but would facilitate - given other appropriate conditions – a more equal dialogue between the two identities.

The American-Israeli relationship is a tenuous symbiotic one with the Israeli government relying heavily on American military and financial subsidies along with the political support. American aid, mostly in the form of military aid, is generally calculated to be around the three billion dollar mark per year [3], with much of that going into military research that is then exported around the world. This constitutes one third of American foreign aid and makes up about seven per cent of the Israeli annual budget and supports an Israeli per capita income of twenty-six thousand eight hundred dollars [4]. Going the other way, AIPAC exerts great pressure within the U.S. electoral system with its ability to target legislators with financial assistance or conversely with electoral challenges. Arguments swirl around the two as to who has the most significant impact over the other, but regardless of that, the reality for others is of a double-headed monster threatening the countries and cultures of the Middle East.

I realize the likelihood of the duo self-extracting themselves from this relationship is minimal, making the chances of a successful resolution that is acceptable to both sides equally unlikely. It would require a politician/statesman of enormous personal presence – or maybe even enormous skills at subterfuge to get around his or her compatriots – in order to separate the two. However other peoples have resolved their problems, not perfectly, but at least beginnings towards peace and reconciliation have been made and the killings and subjugation of other peoples has been significantly diminished.

Israel, by it sheer military power, could readily prevail in the Middle East without U.S. support. The Arab governments are not united behind Palestine and never have been. Jordan has always played the geostrategic game to its advantage, never being a vociferous voice against Israeli atrocities or occupation, nor challenging or threatening in any way militarily. Saudi Arabia is much closer in its ties to the Americans than it is to the U.S. Egypt pursued and achieved peace with Israel, again with massive U.S. foreign aid ($2 billion per year) under a non-democratic government. Lebanon is so torn apart by its own internal factions that it will never be a threat to Israel other than that Israel seems to want the territory up to the Litani River, a mainly Shiite area mixed up with Palestinian refugees, natural antagonists to Israeli desires. Syria has never seriously threatened Israel and the recent incursion by Israeli jets, while still not fully understood as to its full strategic significance, does indicate an Israeli ability and readiness to intrude freely on their air space. Without the U.S., Israel would be able to defend itself against any regional challengers.

That would lead to the conclusion that Israel derives moral support and perhaps even moral ‘diversion’ for its actions in Palestine, while the world in general foments about the imperial hubris of the U.S. as it attacks various countries for its own strategic interests (control of oil, containment of China and Russia being foremost). The U.S. gains a military protégé that is capable of supporting its strategic efforts under the guise of a ‘war on terror’, provides intelligence information, and may or may not accompany the U.S. on an attack on Iran. The combination is lethal and in the short term makes a peaceful settlement in Israel-Palestine remote at the present, but the effort still needs to be put forward as to what that eventual outcome could be.

Two State or One State?

Regardless of the U.S. role, the two identities involved have several levels of definition for what will eventually become of whatever form of co-existence is imposed or chosen. Ethnic cleansing is still a possibility as discussed above. The remaining solutions concern the central idea of a two state or one state solution, with the two state solution carrying within itself several possibilities. The one state solution is obviously a singularity, but the internal workings of such a state could have many possible permutations.

Canada’s CBC Radio talk show “The Current” recently hosted two authors, Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian refugee and American educated founder of The Electronic Intifada, and Akiva Eldar, a Ha’aretz diplomatic affairs correspondent. [5] The two duelled verbally about their respective ideas, Abunimah favouring the single state, Eldar supporting the two state idea.

Abunimah spoke first, arguing that a government was needed that represented the population of 11 million Arab and Jewish people, to provide “protection for all the communities” with “equal rights”. His view of the current situation is that of a reality “intertwined and inseparable on the ground.”

Eldar started by saying the situation had “nothing to do with religion” but with “national and personal identity” and insisted the one state solution was “not doable”. He continued saying that “most Palestinians I know” support him and “after one hundred years of animosity, we need a good divorce lawyer.” “If we wait any longer,” he said, “we’ll find ourselves in a one state and it’s going to be hell.”

Abunimah, by far the stronger and more eloquent of the two speakers, insisted “We’re already in a one state solution, there’s a fallacy that we have two separate states or entities. The fact that the Israeli government alone decides whether people in Gaza eat or drink, have light or darkness, is a clear indication that there is one government.” He continued his argument along ethnic lines, saying “Right now it is a purely sectarian state, a Jewish sectarian state where just as in Northern Ireland you had a sectarian Protestant state and they’ve found there that total victory of one side or the other was impossible….The only solution was power sharing, and if you think a one state solution in Palestine-Israel is impossible, go to Belfast” where the shared government “between Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party…is the political equivalent of a Hamas-Likud coalition.” Current events, he stated, are “leading to the destruction of both peoples. It’s time for something new.”

Eldar argued that Israeli-Arabs did not want to leave the Israeli state if given the choice to move to the occupied territories, to which Abunimah replied, “Of course Palestinian citizens of Israel don’t want to leave, why should they? It’s their country, they were born there, but what they are agitating for is….converting Israel from an ethnic Jewish state which gives special and better rights to Jews into a democracy of all its citizens.”

When Eldar started to discuss the Jewish settlers in the occupied territories, Abunimah had to interrupt to get him to agree that one had to include the settlers in Jerusalem in the total. Eldar argued that by removing 50-70 000 of the settlers that a two state situation could be accomplished. Abunimah’s counter argument derided both these aspects, “First of all, how can you exclude Jerusalem? Jerusalem is at the centre of this conflict….he is saying only ten to twelve per cent, fifty to seventy thousand, would leave. A Palestinian state with half a million settlers implanted in the middle of it is a bantustan as in the South African model and that’s why the Camp David accords failed, it wasn’t because of this myth that Arafat rejected a generous offer, it was because Palestinians understood that what they were being offered is a South African style Bantustan.” Arguing that while Israel “is increasingly being recognized as an apartheid state…the solution…is not more partition and apartheid, it is to start to bring the people together in a situation where they have equal rights and protections.”

Eldar’s response, “is a one state solution doable? Israel is a democracy…” became entangled in both participants trying to over talk each other, with clarity returning when Eldar argued that the “right of return” was “another non-starter”. Abunimah riposted quite vociferously, “What is a non-starter for you, it seems Akiva, with all due respect, is anything that approaches equality among all human beings regardless.”

The show host, Anna Maria Tremonti, closed off by asking, “What do you do? What happens?” When the two began overtaking each other, Abunimah again grabbed the lead, talking pointedly at Eldar’s phrase that it is “just the bottom line is different.” Abunimah responded, “The bottom line is equality and whether you can live with it and it sounds to me like you’re not ready but what we are talking about is the equality between Israel as a superpower and Gaza which Israel cuts electricity and water off from, that’s not equality."

“That’s wrong,” agreed Eldar.

“That’s a bantustan,” Abunimah added a qualification.

“A one state solution is a non-starter because most of the Israelis will not accept it so we are wasting our time discussing it,” Eldar continued.

“Most Israelis don’t accept a two state solution….”

“No that’s not true…”

…and the bell rang to end the round.

Lords of the Land

From this radio discussion, the weight of common sense argument and clarity of argument would have to ride in Abunimah’s favour, and it prompted me to go buy both author’s most recent books to see how their positions were represented within.

Akiva Eldar’s most recent work, co-authored with Idith Zertal, is Lords of the Land – The War Over Israel’s Settlements in the Occupied Territories, 1967-2007 (Nation Books, New York, 2005, 2007). Eldar takes a very negative view of the settlement process that he examines within the years indicated within the title. He recognizes them as being illegal, with his chapter that discusses the issue “analyzes the legalization [legitimation?] of the basic illegality of the civilian Jewish presence in the occupied territories.” Further, while arguing over the legality perspective he ironically supports Abunimah’s contention that there is already only one state, that by “Imposing Israeli judicial authority on the territories, and in thus expanding the authority of the Israeli courts beyond the boundaries of the State of Israel, the army in effect annexed the territories.” Because the inhabitants had no other recourse, they were “coerced….to recognize, whether they wanted to or not, this legal annexation and the authority of the Israeli judiciary system over them.” In full contradiction to what he tried to say to Abunimah on “The Current” he concludes, “This single act also rendered the state of Israel and the territories a single [emphasis added] judiciary-political entity, blurring the borders of June 4, 1967.” The actions of the courts “eventually afforded the highest legal and moral seal of approval to Israel’s ruthless occupation in the territories.” At least for my way of thinking, he is in agreement with Abunimah, that there currently is only one state, “intertwined and inseparable,” legally, politically, and geographically.

For the most part, the book is an excellent guide to a standard political style history of the development of the settlements. To their credit the authors find the process both legally and morally reprehensible. Their view of the future, should the settlement patterns continue, “will lead Israel along a sure path to more disputes, more hatred, and more bereavement.” Consistent with the interview, Israel is seen as a democratic state. Eldar’s two state solution, whether supported by Zertal or not, supports for the Palestinians the “non-starter” of not recognizing the settlements that are effectively annexing Arab Jerusalem, and another “non-starter” the denial of the right of return to Palestinian refugees and diaspora.

A two state solution has many permutations, from the prison-like to the relatively autonomous. If the current situation were stabilized ‘unilaterally’ there would still be much division and separation, with minimal access to other areas, and minimal control of access and egress. Some voices have considered a Jordanian partner to help ‘govern’ the bantustans, a form of governance that would be fraught with difficulty, and still provide only a nominal autonomy – without independence – and a nominal democracy – the kind imposed by an external controlling power.

The wall, presented as a defence against terrorists, and as a boundary to enclose settlements within Israel, may be presented unilaterally as a new boundary between Palestinians and Israelis. But as best described by Roger Lieberman a graduate student at Rutgers University, a unilateral declaration of the wall as a boundary creates a situation where “The economic havoc wreaked by the Wall and hundreds of checkpoints is seen by many hawkish Zionists as the most “practical” means of carrying out ethnic cleansing.” That perspective is compared to the Golan Heights where “depopulation, colonization, and annexation – is what a substantial and dangerous segment of the Israeli body politic (along with its enablers in America) has long had in mind for the West Bank.” According to Lieberman the Golan Heights serves as a demonstration as to the efficacy of “how Israeli unilateralism effectively erased a substantial Arab community in the Levant without many people in the outside world taking notice and protesting.”[6] The wall, and a two state outcome based on it, would not provide a long-term stable structure. The added complication of the Gaza Strip and how it would fit into the arrangement seriously compromises any two state solution at this level.

The most advanced and probably only truly viable acceptable form of a two state solution would be the withdrawal of the Jewish people to the green line, including the areas of East Jerusalem they have annexed and the diplomatic-legal unification with Gaza Strip. The return of the Jordan Valley to Palestinian control would be a good part of this arrangement. While Israel cries ‘fear’ for its security, Jordan has proven consistently that it has no true aggressive stance towards Israel and has been very accommodating in maintaining a peaceful neutrality with its Jewish neighbour. While all this in itself represents a major concession on the part of the Palestinians in consideration of the land occupied and destroyed in the nakba and its aftermath, it could present a ‘realpolitik’ outcome to the current situation.

When there was a tentative agreement reached in 1993, many Palestinians thought, “that this unprecedented historic compromise, though bitter, was necessary. Those who rejected the creation of a state limited to the Westbank and Gaza Strip…were relegated to the margins of the Palestinian movement.[7]” That the Israeli government was only interested in investing in more time to settle more territory became apparent not too much later.

It is the “enablers in America” combined with the ongoing perception of all options being “non-starters” that makes this argument academic today, yet at the same time essential. For while there are many non-starters, and many negative enablers, possibilities do exist and need to be kept up front where the moral and legal weight of the rest of the world can perhaps impose some form of saner view on the situation.

One Country

Ali Abunimah’s book, One Country – A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse, is consistent with his arguments on “The Current”. Before discussing the one state outcome, he provides a well-written precis of events leading from the nakba to the present. It is readily accessible, combining anecdotal material with a clearly delineated sequence of events. Throughout it all he remains consistent with his message of democratic and human rights principles for all people. There is not really too much force behind his arguments until later in the book: his arguments are rational and academically sound, but seem to be just that, academic in the face of the real situation on the ground. But then he enters his discussion on South African apartheid and quickly demonstrates that this is more than purely an academic argument, that if the situation in South Africa - very similar to the one in Israel, from the warring occupiers fighting against the British and then trying to dominate and exclude the indigenous population – can be changed so dramatically, then there is a very real possibility that the same could happen in Israel-Palestine.

Abunimah begins this section with several recognizable arguments: first that the Africans and Arabs are seen as uncivilized peoples whose resistance to domination is irrational and motivated by hatred (the White Man’s Burden again); secondly, the Zionist and Afrikaners “responded to resistance” by “rhetorically reversing the colonial relationship, claiming that they…were the true indigenous people; and that neither the Afrikaner nor Zionist would have gained control “without the benefit of British power, which crushed and deligitimized indigenous resistance on their behalf.”

Abunimah defines two points of time in which the academic argument could become a viable reality. First is the “hope held out by South Africa…that when Israelis and Palestinians finally do conclude that separation is unachievable, there is an example of an alternative to perpetual conflict.” Similarly, when “Israelis and Palestinians commit themselves to full equality, there is no rationale for separate states.” Abunimah outlines several points as to how the unified government could sort out its binational, democratic, equal rights self. Hamas, much to the consternation of many, receives support as being the best group to lead any Palestinian identity within a unified state partly as they “have shown little inclination to implement far-reaching social changes along religious lines,” and have genuinely acted at the democratic people’s level, “while remaining remarkably open to peaceful coexistence with Israelis.”

The one state solution, while enviable as presented in the manner done by Abunimah, is far from being a timely proposal. As with South Africa, the two combatants would need to arrive at similar positions of recognizing that ongoing violence will do neither side any good. There are obviously huge obstacles, ranging from American involvement to the current insistence on the part of the Israelis that the Palestinians are terrorists, their state is fully democratic, and that their conquest of the land is a god given right. It will take some time, some significant about face in political ideology, to realize any stable outcome within Palestine-Israel.

There is a Way Forward

Current prospects are dim for any actual settled, peaceful outcome in which human rights and democracy are basic to whatever the final arrangement would be. Still in a state of tension, magnified by American threats and occupations elsewhere in the Middle East, no settlement is likely to be found soon. There are three over-riding possible outcomes to the Israeli-Palestine problem: bantustan style cantonments; a two state solution of some kind; or a one state solution of some form.

The status quo may deteriorate further into the unacceptable and repugnant form of prison-like cantonments. There may be an imposed ‘agreement’ based on the current wall outlines and the current settlement patterns in the West Bank and Jerusalem, with Gaza complicating that arrangement. How does one reintegrate a ‘hostile entity’ of ones own creation into a Palestinian ‘autonomous’ territory? A withdrawal to the Green Line would more than likely prove acceptable to the majority of Palestinians, reluctantly, bitterly, perhaps necessary.

The one state solution, from an academic human rights – democratic argument is most strongly and effectively argued by Abunimah and has the examples of Ireland (as in the radio discussion) and South Africa (as well-defined in his book) to work with. Obviously, from the way this presentation is worded, I, at the moment, favour Abunimah’s one state solution as the most significant humanitarian, egalitarian, and democratic manner into which the situation would hopefully evolve. It will not be an easy road to follow for either side as both have their internal factions to deal with as well as having external geopolitical interests imposing themselves upon the area. There are also many, many areas – religion, right of return for both groups, education, social structures and support, national and regional governance to name a few - that would need significant discussion and cooperation to facilitate a one state rapprochement. While chances at the moment seem highly improbable, the goal, the vision, the possibility needs to be maintained, for its own end, and also to guard against the bleak view of seeing only a prison landscape. A better world is possible and while it may be well over the horizon at the moment, the hope for it needs to be maintained.

A New Chapter in the Boycott Campaign

By Joshua Alzona

On a Saturday afternoon, in the picturesque season of fall on a corner that is typically awash with smugness and affluence, pedestrians and would-be consumers were met with a slightly askew version of a flyer handout in front of the biggest bookstore franchise in Canada. One by one, they all slip through the sidewalk traffic, many doing their best just to ignore what's facing them, while the rest attempt to scoot on nonchalantly in a vain hope that this stranger might miss the opportunity to give them a little piece of paper, dismissing this as something of little importance on a typical weekend walk downtown. But it's not just any old theme. It's altogether more provocative.

I joined the monthly picket against the Chapters/Indigo corporation organised by the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid. Upon my arrival, there was no sign of the picket slowing down. A squad car accompanied by a couple of police officers were keeping a close watch just in case us "lefties" went nuts, but there was nothing to be worried about. (In CAIA's email, they mentioned that it was the picketers who needed protection from some Zionists who were a little too belligerent in their defense of Israel, verbally, of course.) Nothing too ominous, no loud chants, only a couple of signs, and by CAIA's email, a total of ten activists rallied to show support.

The CAIA campaign against Chapters/Indigo is directed at two the owners, Heather Reisman and Gerry Schwartz, who "established a fund called Heseg - Foundation for Lone Soldiers". The Heseg Foundation is a subsidiary of the Israel military, which enables those who have no family ties to Israel but express the desire to enlist in the IDF to fulfill this wish aka "lone soldier". According to CAIA, the owners can donate up to" $3 million a year to provide scholarships and other support" to the IDF and its offshoots. These soldiers participate in any IDF activity, whether it be manning checkpoints, being on board in the incursions in the Occupied Territories, and destroying Palestinian houses (all in a day's business for an IDF soldier).

I was made aware of CAIA through an article by Sue Ferguson. In it, she depicts the birth of a new movement in its infancy, but one that may not be kept in the shadows for much longer. Ferguson already attests that the boycott campaign against Israel is fast gaining merit in many circles and that this is another cog in the machine that could tear down Israel's continued oppression of the Palestinians.

"The moment, say activists, is ripe for action. The ever-intensifying strife in the West Bank and Gaza reminds the world almost daily of the international community’s failure to hammer out a workable peace accord... On the ground, the BDS campaign is simmering, both in Canada and abroad, where it focuses on academic links to Israeli universities, supermarkets selling Israeli produce, and mining, telecommunications and other hi-tech companies with links to Israel."

Ferguson also chronicles the current campaign against Chapters/Indigo, and how it is definitely getting people's attention, and that the owners have reason to worry (and call the police when there is a picket in town). "Regular protests now take place at the Toronto store and Indigo or Chapters outlets in Montreal, Vancouver, Victoria and Halifax." In Toronto, at the heart of downtown and in front of the biggest Chapters store, there is a weekly picket every Friday afternoon, banded together with another dissident group the Jewish Women's Committee Against the Occupation. And monthly, the protests is situated at different locales in the Greater Toronto Area in the hopes of spreading this message to a wider audience.

Stationed at a corner blocking the McDonald's entry, myself and Saeed, bearing the Palestinian flag, position ourselves to bear the traffic heading at us in both directions. "Boycott Chapters and Israeli Apartheid" is our main slogan. Most just continue with their faux conversations and convenient cell phone calls and move on to cross the street (only to be met by more activists in the eastern and northern side of Bloor). A car stops to asks Saeed what flag he was holding, and then speeds off when he gets the answer. Another erroneously corrects me that it is meant to have three stars in the middle stripe. I see a few people carrying a Chapters bag and accompanying it is the CAIA flyer. I also see it as a potential disposal on plenty of others. Maybe they can go on ignoring what just happened here.

"We know we're not going to bring down Chapters," says Andrew, the co-ordinator of the picket. "It's more of a symbolic measure." And the strategy does work. Chapters is one of the biggest names in Canada, and by targeting such a large company, controversy will follow. The more we press, the more pressure will build against the biggest book retailer in the country. But Andrew and CAIA is realistic: their campaign to boycott Chapters is not going to make Reisman and Schwartz bankrupt but rather bring the message that people won't stand for their support of crimes against humanity.

Upon uttering the two words, a young woman stopped dead in her tracks and questions abruptly "What?! Chapters?" The pamphlet was discussed for many minutes and she expressed an interest in knowing about such matters. The big name target strategem was already a success. She expressed solidarity and was aghast that the owners of Chapters could be responsible for such a transgression.

Many were receptive and a select few did take a few minutes to question what all the fuss was about. Not all gave support but all did leave rethinking what shopping at Chapters might ensue.

Apartheid by Any Other Name

The battle against Israel is not met without any backlash and today was no different. Although not new to the scene of activism, it is the first event that I participated in that could have certain repurcussions equivalent to slander. The typical slur was muttered by a tiny few but it is those few that I find myself questioning over and over, despite at the success of the entire afternoon. They may be the minority but it is the reactionary that really perplexes me and I could minimise their problem with my presence and the boycott: Apartheid.

The use of the term has not been given a warm welcome and those who stand by it are given the lynching by Israel's supporters. "Anti-Semitic dribble" mouthed one lady in her forties. Another repeated a slight variation of the previous invective. A couple of boos here and there. Of course, not one wanted to stay and discuss their objection; they merely wanted to say what they had to say and strut along on their lovely high horse believing what they did was for the greater good, how they put myself and us "lefties" in our place for having the temerity to stand up against Israel. If they had of stuck around, or even glanced at the pamphlet and then maybe we could have made some progress but alas, it was not to be. Saeed tells me that that reaction "does not even hold water anymore". But I start to dwell on the defamation game.

"You can't call it Apartheid. If you are for Palestinian rights, then so be it but calling it Apartheid is wrong. This is slander," expressed one older fellow. Slander to whom sir? South Africa or Israel? Sadly he also didn't stay, opting to jet off to his next rendezous.

It matters not that many South Africans have given credence to the apartheid comparison. Archbishop Desmond Tutu is getting blacklisted because of such a claim. Jimmy Carter published a book with the word in the title describing the debacle in the Occupied Territories while some say Carter didn't go far enough and that Israeli Jews are also its victim. And the issue of apartheid is a lively debate in the Knesset and in the Israeli press. It seems the only place that it is not accepted is around our continent. How about the Jewish publication Forward, doing its best to undermine the analogy, still states that "there are similarities between the lives of Palestinians under Israeli occupation and those of black South Africans under apartheid. Indeed, in certain respects, the conditions Palestinians face are arguably even worse." This is a paper this home to none other than Alan Dershowitz, Israel's prime apologist.

Sure, one can nitpick and say it's not exactly the same. But since when is any comparison exactly the same? In the words of Ari Shavit, an Israeli journalist,

"The associations are too strong. Like a believer whose faith is cracking, I go over and over again in my mind the long list of arguments, the list of differences. But then I realize [...] that the problem is not in the similarity--for no one can seriously think that there is a real similarity--but that there isn't enough lack of similarity. The problem is that the lack of similarity isn't strong enough to silence once and for all the evil echoes, the accusing images."

As long as there is more similarities than differences, or the similarities resemble Apartheid a little too strongly, then the analogy will not die. (Shavit was comparing it to Nazism rather than apartheid.) Besides, "BDS campaigners do not claim Israel is an exact replica of apartheid South Africa," states Sue Ferguson. Andrew and I were in agreement that the use of apartheid is leaned more towards provocation than perfect comparison. It is designed to create a "buzz".

"For most it was their first exposure to the boycott and the concept of Israeli apartheid." Yes, the similarities are there and with this comparison, people can connect the segregation policy of South Africa in the past and Israel today. We did not stand for apartheid South Africa so we hope that they will not stand for an Israeli-version of apartheid, which some do state is much worse because Palestinians do not contribute to the Israeli economy.

"Separate development", "functionally separated", "ghettoisation" instead "bantustanisation", it seems we're willing to name the Palestinian plight anything but apartheid despite the realities that sees them isolated in enclaves, encircled by roadblocks, checkpoints and "security" wall, prohibited from using highways reserved for Jews. A list of restrictions imposed on Palestinians ONLY is extensive. If this doesn't qualify to be compared to apartheid, then what can be? Tony Karon expresses the duplicity of those who defend the indefensible:

"But the logic of suggesting it is 'racist' to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa is simply bizarre. What if Israel objectively behaves like apartheid South Africa? What then?"

And if it wasn't enough that Carter and Tutu say it...

What about those Israelis themselves? Bloody anti-Semites, the lot of them. Here's a nice post thanks to Mark Elf at Jews Sans Frontieres:

"Ha'aretz has editorialised that Israel has so 'normalised' the occupation that the state that has segregated Jews from Arabs since it's inception is 'becoming' an apartheid state."

The cat's out of the bag. Even an Jewish newspaper like Forward is not immune to the analogy of South Africa:

"Sure, there are similarities between the lives of Palestinians under Israeli occupation and those of black South Africans under apartheid. Indeed, in certain respects, the conditions Palestinians face are arguably even worse. But while the Palestinians’ circumstances may resemble those once faced by blacks in South Africa, the apartheid analogy ignores crucial context for why this is the case."

Elf says it best:

"The zionist movement never wanted the whole of Palestine but the Arabs goaded them into taking it all and more. And black South Africans never resisted apartheid by force of arms and were rewarded with the legal equality they have today. Except I ought to remind those on whom irony is lost, that the ANC did wage an armed struggle against apartheid and Nelson Mandela spent as long as he did in prison because he refused to renounce the armed struggle. And what did Lenni Brenner say? Forward is backward. He wasn't wrong."

In Between the Improbable and Impossible

Blockading the One-State and Two-State Solutions
By Joshua Alzona

In the wake of the Six-Day War, the blueprint of two states living side-by-side has been the accepted solution to effectively settle the Israel/Palestine conflict and begin a rapprochement between the two. It is also the solution dictated by the mainstream Middle Eastern policy players and amongst most intellectuals today. Israel's intransigence, an occupation that is ubiquitous to Palestinians, its violation of human rights and chronic defiance of international law, is accelerating the downfall of the Two-State Solution. But the potentiality, or lack there of, that Israel would concede anything to implement a Palestinian state has left many to abandon the Two-State Solution in favour of the idealistic One-State Solution, a binational state for all citizens regardless of ethnicity.

The left is fragmented on which solution to support. Some are adamant that the Two-State Solution is the more pragmatic approach. Others are fixed that Israel will not ever grant the Palestinians a state of their own. Both sides make compelling cases. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, they are left stuck in the middle. So which one should we advocate?

Two States for One People

The Two-State Solution (TSS) is a more sober presentation between the two to be realised in the distant future. Dating back to the aftermath of the 1967 War, the commitment to Zionism had blocked any proposal to have a state called Palestine consisting of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (22% of original Palestine, instead of 45% under the UN Partition). The window of opportunity for a genuine peace based on territorial swap for recognition of existence was shut quickly as Israel proceeded to pursue what they felt was not completed back in 1948: the imposition of Eretz Israel. Plundering villages and plains in the area meant for a Palestinian state and erecting Jewish settlements in its place has frozen the possibility of a genuine peace which may have actualised after the debilitating loss on the Arab Nation forty years ago. Israel persisted to encroach the most arable lands; the few water resources in the region; designed the encirclement of East Jerusalem which effectively severed the economic hub of a viable Palestinian state, the desired capital for the future nation, along with its numerous religious importance to Islam; organised the ghettoisation of the Palestinians; and the construction of the monolithic wall, 730 km in length, close to 8 metres in height and 3 metres in width, while at some sections it reaches 100 metres in width, dwarfing the Berlin Wall. The separation barrier in combination with the expanded settlements that pockmark the West Bank, littered with military checkpoints and closures, has dissected what was left of the TSS and to the reality of something resembling the Gaza strip, only into six separate versions.

You need not be an expert on the topic to know that the TSS is nearing its own extinction. A brief glance at a map of the West Bank only typifies how unreasonable things are for the Palestinians. According to the UN's latest map, 40% of the area reserved for a Palestinian state, "which is roughly the size of the US state of Delaware or the English county of Norfolk, off-limits to Palestinians."

Life for a Palestinian in the occupied territories has exemplified complete hopelessness. For instance, Palestinians are forbidden to enter East Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, and residents of Jerusalem are forbidden movement into area A. No one is allowed entry into the region between the Green Line and the separation wall representing 10 % of the West Bank. Gazans are sealed off from the West Bank and are subjected to closed borders manned by the military. Only a smidgen of aid allowed to cross into the Gaza Strip. The major routes are not accessible for the Palestinians, reserved for Jews to speed across the occupied territories from settlement to settlement. Based on B'Tselem's data from June 2007, there are 93 manned checkpoints and 467 permanent roadblocks, epitomising Israeli dominance over Palestinian daily movement. A journey from Nablus to Ramallah, a distance of 47 km and a travel time of an hour, is extended by another 1-2 hours courtesy of three checkpoints and a number of roadblocks.

Fatah's inability to provide the Palestinians with some relief from the decay of occupation, exemplified above, helped along with Arafat's ineptitude, culminated with the Hamas election victory. Isolation of the Islamists was immediate, and recent developments in Gaza, backed by a man entrusted by the US to overthrow the party the Palestinians voted for, only reinforced the improbability of the TSS. Without a unified authority, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are deliberated as two lone entities, impeding any movement between the two unless through the occupier. As long as the Palestinian Authority is split, there can be no Palestinian state under the TSS. (The impasse is such a concern that some proposed the outrageous Three-State Solution.)

For the TSS to come into fruition, both nations must undertake some versions of "voluntary transfer". This is the issue that is the biggest hurdle. It may seem to make perfect sense to remove the "Israeli Arabs" so that Zionism is rid of its "demographic bomb", for a swap of the dismantlement of the illegal settlements that has pockmarked the West Bank, "transfer" is one that is met with fierce opposition. The settlers refuse to be moved, and it remains to be seen that the Arabs in Israel would be "encouraged" to be expelled and suffer the fate of their brethren. Israel maintains the these outposts are not illegal despite the fact that they are not recognised by international law.

In addition, a new type of refusenik emerged, objecting to orders to evacuate the disputed settlements. Majority opinion may lie with the "two states for two peoples", but the reality is that common Israelis would rather continue with things the way they are than see a Palestinian state exist. Olmert is following their lead, despite the "niceties" with Abu Mazen.

A New Hope(lessness)?

The One-State Solution (OSS) has gained steam since the fallout of Oslo, whose total failure led to the malaise. Fundamentally sound, the core of the OSS is difficult to argue with. Israel with all its fervour of being the only democracy in a region of autocrats trapped itself by encouraging questions on its own basis as an exclusive Jewish nation. Zionism is in danger because it is the antithesis to authentic democracy: political and social equality amongst all of its citizens. The principles of Zionism propels Israel to achieve a demographic that is unrealistic unless drastic actions are (re)introduced. The slow and methodical brooming of unwanted non-Jews is not going to be enough. Zionism needs a clear majority to exist and anything that could prevent this is distinguished as an existential threat to Israel. And being in a region that is dominated by Muslims, this cannot happen.

Israel only has itself to blame for the arising call for the OSS. All factors that discredited any leader of the PA as a negotiating partner resulted in the disaffection towards the TSS. Ordinary Palestinians bearing the brunt of the futility of Arafat witnessed Fatah's concessions amount to nil. The chicanery of peace proposals was simply PR to increment the policy of a Greater Israel that sees the West Bank split into enclaves. Settlements and construction only reiterated to an already skeptical Palestine that Israel had no intention of conceding anything. Dispossessions and house demolitions only increased during the Oslo period and rose even higher after the outbreak of the Second Intifada. Is this what Palestinians had to look forward to by giving up what little they have to negotiate with?

We need not go into too much analysis of the OSS. Even though it is a desired denouement, the OSS has two blatant snags: Israelis and their settlements. Former Knesset member and Gush Shalom member Uri Avnery puts the percentage at "99.99% Jewish Public do not want to dismantle the state." It is highly optimistic that such attitudes that afflict elite opinion could be reversed in the near future. Leaders past and present have done their best to deny the Palestinians under the TSS; the deconstruction of Israel in its current form today is only questioned by a tiny few inside Israel. There are certain parts that still want to make a compelling case that Israel won the war against Hezbollah. This is a population that wants to drop bombs on Iran, a demonised existential "threat". You can only imagine what a truthful objection to Zionism would trigger (pun intended), supported by the international community, on the Jewish Public: the propagation of universal Jewish victimhood.

The settlements also poses, in my opinion, the biggest problem under the OSS. Philosophy professor at Trent University Michael Neumann averred the settler obstacle as one that absolves the most odious parts of the occupation today. "If the settlements are something to be legitimated... [it] means a great big pat on the back for the very worst, least conciliatory, most violent political forces in Israel, the spoilt, fanatic racial supremacists who conceived the settler movement and made it into the formidable force it is today." We should not forget that these outposts are illegal and have no basis to continue. If these settlements remain, it would exculpate the occupier and those who have supported it. It would result in a victory for Israel's policy of annexing what is Palestinian property. The protests and demands to remove the settlements that "squeeze out" Palestinian life, hijack the water resources, destroy agriculture and turn their villages into a wasteland, is now void of purpose if they are left untouched. Occupied Palestinian soil would immediately be Israel's dividends under the proposed OSS.

Neumann states that these settlers can be expelled, but only if we can get the "Israeli government to stop supporting them". He cites Gaza as an example of the potentiality of withdrawal.

The "disengagement" of the Gaza Strip was a clever deception. Gaza was only disengaged to pre-empt any kind of concession in the West Bank, that it was a slick move to prolong Israel's presence. The Gaza Strip was a price the Israelis were willing to pay in order to prevent negotiations over the coveted areas of Judea and Sumaria. Not even President Bush could withstand the pressure from Israel's apologists of telling Sharon to stop the accelerating settlement activity. Dov Weisglass, a spokesperson for Ariel Sharon, said the "significance of the plan is the freezing of the peace process." Sharon himself codified his plan to impede a "Palestinian state in a unilateral move." It leaves the Palestinians into a paradox that the only way they could gain a state is to give up their rights for a state: total submission to the coloniser.

What the OSS leaves for the Palestinians and their supporters is a long battle that could expand generations waiting for the Israeli ball to drop. Some can argue that under the TSS we're at the same dilemma facing the OSS: waiting for the Israelis and the international community to speak out against the oppression. But surely the TSS is the option that is more pragmatic to halt the Palestinian suffering as soon as possible, and isn't that our direct aim? Although it has its flaws, the TSS is the probable choice considering that the Western powers are backing every decision that only incapacitates any discussion that would make Israel relent their stranglehold on the Palestinian people.

The Right To Remain

UN General Assembly Resolution 194 - the Right of Return - has been conveniently left out of the equation. Israel is insistent that such a demand by any Palestinian leader is not a moderate position, and is not negotiable for any chance of a Palestinian state. It had been removed from the Oslo Accords, and since then it is been left off the table (only to re-emerge at Camp David) for any settlement scheme with the TSS serving as a basis.

What Israel did at Oslo, by omitting the Right of Return from the negotiations for peace, had set the precedent for future proposals for any Palestinian state: the demand of the refugees to return home or be compensated was erased. Arafat brought back what was deemed "extremist": there was no possibility that Resolution 194 could ever be considered. And almost immediately, the second intifada erupted, thanks mainly to the fallout at Camp David.

For the Palestinians the result was calamitous; for the Israelis, it was a success. The temerity of Arafat to even attempt to suggest the Right of Return showed in clear view that the Palestinians were unwilling partners in the negotiating process; that they were still stuck in the past intent on Israel's destruction; and that the Right of Return must not be entertained because it poses a threat to Zionism, that it was not practical, that the "facts on the ground" states that it was an impossibility. Brutality ensued. Despair followed. The world took no notice.

All the talk about peace and ceasefires and settlements is hollow unless the Right of Return is recognised. To the Palestinians, the Right of Return is the root cause of the conflict, the heart of the matter, and the fire that still burns to this day, alive amongst the Diaspora that now number in the millions, languishing in neighbouring countries, most not recognised by their host states. In his latest book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe describes how "the Palestine question needed to be reminded that this conflict was not just about the future of the Occupied Territories, but that at its heart are the refugees Israel had cleansed from Palestine in 1948."

It is also a memory of the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing that was perpetrated on the Palestinians by armed immigrants who claimed they had rights to a land that was not their own. It is a denial that is still existent to this day and happens before our very eyes when we see more houses bulldozed , farms being grazed and Palestinians dispossessed from their ancient homeland.

Saifedean Ammous, a Palestinian student at Columbia University, reveals the Palestinian resolve, how "the right of return remains vital, and we as Palestinians should continue to cling to this inalienable right after almost 60 years, since it is the only commendable and honorable thing to do, and it is the only path to achieve a true and comprehensive peace." The sentiment demonstrated by Ammous still pulses throughout the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and amongst the Diaspora, that they continue to maintain the hope that one day they will be allowed to return home. Overlooking the Palestinians right to return is to maintain the illusion that there was no crime committed upon the birth of Israel and the calculated extirpation Palestine was a total 'necessity' for the greater good to occur, as explained by another Israeli historian Benny Morris. To quote Pappe,

"to recognise the Palestinians as the victims of Israeli actions is deeply distressing...it calls into question the very foundational myths of the State of Israel... For the Israeli Jews to accept this [Palestinian victimhood] would naturally mean undermining their own status of victimhood... Israeli Jews would have to recognise that they have become the mirror image of their own worst nightmare."

In her latest article, former CIA analyst Kathleen Christison defines the Right of Return as the primary issue toward progress because "justice will not be served, nor peace achieved, until this issue is resolved equitably and democratically, in a manner satisfactory to the human rights and the national aspirations of both Palestinians, including those living in refugee camps outside Palestine, and Israeli Jews." For blocking any conciliation on the Right of Return, "neither Palestinians nor Israelis will ever enjoy true peace and stability." Only an Israeli version of peace can occur, ie the current form of occupation and annexation, at the cost of "grave injustice" to the Palestinian people.

While it is widely accepted that the Right of Return is an immediate non-starter to negotiations, it is the very core of Palestinian disposition and its neglect from any talk along with the future of the Occupied Territories is inadmissible.

Israel's track record is certainly not one to be confident in but the TSS is the one that is likely to be agreed upon in the near future by all parties that have a stake in the conflict. Not long ago, the US pulpit Mohammed Dahlan let it slip that Israel was not planning on giving up anything. This sequence of events is atypical of the Israel-Palestine conflict and further exposed that subservience to the occupier is not the way to gain statehood.

Visions (of Granduer) For Tomorrow

I cannot blame anyone who is pessimistic about the chances of the TSS and I'm not alone, I'm positive of that. What I do believe, however, is that the longer the occupation continues , we can kiss the TSS goodbye. Some would say that it is dead already and I can sympathise with that opinion: the wall is near its completion and with it the hopes of a viable Palestinian state. With the separation barrier in place, the fight for two states will no longer be appropriate. In its place will be a unified battle against an Israeli-version of apartheid and with it, more proponents of the OSS with the addition of the call to disband Zionism.

Palestinians are helpless and their fate is sealed amongst the ordinary people in the West, the US especially. It is a sordid affair when you are left to count on the ones who not only exonerate themselves from the Iraq blunder but are more than willing to drop some nuclear bombs on Iran. We're still far from progress when Dennis Ross is still considered an expert in the field, the architect of Sabra and Shatilla is inculcated as a "man of peace" 25 years after the massacre and the ones who are meant to speak out against the "security wall" are busy advocating a xenophobic wall on their own border. I'm afraid that actions akin to Jenin refugee massacre in 2002 or the appalling siege of Lebanon last year might be needed before the international community can rethink their perceptions that Israel is not the David they assume to be. It could be a long time coming considering how embedded the media is with an Israeli-centred thinking.

A rare victory occurred at Bi'lin not long ago. Many will point to this sequence that there is still hope that Israel can be stopped before it's too late. I wish fervently that they are correct and that the historic judgement at against the wall won't be a Pyrrhic victory (after all, didn't the same Israel Supreme Court ratify the wall's legality in the first place?). However, the decision at Bi'lin may have only prolonged the inevitable (as the verdict did not prevent construction of the wall, only its redirection that did not fall along the Green Line). The Berlin Wall may have come crashing down, but it was in place for a long, long time. Apartheid may have fallen, but it had plenty of casualties on the way.

But it is important NOT to give in to pessimism, especially in these times. There is quite a ruckus going about right now and a major backlash has alerted Tony Karon, a senior editor at TIME magazine and a South African Jew, that a Jewish Glasnost is in the making; more and more condemnation of Israel is piercing the mainstream; Walt and Mearsheimer continue to press the Lobby issue and receive the typical reaction; the taboo of criticising Israel is no longer taboo in many places and the Boycott campaign seems to be getting stronger and stronger. Another reason for optimism is a recent survey that showed that less and less American Jews were identifying themselves with Israel and is also wilting amongst the Diaspora.

It seems the more the zealots push, the more the truth bleeds out about the Jewish State. The apartheid analogy is reiterated by many who suffered the odious regime. Those who saw it fall down enunciate that things were very similar then to what we face today, that South Africa had the support of all of the power players and that it collapsed on its own. It is a danger that stares Zionism in the eyes. It will eventually destroy Israel, and the sooner it is realised then more lives can be saved from the occupation's brutality.

Maybe there is hope for Europe

A good piece by Mariano Aguirre is featured in the French paper, Le Monde diplomatique:

"The New York Post editorial on 5 January 2007 read: “How did this man ever become president of the United States?” Readers might have thought this was a crack about President George Bush in a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch. But the editorial went on: “He’s gone from failed president to friend of leftwing tyrants and global scold of anything that represents America’s legitimate interests”; he wanted to “demonise Israel” and had secretly given “PR and political advice to Yasser Arafat”. The Post was damning not Bush, but Jimmy Carter, and it said Democrats should “cut all their ties” to him for “when he flatly condones mass murder, he goes beyond the pale”...

Carter insists that he was talking about Palestine, not the situation in Israel, but there has been vociferous reaction in sections of the US Jewish community. Like the Anti-Defamation League, they take any criticism of Israel to be anti-semitic. The protests have succeeded: both the chairman of the Democrats, Howard Dean, and their leader in Congress, Nancy Pelosi, distanced themselves from Carter. In this early pre-election period the affair was unwelcome and pushed them to take a stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict...

In response to the attacks on his references to apartheid, Carter explained: “The alternative to peace is apartheid, not inside Israel… but in the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem, the Palestinian territory. And there, apartheid exists in its more despicable forms, Palestinians are deprived of basic human rights.” For Carter there are three essentials for peace in the region: guarantees on Israel’s security, an end to Palestinian violence, and recognition by Israel of the Palestinians’ right to a state in its pre-1967 borders...

Following [Chris] McGreal’s articles on [these] comparisons and the close military relations between the apartheid regime and Israel, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (Camera) accused him of falsehood and defamatory distortion of the facts (7)...

In 2006 there was a rise in tension around academics critical of Israel. There were strong reactions to an article published in London by two specialists in international relations, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (11), on the overriding influence of Jewish pressure groups in the US on its foreign policy in the Middle East; they claimed this had pushed the US into the war in Iraq. A few months later, Tony Judt, British and Jewish, and director of New York’s Remarque Institute for European studies, was attacked for “anti-semitic” views; he had maintained that the only solution to the conflict in the Middle East was a single, binational state (12). Judt held pro-Israeli views in his youth and is today regarded as a traitor. In October 2006, the Anti-Defamation League successfully pressed the Polish consulate in New York to cancel a conference Judt was to give on its premises. This caused shock, but Judt was later able to make his point – in Israel’s reputable Haaretz newspaper (26 July 2007) – that Israel’s future will remain in the balance as long as it continues repression and occupation in Palestine."