Israel and apartheid – El Clarin de Chile

Approximate reading time: 2 minutes, 53 seconds

There are not many issues capable of bringing the United States, China, Russia, the G7, the BRICS, the EU, the UN, the Arab countries, the vast majority of Latin America and, in short, the entire world into agreement. One of them, perhaps the only one, is that the solution to the conflict in Palestine must involve the establishment of two states, as stated in the Oslo peace agreements and United Nations resolutions. It seems reasonable, but it gives reason to think about the fact that, having such powerful sponsors and counting on such a consensus, it has not been implemented in the three decades that have passed since the agreements that ended with Yasser Arafat and Isaac Rabin receiving the Nobel Prize for Peace.

Go in advance that one does not know what is the best solution to the conflict. As a utopia, of course, Edward Said’s long-awaited dream of a single secular and democratic State for all is more suggestive. The two-state solution is often opposed in the name of realism and pragmatism, but let us concede, again, that three decades of possibilism have not been of much use.

In the name of such realism, one could start from reality: what exists today, in practice, is a single State that encompasses the Jews, the Arabs with Israeli citizenship and the Arabs of Gaza and the occupied territories of the West Bank and Jerusalem. The statement may be risky and, of course, contrary to international law, but it has at least two virtues and a basis that is difficult to discuss.

Let’s start with the latter: the one who controls the entire territory, the one who opens and closes the borders at will and the one who controls the air and maritime space is the State of Israel. Economically, any hint of Palestinian sovereignty is laughable; everything depends on the will of Tel Aviv. Maintaining the fiction of the current Palestinian National Authority as a proto-state, a prelude to its own state, is unviable. It is, furthermore, an institutional conglomerate notably devalued in the eyes of the Palestinians themselves, linked to corruption and a certain collaborationism with Israel.

This change of perspective to place the daily reality of a single State in focus, proposed among others by accredited conflict scholars such as Alain Gresh, has at least two virtues. The first is to bury another fiction: that of a problem between equals. It is not, the asymmetry is cosmic, but when we talk about the conflict between Israel and Palestine and when we place the two states as a common place, we feed the imagination of a conflict between two contenders on equal terms.

The second virtue has to do with the words we use to talk about the problem. They are a crucial weapon, as Israel well knows, which has just called its ambassador in Madrid for consultations due to statements by President Pedro Sánchez, who has dared to question Israeli respect for human rights in its offensive in Gaza. It is obvious that he does not respect them, but in Europe it is expensive to deviate from the Tel Aviv script.

This second virtue is precisely that of clarifying the language. There are thick words, with an enormous evocative force that must be used rigorously, to be able to save their meaning, so that they do not become fodder for the banality of our days. You have to know why they are used, have on hand a simple and forceful explanation that justifies their use. One of these words is apartheid. The UN itself has described Israel’s policy in the West Bank as such, but it has not penetrated beyond circles of solidarity with the Palestinian cause. In Europe and the United States, no matter how deep the criticism of Netanyahu’s actions is in some circles, it continues to be a banned word in diplomatic spheres and, in general, in public discussions. What to say in the major media.

However, in light of this perspective – a single State – the apartheid emerges diaphanous. It is simple: it is a territory administered by the same State that applies different laws to its inhabitants depending on their origin. It is practically irrefutable and easily understood: being born Palestinian condemns you to being a second-class citizen. They can take away your house, your land, your freedom and even your life legally, without anything happening. It is a regime of apartheid.

This definition can open other doors, because one can talk and trade with a country in conflict with another, but it is uglier to do so with a regime of apartheid. Thus fell, drop by drop, the South African regime. The appeal to the two states has become a commonplace devoid of meaning, it is barely a rhetorical resource that allows the chancelleries to get out of trouble and move on to another topic.

Setting aside this fiction, the reality of apartheid emerges, incontestable, a definition that, if extended, has the potential to help isolate and pressure Israel more effectively, the only way to make these two states or any other formula possible one day. that the inhabitants of this unfortunate corner of the Mediterranean choose to live together with equal rights.

By Beñat Zaldua