<html>
<body>
<h1><font size=4><b>An independent homeland or Bantustan in
disguise?</b></font></h1><font size=3>
<a href="http://electronicintifada.net/people/haidar-eid">Haidar
Eid</a><br>
<a href="http://electronicintifada.net/people/electronic-intifada">The
Electronic Intifada</a><br>
<a href="http://electronicintifada.net/content/independent-homeland-or-bantustan-disguise/9905" eudora="autourl">
http://electronicintifada.net/content/independent-homeland-or-bantustan-disguise/9905<br>
</a>4 May 2011<br><br>
The induced euphoria that characterizes discussions within the mainstream
media around the upcoming declaration of an independent Palestinian state
in September, ignores the stark realities on the ground and the warnings
of critical commentators. Depicting such a declaration as a
“breakthrough,” and a “challenge” to the defunct “peace process” and the
right-wing government of Israel, serves to obscure Israel’s continued
denial of Palestinian rights while reinforcing the international
community’s implicit endorsement of an apartheid state in the Middle
East.<br><br>
The drive for recognition is led by Salam Fayyad, the appointed prime
minister of the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority. It is based on the
decision made during the 1970s by the Palestine Liberation Organization
(PLO) to adopt the more flexible program of a “two-state solution.” This
program maintains that the Palestinian question, the essence of the
Arab-Israeli conflict, can be resolved with the establishment of an
“independent state” in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with
East Jerusalem as its capital. In this program Palestinian refugees would
return to the state of “Palestine” but not to their homes in Israel,
which defines itself as “the state of Jews.” Yet “independence” does not
deal with this issue, neither does it heed calls made by the 1.2 million
Palestinian citizens of Israel to transform the struggle into an
anti-apartheid movement since they are treated as third-class
citizens.<br><br>
All this is supposed to be implemented after the withdrawal of Israeli
forces from the West Bank and Gaza. Or will it merely be a redeployment
of forces as witnessed during the Oslo period? Yet proponents of this
strategy claim that independence guarantees that Israel will deal with
the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank as one people, and that the
Palestinian question can be resolved according to international law, thus
satisfying the minimum political and national rights of the Palestinian
people. Forget about the fact that Israel has as many as 573 permanent
barriers and checkpoints around the occupied West Bank, as well as an
additional 69 “flying” checkpoints
(“<a href="http://issuu.com/stevebutton/docs/i1450e00">Promoting
employment and entrepreneurship …</a>,” Food and Agricultural
Organization, 2010). And you might also want to ignore the fact that the
existing Jewish-only colonies and roads and other Israeli infrastructure
effectively annex more than 54 percent of the West Bank.<br><br>
At the 1991 Madrid Conference, then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak
Shamir’s hawkish government did not even accept the Palestinian “right”
to administrative autonomy. However, with the coming of the “dovish”
Meretz/Labor government, led by Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, the PLO
leadership conducted behind-the-curtains negotiations in Norway. By
signing the Oslo accords, Israel was released of the heavy burden of
administering Gaza and the seven crowded cities of the West Bank. The
first intifada was ended by an official and secret PLO decision
without achieving its interim national goals, namely “freedom and
independence,” and without the consent of the people the organization
purported to represent.<br><br>
This same idea of “independence” was once rejected by the PLO, because it
did not address the “minimum legitimate rights” of Palestinians and
because it is the antithesis of the Palestinian struggle for liberation.
What is proposed in place of these rights is a state in name only. In
other words, the Palestinians must accept full autonomy on a fraction of
their land, and never think of sovereignty or control of borders, water
reserves and most importantly, the return of the refugees. That was the
Oslo agreement and it is also the intended “Declaration of Independence.”
No wonder, then, that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu makes it
clear that he might agree to a Palestinian state through
negotiations.<br><br>
Nor does this declaration promise to be in accordance with the 1947 UN
partition plan, which granted the Palestinians only 47 percent of
historic Palestine even though they comprised more than two-thirds of the
population. Once declared, the future “independent” Palestinian state
will occupy less than 20 percent of historic Palestine. By creating a
Bantustan and calling it a “viable state,” Israel will get rid of the
burden of 3.5 million Palestinians. The PA will rule over the maximum
number of Palestinians on the minimum number of fragments of land
fragments that we can call “The State of Palestine.” This “state” will be
recognized by tens of countries South Africa’s infamous bantusan tribal
chiefs must be very envious!<br><br>
One can only assume that the much-talked about and celebrated
“independence” will simply reinforce the same role that the PA played
under Oslo. Namely providing policing and security measures designed to
disarm the Palestinian resistance groups. These were the first demands
made of the Palestinians at Oslo in 1993, Camp David in 2000, Annapolis
in 2007 and Washington last year. Meanwhile, within this framework of
negotiations and demands, no commitments or obligations are imposed on
Israel.<br><br>
Just as the Oslo accords signified the end of popular, nonviolent
resistance of the first intifada, this declaration of independence has a
similar goal, namely ending the growing international support for the
Palestinian cause since Israel’s 2008-09 winter onslaught on Gaza and its
attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla last May. Yet it falls short of
providing Palestinians with the minimal protection and security from any
future Israeli attacks and atrocities. The invasion and siege of Gaza was
a product of Oslo. Before the Oslo accords were signed, Israel never used
its full arsenal of F-16s, phosphorous bombs, and DIME weapons to attack
refugee camps in the Gaza and the West Bank. More than 1,200 Palestinians
were killed from 1987-1993 during the first intifada. Israel eclipsed
that number during its three-week invasion in 2009; it managed to
brutally kill more than 1,400 in Gaza alone. This does not include the
victims of Israel’s siege in place since 2006 which has been marked by
closures and repeated Israeli attacks before the invasion of Gaza and
since.<br><br>
Ultimately, what this intended “declaration of independence” offers the
Palestinian people is a mirage, an “independent homeland” that is a
bantustan in disguise. Although it is recognized by so many friendly
countries, it stops short of providing Palestinians freedom and
liberation. Critical debate as opposed to one that is biased, demagogic
requires scrutiny of the distortions of history through ideological
misrepresentations. What needs to be addressed is an historical human
vision of the Palestinian and Jewish questions, a vision that never
denies the rights of a people, which guarantees complete equality and
abolishes apartheid instead of recognizing a new Bantustan 17 years
after the fall of apartheid in South Africa.<br><br>
<i>Haidar Eid is Associate Professor of Postcolonial and Postmodern
Literature at Gaza’s al-Aqsa University and a policy advisor with
<a href="http://al-shabaka.org/">Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy
Network</a>, where this essay was first pubilshed.<br><br>
<br><br>
</i></font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>