palestinians get on the bus
catefrances
Posts: 29,003
got this email just now.
Dear friends,
In hours, brave Palestinians will risk attack and arrest to board public buses that are forbidden to Arabs. This could be the beginning of a game-changing, non-violent Palestinian spring -- direct action to win freedom and a new state. Avaaz is webcasting the action LIVE -- click to watch, and provide the global solidarity the activists need to win:
In the next few hours, history could be made in Palestine. A small number of brave Palestinians will risk attack and arrest to commit a forbidden act -- they will board a public bus.
Lacking their own state, Palestinians are forbidden to use buses and roads reserved for non-Arabs -- part of a host of race-based rules that US President Jimmy Carter has called "apartheid". 50 years ago, African-Americans in the US challenged these rules by simply and non-violently refusing to follow them. In a few hours, Palestinians will take the same approach, and their actions will be live webcasted by Avaaz teams at the link below.
As diplomats stall in the fight for a Palestinian state, the Palestinian people are taking the fight into their own hands, one public service at a time. And they're doing it with the simple, elegant and unstoppable moral force of non-violence in the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. The Palestinian spring begins right now - click below to watch it LIVE, register support, and give these brave activists the global solidarity and attention they urgently need to win:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/palestine_freedom_riders/?vl
Non-violence is the game-changing force in this long-standing conflict. Boarding buses is a symbolic act, but so was Gandhi's salt march, and Rosa Park's own courageous ride on a segregated bus in the US. Just as non-violent protest was able to topple dictators in Egypt and Tunisia, so can it finally free the Palestinian people from 40 years of crippling military oppression by a foreign power.
There are many dangers. Israel has been arming the extremist settler population, a tactic which is likely, if not intended, to provoke awful violence that will draw the news cameras away from the brave acts of non-violence. Even the Palestinian authorities are pushing back on the action which they fear will start a democratic protest movement that they cannot control. But these few brave Palestinians have had enough, and if we stand with them now, we can help them ignite a flame that will burn its way all the way to a free and peaceful Palestinian state:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/palestine_freedom_riders/?vl
We have no idea what will happen in the next 24 hours. Maybe the authorities will crush this brave action. Maybe it will spark into a massive conflagration. Maybe it will sow the first seed of an unstoppable movement with tremendous integrity. But we can watch it live, and lend our voices to the effort. And maybe one day, we can tell our grandchildren that we were there when Palestinians boarded the buses that would ultimately take them to freedom.
With hope and determination,
Ricken, Emma, Alice, Raluca, Pascal, Diego and the rest of the Avaaz team
Sources:
I Woke Up This Morning with My Mind Set on Freedom
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clarence- ... 87407.html
Freedom Riders: 1961 and the struggle for racial justice
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/books ... foner.html
Palestinian Freedom Rides echo the Civil Rights Movement
http://www.alternativenews.org/english/ ... edom-rides
'Freedom Rides' to Resume in Palestine
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_ ... p?id=17242
Dear friends,
In hours, brave Palestinians will risk attack and arrest to board public buses that are forbidden to Arabs. This could be the beginning of a game-changing, non-violent Palestinian spring -- direct action to win freedom and a new state. Avaaz is webcasting the action LIVE -- click to watch, and provide the global solidarity the activists need to win:
In the next few hours, history could be made in Palestine. A small number of brave Palestinians will risk attack and arrest to commit a forbidden act -- they will board a public bus.
Lacking their own state, Palestinians are forbidden to use buses and roads reserved for non-Arabs -- part of a host of race-based rules that US President Jimmy Carter has called "apartheid". 50 years ago, African-Americans in the US challenged these rules by simply and non-violently refusing to follow them. In a few hours, Palestinians will take the same approach, and their actions will be live webcasted by Avaaz teams at the link below.
As diplomats stall in the fight for a Palestinian state, the Palestinian people are taking the fight into their own hands, one public service at a time. And they're doing it with the simple, elegant and unstoppable moral force of non-violence in the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. The Palestinian spring begins right now - click below to watch it LIVE, register support, and give these brave activists the global solidarity and attention they urgently need to win:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/palestine_freedom_riders/?vl
Non-violence is the game-changing force in this long-standing conflict. Boarding buses is a symbolic act, but so was Gandhi's salt march, and Rosa Park's own courageous ride on a segregated bus in the US. Just as non-violent protest was able to topple dictators in Egypt and Tunisia, so can it finally free the Palestinian people from 40 years of crippling military oppression by a foreign power.
There are many dangers. Israel has been arming the extremist settler population, a tactic which is likely, if not intended, to provoke awful violence that will draw the news cameras away from the brave acts of non-violence. Even the Palestinian authorities are pushing back on the action which they fear will start a democratic protest movement that they cannot control. But these few brave Palestinians have had enough, and if we stand with them now, we can help them ignite a flame that will burn its way all the way to a free and peaceful Palestinian state:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/palestine_freedom_riders/?vl
We have no idea what will happen in the next 24 hours. Maybe the authorities will crush this brave action. Maybe it will spark into a massive conflagration. Maybe it will sow the first seed of an unstoppable movement with tremendous integrity. But we can watch it live, and lend our voices to the effort. And maybe one day, we can tell our grandchildren that we were there when Palestinians boarded the buses that would ultimately take them to freedom.
With hope and determination,
Ricken, Emma, Alice, Raluca, Pascal, Diego and the rest of the Avaaz team
Sources:
I Woke Up This Morning with My Mind Set on Freedom
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clarence- ... 87407.html
Freedom Riders: 1961 and the struggle for racial justice
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/books ... foner.html
Palestinian Freedom Rides echo the Civil Rights Movement
http://www.alternativenews.org/english/ ... edom-rides
'Freedom Rides' to Resume in Palestine
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_ ... p?id=17242
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
2009 - Toronto
2010 - Buffalo
2011 - Toronto 1&2
2013 - London, Pittsburgh, Buffalo
2014 - Cincinnati, St. Louis, Detroit
2016 - Ft. Lauderdale, Miami, Ottawa, Toronto 1
2018 - Fenway 1&2
2022 - Hamilton, Toronto
2023 - Chicago 1&2
2024 - Las Vegas 1&2
I was born and raised in Israel. I have worked with Palestinians, got on the bus with them and I share my day with them in Tel Aviv University.
The Israeli government is trying to do its best with this delicate situation, in spite of the fact that over the years the Israeli people had to suffer from suicide bombers in those exact public buses.
So please, don't believe everything you read...
~The O2, Dublin 2010~
~Odyssey Arena, Belfast 2010~
~Hyde Park, London 2010~
~Ziggo Dome, Amsterdam 2014~
~ Madison Square Garden, New York 2016~
that is their go to rebuttal. when they can not discuss the facts they say you support the holocaust..
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The Israeli government are doing their best to block the funding for human rights organizations, and by pressing ahead with more illegal Jewish-only settlements.
at least nobody got killed like in the flotilla...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Do you have a point? Do Passengers now go via Tel Aviv when they are travelling in a West Bank-to-Jerusalem bus? They do not.
In the 1960s U.S. South, black people had to sit in the back of the bus. That despicable act has been outlawed. In occupied Palestine, Palestinians are not even allowed ON the bus nor on the roads that the buses travel on. How is it that you are apparently not aware of that?
Posted on November 16, 2011 at 6:00am by Sharona Schwartz
A contrived effort to engineer a Rosa Parks moment fall flat Tuesday when a handful of Palestinian activists set out to board an Israeli bus that they say services only West Bank Jewish settlers. In trying to create a comparison between the U.S. civil rights movement and the Palestinian predicament, they hoped to prove the long-standing claim of Palestinians and their international supporters that Israel is an “apartheid” state.
Their contention was quickly debunked when the half-dozen “Palestinian Freedom Rides” activists – trying to imitate the 1960s American Freedom Rides – freely boarded a bus heading from a West Bank settlement toward Jerusalem. Israeli buses are not segregated.
From the LiveStream feed provided by the protesters throughout the afternoon, it was clear there were many more photographers on board than passengers taking part, despite the advance advertising on pro-Palestinian websites. AFP reported 100 reporters were either on or outside the bus. The activists sported black and white keffiyehs and at least one wore a t-shirt promoting the boycott of Israeli products.
Israeli border police knew about the plans and were ready to face any trouble. At one point, an activist posted a message on the group’s Twitter feed pointing to the irony of Palestinians being escorted by Israeli military vehicles.
Israeli passengers had initially been on the bus (again – buses aren’t segregated), but got off when it was boarded by Israeli border police checking if the passengers had Jerusalem entry permits.
The Media Line reports the Israeli passengers mostly ignored the protesters without incident:
Palestinians not only want the Israelis to go back to pre-1967 Israel, but object in the meantime to what they say is a policy of segregation that has created separate roads and transportation networks. Israel says these are needed to protect its citizens against Palestinian terror attacks.
“If I got on one of their buses they would slaughter me,” said an Israeli who would only give his first name, Elhanan. “It’s a gimmick. The Arabs ride on our buses all of the time.”
AFP reports:
The first few buses simply refused to stop for the group, though it was difficult to tell whether they drove on because of the media mosh-pit or to deny the Palestinians service.
There appeared to be major factual discrepancies between Twitter messages from the activists on board and the video they were streaming live.
At 3:30pm, one Palestinian passenger tweeted “border police are harassing Palestinian, Israeli and international activists on board Freedom Rides bus,” but a LiveStream feed showed a controlled situation on board, including a border policeman simply asking questions. The main excitement seemed to be from the crush of photographers crowding the aisles.
At 4:02pm a woman, Huwaida Araf, screamed, “We are Palestinian freedom riders! We are not leaving this bus!” Shortly after, she left the bus courtesy of Israeli military police.
A fellow activist posted a message that Araf was “violently arrested while trying to ride a bus into Jerusalem.” The tweet included a photo that does not appear to be violent. (Link to the photo is HERE.) What it does show is the woman’s arms being held, presumably by police, as she is led away. Earlier, another protester lied on the floor of the bus and refused to get up, a tactic that’s also been seen at American “Occupy” events.
At 4:10pm, the protesters tweeted, “Israeli army is attacking the Freedom Riders, trying to remove them from the bus with violence.” But at the same time, their live video reporter said she was turning off the camera to conserve batteries because “nothing is happening.”
What was obvious on the live feed was that during practically the entire event, one or another of the protesters was giving yet another interview. It was plainly evident to see that even while police were checking IDs, protesters continued giving interviews.
In those interviews, protesters said repeatedly that they were about to be arrested and that the Israelis “are going to use violence against us.” The violence charge didn’t seem to play out as perhaps the activists had been planning.
The Jerusalem Post video below shows some of the drawn out negotiation to get the demonstrators off the bus. An Israeli policeman tells the passengers in Hebrew he doesn’t want to use force to get them outside. One of the activists demands not to be spoken to. Another is interviewed lying down. Finally, police physically remove them from the bus while each shouts slogans for the cameras.
One supporter – while trying to interfere with an arrest – accuses a police officer of pushing her which he shouldn’t do because she’s a “lady” and he’s a “racist.”
Perhaps most telling of the true intentions of the protesters, that they’re issue is not so much equal rights but the end of the Jewish state: activist Huwaida Araf tells the Post, “It doesn’t end until Israel’s colonial apartheid regime is dismantled, because it cannot go on. It is the barrier to peace in the region.”
The activists say they were barred from entering Jerusalem because they didn’t have the proper permits. They were subsequently arrested for refusing to get off the bus and were released shortly after without charges. After years of absorbing suicide bombings and terrorist attacks, Israel restricts entry to Jerusalem and into its borders to those with permits or visas. Which raises the question: Why didn’t the activists arrange for such permits before setting out on their journey? (Perhaps less good of a photo op?)
Apartheid?
The comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa got a big push when former President Jimmy Carter in 2006 published his book titled “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.”
When one bandies as loaded a term as “apartheid” perhaps it would be useful to examine a few facts. There are approximately 1.5 million Arab citizens of Israel. Currently, 14 Members of Knesset are Israeli Arabs. One of them, Hanan Zoabi, doesn’t believe that Israel should be a Jewish State, left the hall when the national anthem was played at the Knesset, and was on board last year’s Gaza flotilla trying to break the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza. Regardless, she’s a citizen and has equal rights under the law.
Huda Naccache
The model representing Israel in next month’s Miss Earth competition is 22-year-old Huda Naccache, an Israeli Christian Arab citizen (granted not the most famous pageant but still conveys the concept of equality). And the Israeli diplomat subject to a Kent State professor yelling “Death to Israel?” None other than Ishmael Khaldi, a Bedouin Israeli Arab honorably representing his country.
Though the activists and their foreign supporters are quick to accuse Israel of racism, it seems they themselves have a penchant for ugly stereotypes. The @PalFreedomRides Twitter page posted this cartoon replete with anti-Semitic imagery. Note the stereotypical knotted beard, the scowl and yarmulke on the Israeli settler.
Though a hateful cartoon doesn’t deserve more attention, just to get the facts straight, Israeli buses do not have chairs labeled “settlers only” or even “Jews only” for that matter.
— Socrates
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Stop running from your own words.
So you can dismiss it like you did the other one?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/palesti ... apartheid/
— Socrates
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/author/sharonachwartz/
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
How am I running from my own words?
Crime of apartheid
'In a 2007 report, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Palestine John Dugard stated that "elements of the Israeli occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law" and suggested that the "legal consequences of a prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid" be put to the International Court of Justice.[20] South Africa's statutory research agency the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) stated in a 2009 report that "the State of Israel exercises control in the [Occupied Palestinian Territories] with the purpose of maintaining a system of domination by Jews over Palestinians and that this system constitutes a breach of the prohibition of apartheid."[21] Based on these findings, Richard Falk, the successor of John Dugard as UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine has detailed some of the indicators of apartheid in the occupied territories [22]:
* preferential citizenship, visitation and residence laws and practices that prevent Palestinians who reside in the West Bank or Gaza from reclaiming their property or from acquiring Israeli citizenship, as contrasted to a Jewish right of return that entitles Jews anywhere in the world with no prior tie to Israel to visit, reside and become Israeli citizens;
* differential laws in the West Bank and East Jerusalem favouring Jewish settlers who are subject to Israeli civilian law and constitutional protection, as opposed to Palestinian residents, who are governed by military administration;
* dual and discriminatory arrangements for movement in the West Bank and to and from Jerusalem; discriminatory policies on land ownership, tenure and use; extensive burdening of Palestinian movement, including checkpoints applying differential limitations on Palestinians and on Israeli settlers, and onerous permit and identification requirements imposed only on Palestinians;
* punitive house demolitions, expulsions and restrictions on entry and exit from all three parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The Special Rapporteur concludes that this "general structure of apartheid that exists in the Occupied Palestinian Territories ... makes the allegation increasingly credible despite the differences between the specific characteristics of South African apartheid and that of the Occupied Palestinian Territories regime".
The Ludicrous Attacks on Jimmy Carter’s Book
Carter's Real Sin is Cutting to the Heart of the Problem
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN
December 28, 2006
As Jimmy Carter’s new book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid climbs the bestseller list, the reaction of Israel’s apologists scales new peaks of lunacy. I will examine a pair of typical examples and then look at the latest weapon to silence Carter.
Apartheid Analogy
No aspect of Carter’s book has evoked more outrage than its identification of Israeli policy in the Occupied Palestinian Territory with apartheid. Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post called it "foolish and unfair," the Boston Globe editorialized that it was "irresponsibly provocative," while the New York Times reported that Jewish groups condemned it as "dangerous and anti-Semitic." (1)
In fact the comparison is a commonplace among informed commentators.
From its initial encounter with Palestine the Zionist movement confronted a seemingly intractable dilemma: How to create a Jewish state in a territory that was overwhelmingly non-Jewish? Israeli historian Benny Morris observes that Zionists could choose from only two options: "the way of South Africa"–i.e., "the establishment of an apartheid state, with a settler minority lording it over a large, exploited native majority"–or "the way of transfer"–i.e., "you could create a homogeneous Jewish state or at least a state with an overwhelming Jewish majority by moving or transferring all or most of the Arabs out." (2)
During the British Mandate period (1917-1947) Zionist settlers labored on both fronts, laying the foundations of an apartheid-like regime in Palestine while exploring the prospect of expelling the indigenous population. Norman Bentwich, a Jewish officer in the Mandatory government who later taught at the Hebrew University, recalled in his memoir that, "One of the causes of resentment between Arabs and Jews was the determined policy of the Jewish public bodies to employ only Jewish workers.This policy of ‘economic apartheid’ was bound to strengthen the resistance of Arabs to Jewish immigration." (3)
Ultimately, however, the Zionist movement resolved the dilemma in 1948 by way of transfer: under the cover of war with neighboring Arab states, Zionist armies proceeded to "ethnically cleanse" (Morris) the bulk of the indigenous population, creating a state that didn’t need to rely on anachronistic structures of Western supremacy. (4)
After Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 the same demographic dilemma resurfaced and alongside it the same pair of options. Once again Zionists simultaneously laid the foundations for apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territory while never quite abandoning hope that an expulsion could be carried off in the event of war. (5)
After four decades of Israeli occupation, the infrastructure and superstructure of apartheid have been put in place. Outside the never-never land of mainstream American Jewry and U.S. media this reality is barely disputed. Indeed, already more than a decade ago while the world was celebrating the Oslo Accords, seasoned Israeli analyst and former deputy mayor of Jerusalem Meron Benvenisti observed, "It goes without saying that ‘cooperation’ based on the current power relationship is no more than permanent Israeli domination in disguise, and that Palestinian self-rule is merely a euphemism for Bantustanization." (6)
If it’s "foolish and unfair," "irresponsibly provocative" and "dangerous and anti-Semitic" to make the apartheid comparison, then the roster of commentators who have gone awry is rather puzzling. For example, a major 2002 study of Israeli settlement practices by the respected Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem concluded: "Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality. This regime is the only one of its kind in the world, and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the apartheid regime in South Africa." A more recent B’Tselem publication on the road system Israel has established in the West Bank again concluded that it "bears striking similarities to the racist Apartheid regime," and even "entails a greater degree of arbitrariness than was the case with the regime that existed in South Africa." (7)
Those sharing Carter’s iniquitous belief also include the editorial board of Israel’s leading newspaper Haaretz, which observed in September 2006 that "the apartheid regime in the territories remains intact; millions of Palestinians are living without rights, freedom of movement or a livelihood, under the yoke of ongoing Israeli occupation," as well as former Israeli Knesset member Shulamit Aloni, former Israeli Ambassador to South Africa Alon Liel, South African Archbishop and Nobel Laureate for Peace Desmond Tutu and "father" of human rights law in South Africa John Dugard. (8)
Indeed, the list apparently also includes former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon. Pointing to his "fixation with Bantustans," Israeli researcher Gershom Gorenberg concluded that it is "no accident" that Sharon’s plan for the West Bank "bears a striking resemblance to the ‘grand apartheid’ promoted by the old South African regime." Sharon himself reportedly stated that "the Bantustan model was the most appropriate solution to the conflict." (9)
The denial of Carter’s critics recalls the glory days of the Daily Worker. Kinsley asserts that "no one has yet thought to accuse Israel of creating a phony country in finally acquiescing to the creation of a Palestinian state." In the real world what he claims "no one has yet thought" couldn’t be more commonplace. The Economist typically reports that Palestinians have been asked to choose between "a Swiss-cheese state, comprising most of the West Bank but riddled with settlements, in which travel is severely hampered," and Israel "pulling out from up to 40 percent or 50 percent of the West Bank’s territory unilaterally, while keeping most of its settlements." (10)
The shrill reaction to Carter’s mention of apartheid is probably due not only to the term’s emotive resonances but its legal-political implications as well. According to Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions as well as the Statute of the International Criminal Court, "practices of apartheid" constitute war crimes. Small wonder, then, that despite–or, rather, because of–its aptness, Carter is being bullied into repudiating the term. (11)
Partial or full withdrawal?
In order to discredit Carter the media keep citing the inflammatory rhetoric of his former collaborator at the Carter Center, Kenneth Stein. On inspection, however, Stein’s claims prove to be devoid of content. Consider the main one of Carter’s "egregious and inexcusable errors" that Stein enumerates. (12)
According to Stein, Carter erroneously infers on the basis of U.N. Resolution 242 that Israel "must" withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza. It is true that whereas media pundits often allege that the extent of Israel’s withdrawal is subject to negotiations, Carter forthrightly asserts that Israel’s "borders must coincide with those prevailing from 1949 until 1967 (unless modified by mutually agreeable land swaps), specified in the unanimously adopted U.N. Resolution 242, which mandates Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories." (13)
In fact and to his credit Carter is right on the mark.
Shortly after the June 1967 war the U.N General Assembly met in emergency session.
There was "near unanimity" on "the withdrawal of the armed forces from the territory of neighboring Arab states," Secretary-General U Thant subsequently observed, because "everyone agrees that there should be no territorial gains by military conquest." (14)
When the General Assembly couldn’t reach consensus on a comprehensive resolution, deliberations moved to the Security Council. In November 1967 the Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 242, the preambular paragraph of which emphasized "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." The main framer of 242, Lord Caradon of the United Kingdom, later recalled that without this preambular statement "there could have been no unanimous vote" in the Security Council. (15) Fully 10 of the 15 Security Council members stressed in their interventions the "inadmissibility" principle and Israel’s obligation to fully withdraw while none of the five other members registered any disagreement. (16)
For its part the United States repeatedly made clear that it contemplated at most minor and mutual border adjustments (hence Carter’s caveat of "mutually agreeable land swaps"). Jordanian leaders were told in early November 1967 that "some territorial adjustment will be required" on the West Bank but "there must be mutuality in adjustments" and, on a second occasion, that the U.S. supported "minor border rectifications" but Jordan would "obtain compensationfor any territory it is required to give up." (17)
When Israel first proposed annexation of West Bank territory, the U.S. vehemently replied that 242 "never meant that Israel could extend its territory to [the] West Bank," and that "there will be no peace if Israel tries to hold onto large chunks of territory." (18)
In private Israeli leaders themselves suffered no illusions on the actual meaning of 242. During a closed session of the Labor Party in 1968 Moshe Dayan counseled against endorsing 242 because "it means withdrawal to the 4 June [1967] boundaries, and because we are in conflict with the SC [Security Council] on that resolution." (19)
In its landmark 2004 advisory opinion, "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall In the Occupied Palestinian Territory," the International Court of Justice repeatedly affirmed the preambular paragraph of Resolution 242 emphasizing the inadmissibility of territorial conquest as well as a 1970 General Assembly resolution emphasizing that "No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal." The World Court denoted this principle a "corollary" of the U.N. Charter and as such "customary international law" and a "customary rule" binding on all member States of the United Nations. It merits notice that on this crucial point none of the Court’s 15 justices registered any dissent. (20)
Carter’s real sin is that he cut to the heart of the problem: "Peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law."
I think it's perfectly clear that the definition of 'Apartheid' applies perfectly to the occupied territories.
Even Ariel Sharon admitted as much:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/fe ... pe-1.10275
Sharon's Bantustans are far from Copenhagen's hope
Akiva Eldar
During his visit two weeks ago to Israel, former Italian prime minister Massimo D'Alema hosted a small group of Israelis - public figures and former diplomats - to a dinner at a Jerusalem hotel.
The conversation quickly turned to the conciliatory interviews Prime Minister Ariel Sharon gave to the press for their Independence Day editions. One of the Israelis, of the type for whom it's second nature, no matter who is in government, to explain and defend Israeli policy, expressed full confidence in Sharon's peace rhetoric. He said the prime minister understands the solution to the conflict is the establishment of a Palestinian state beside Israel.
The former premier from the Italian left said that three or four years ago he had a long conversation with Sharon, who was in Rome for a brief visit. According to D'Alema, Sharon explained at length that the Bantustan model was the most appropriate solution to the conflict.
The defender of Israel quickly protested. "Surely that was your personal interpretation of what Sharon said."
D'Alema didn't give in. "No, sir, that is not interpretation. That is a precise quotation of your prime minister."
Supplementary evidence backing D'Alema's story can be found in an expensively produced brochure prepared for Tourism Minister Benny Elon, who is promoting a two-state solution - Israel and Jordan. Under the title "The Road to War: a tiny protectorate, overpopulated, carved up and demilitarized," the Moledet Party leader presents "the map of the Palestinian state, according to Sharon's proposal." Sharon's map is surprisingly similar to the plan for protectorates in South Africa in the early 1960s. Even the number of cantons is the same - 10 in the West Bank (and one more in Gaza). Dr. Alon Liel, a former Israeli ambassador to South Africa, notes that the South Africans only managed to create four of their 10 planned Bantustans.
The Bantustan model, says Liel, was the ugliest of all the tricks used to perpetuate the apartheid regime in most of South Africa's territory. By 1986, unrest in the Bantustans turned into ongoing rioting and terror, which descended into coups in the so-called independent regimes, and South African intervention. The minuscule support the Bantustan governments did enjoy evaporated, so by January 1994, they were finally dismantled and became integrated into the united South Africa of black majority rule.
No country recognized the Bantustans nor did any drop embargoes against South Africa. But veteran leaders of the black struggle against apartheid remember that business people from Israel and Taiwan were the only foreigners who developed business relations with the Bantustan governments. The permission given to the largest of the Bantustans, Bophutatswana, to open a diplomatic office in Tel Aviv infuriated American opponents of the apartheid regime, including Senator Ted Kennedy, and some of the Jewish congressmen of the time.
An Israeli who spent many years nurturing Israeli relations with Africa was also at the dinner hosted by the Italian prime minister. He said that whenever he happened to encounter Sharon, he would be interrogated at length about the history of the protectorates and their structures.