For
A Secular Democratic State
By Saree Makdisi
01 June, 2007
The
Nation
This
month marks the fortieth anniversary of the Israeli occupation of the
West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Four decades of control established
and maintained by force of arms--in defiance of international law, countless
UN Security Council resolutions and, most recently, the 2004 Advisory
Opinion of the International Court of Justice in The Hague--have enabled
Israel to impose its will on the occupied territories and, in effect,
to remake them in its own image.
The result is a continuous
political space now encompassing all of historic Palestine, albeit a
space as sharply divided as the colonial world ("a world cut in
two") famously described by Frantz Fanon in The Wretched of the
Earth. Indeed, Fanon's 1961 classic still enables an analysis of Israel
and the occupied territories as fresh, insightful and relevant in 2007
as the readings of Cape Town or Algiers that it made available when
it was first published.
Israel maintains two separate
road systems in the West Bank, for example: one for the territory's
immigrant population of Jewish settlers, one for its indigenous non-Jewish
(i.e., Palestinian) population.
The roads designated for
the Jewish settlers are well maintained, well lit, continuous and uninterrupted;
they tie the network of Jewish "neighborhoods" and "settlements"--all
of them in reality colonies forbidden by international law--to each
other and to Israel. The roads for the West Bank's native population,
by contrast, are poorly maintained, when they are maintained at all
(they often consist of little more than shepherds' trails); they are
continuously blockaded and interrupted. A grid of checkpoints and roadblocks
(546 at last count) strangles the circulation of the West Bank's indigenous
population, but it is designed to facilitate the free movement of Jewish
settlers--who are, moreover, allowed to drive their own cars on the
roads set aside for them, whereas Palestinians are not allowed to drive
their cars beyond their own towns and villages (the entrances to which
are all blockaded by the Israeli army).
The wall that Israel has
been constructing in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 2002 makes
visible in concrete and barbed wire the outlines of the discriminatory
regime that structures and defines everyday life in the occupied territories,
separating Palestinian farmers from crops, patients from hospitals,
students and teachers from schools and, increasingly, even parents from
children (it has, for example, separated one parent or another from
spouses and children in 21 percent of Palestinian families living on
either side of the wall near Jerusalem)--while at the same time enabling
the seamless incorporation of the Judaized spaces of the occupied territories
into Israel itself. And a regime of curfews and closures, enforced by
the Israeli army, has smothered the Palestinian economy, though none
of its provisions apply to Jewish settlers in the occupied territories.
There are, in short, two
separate legal and administrative systems, maintained by the regular
use of military force, for two populations--settlers and natives--unequally
inhabiting the same piece of land: exactly as was the case in the colonial
countries described by Fanon, or in South Africa under apartheid.
All this has enabled Israel
to transplant almost half a million of its own citizens into the occupied
territories, at the expense of their Palestinian population, whose land
is confiscated, whose homes are demolished, whose orchards and olive
groves are razed or burned down, and whose social, economic, educational
and family lives have been, in effect, all but suspended, precisely
in order that their land may be made available for the use of another
people.
The result has been catastrophic
for the Palestinians, as a World Bank report published in May makes
clear. While the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem
enjoy growth rates exceeding those of Israel itself, Palestinian towns
and villages are slowly being strangled. While Jewish settlers move
with total freedom, the combination of physical obstacles and the bureaucratic
pass system imposed by the Israeli army on the Palestinian population
has not only permanently separated the Palestinians of the West Bank
from those of Gaza, East Jerusalem and Israel (movement among which
is forbidden for all but a tiny minority) but has also broken up the
West Bank into three distinct sections and ten enclaves. Half of the
West Bank is altogether off-limits to most Palestinians; to move from
one part of the rest of the territory to another, Palestinians must
apply for a permit from the Israelis. Frequent bans are imposed on movement
into or out of particular enclaves (the city of Nablus, for example,
has been under siege for five years), or on whole segments of the population
(e.g., unmarried men under the age of 45). And all permits are summarily
invalidated when Israel declares one of its "comprehensive closures"
of the West Bank--there were seventy-eight such days in 2006--at which
point the entire Palestinian population stays home.
The lucky few who are able
to obtain passes from the Israelis are channeled from one section or
enclave to another through a series of army checkpoints, where they
may be searched, questioned, hassled, detained for hours or simply turned
back. "The practical effect of this shattered economic space,"
the World Bank report points out, "is that on any given day the
ability to reach work, school, shopping, healthcare facilities and agricultural
land is highly uncertain and subject to arbitrary restriction and delay."
Given the circumstances, it is hardly any wonder that two-thirds of
the Palestinian population has been reduced to absolute poverty (less
than $2 a day), and that hundreds of thousands are now dependent for
day-to-day survival on food handouts provided by international relief
organizations. Not only has the international community refused to intervene;
it has actively participated in the repression, imposing--for the first
time in history--sanctions on a people living under military occupation,
while the occupying and colonizing power goes on violating the international
community's own laws with total impunity.
To all of these charges,
Israel and its supporters have but one response: "security."
But as the World Bank report argues, it is "often difficult to
reconcile the use of movement and access restrictions for security purposes
from their use to expand and protect settlement activity." Moreover,
the Bank notes, it seems obvious that Israeli security ought to be tied
to Palestinian prosperity: By disrupting the Palestinian economy and
immiserating an entire population--pushing almost 4 million people to
the edge--the Israelis are hardly enhancing their own security.
Such arguments miss the point,
however. No matter how fiercely it is contested inside Israel, there
remains a very strong sense that the country is entitled to retain the
land to which it has now stubbornly clung for four decades. Even while
announcing his scheme to relinquish nominal control over a few bits
and pieces of the West Bank with heavy concentrations of Palestinians,
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert insisted on his country's inherent
right to the territory, irrespective of the demands of international
law, let alone the rights and claims of the Palestinians themselves.
("Every hill in Samaria and every valley in Judea is part of our
historic homeland," he said last year, using Israel's official,
biblical terminology for the West Bank.)
Although some people claim
there are fundamental differences between the disposition of the territories
Israel captured in 1967 and the territories it captured during its creation
in 1948--or even that there are important moral and political differences
between Israel pre- and post-1967--such sentiments of entitlement, and
the use of force that necessarily accompanies them, reveal the seamless
continuity of the Zionist project in Palestine from 1948 to our own
time. "There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing,"
argues Israeli historian Benny Morris, with reference to the creation
of Israel. "A Jewish state would not have come into being without
the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to
uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was
necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and
cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from
which our convoys and our settlements were fired on."
Israel's post-1967 occupation
policies are demonstrably driven by the same dispossessive logic. If
hundreds of thousands have not literally been forced into flight, their
existence has been reduced to penury. Just as Israel could have come
into being in 1948 only by sweeping aside hundreds of thousands of Palestinians,
Israel's ongoing colonization of Palestinian territory--its imposition
of itself and its desires on the land's indigenous population--requires,
and will always require, the use of force and the continual brutalization
of an entire people.
Indeed, the discriminatory
practices in the occupied territories replicate, albeit in a harsher
and more direct form, those inside Israel, where the remnant of the
Palestinian population that was not driven into flight in 1948--today
more than a million people--continues to endure the systematic inequalities
built into the laws and institutions of a country that explicitly claims
to be the state of the Jewish people rather than that of its own actual
citizens, about a fifth of whom are not Jewish. Recognizing the contradiction
inherent in such a formulation, various Israeli politicians, including
Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman, have explicitly called for
the territorial transfer--if not the outright expulsion--of as much
as possible of Israel's non-Jewish (that is, Palestinian) minority.
Although it would be intended to mark the ultimate triumph of the dispossessing
settler over the dispossessed native (Lieberman is an immigrant from
Moldova who enjoys rights denied to indigenous Palestinians simply because
he happens to be Jewish), such a gesture would actually amount to a
last-ditch measure, an attempt to forestall what has become the most
likely conclusion to the conflict.
For, having unified all of
what used to be Palestine (albeit into one profoundly divided space)
without having overcome the Palestinian people's will to resist, Zionism
has run its course. And in so doing, it has terminated any possibility
of a two-state solution. There remains but one possibility for peace
with justice: truth, reconciliation--and a single democratic and secular
state, a state in which there will be no "natives" and "settlers"
and all will be equal; a state for all its citizens irrespective of
their religious affiliation. Such a state has always, by definition,
been anathema for Zionism. But for the people of Israel and Palestine,
it is the only way out.
Saree Makdisi,
a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA and a frequent
commentator on the Middle East, is writing a book on Palestine, forthcoming
from Norton.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.