Following in the footsteps of Ehud Ohlmert nearly 3 years ago, Defense Minister Ehud Barak warns that apartheid is coming (no it’s already here, but let’s not quibble). Then strikes a blow for the idea that Israel is actually accountable to world opinion: "the reality of standing on the stage of history in realistic terms requires us to pay attention to international constraints." From the Guardian:
a peace agreement with the Palestinians was the only way to secure Israel’s future as a "Zionist, Jewish, democratic state".
"As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic," Barak said. "If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state."
He described Israel and the Palestinian territories as the historic "land of Israel" to which Israelis had a right.
"We have to demarcate a border within the land of Israel," he said.
"We have a linkage, we have a right, but the reality of standing on the stage of history in realistic terms requires us to pay attention to international constraints."
Ironically, being a member of a party that is described in Israel as “left” (the Labor party), Ehud Barak, a war criminal to boot, will catch flak for his comments from the right and center (whatever that happens to be nowadays in Israeli politics/ snark).
This statement by Barak is almost impossible to comprehend. It was in his power to make the two state solution a reality 10 years ago. Rather he played some very complex games with Arafat during the Camp David negotiations that basically made it impossible for Arafat to agree to his very vague offers. Then when the talks collapsed, he went back to Israel and announced there was no one to talk to. This led almost directly to the second intifada. For the five years of this intifada Israel had only one response and that was “there was no one to talk to”.
That is Barak’s legacy. This speech represents a major reversal of the legacy of his premiership. This is a radical change. Is it real? Is it just more obfuscation and games that Israel has played for the last 20 years? Has Barak finally really seen the light? This could be a major change, but then again … ?
The problem with today’s Israel, is that the leadership, and even the academia, don’t seem to have realistic solutions for, say, 10 or 20 years from now. The general working assumption is that “the Palestinians are a problem”. But, no one in a position of power has yet to put forth a constructive and realistic plan – within the bounds of international law and humanitarian law – to solve the problem.
The greater part of that problem is that most of Israel’s leaders come from the military, not because every Israeli serves in the military anyway, but because high ranking military positions seem to be the prerequisite to ascendancy to the Prime Ministerial position. And so, we end up with a parliamentary cabinet full of generals who understand military strategy and force, more than they do geopolitical and social forces.
And so, Israel continues on this self destructive path, one that an alcoholic follows, every day delaying the inevitable, instead of getting a grip and joining a rehab program.
Having commenters who have lived in Israel and the area is part of what makes Mondoweiss such a valuable resource.
This is a fascinating statement for what it almost clearly says about Barak’s, and by extension much of the Israeli leadership’s, attitude toward the land of Palestine.
“We have to demarcate a border within the land of Israel,” he said. “We have a linkage, we have a right, but the reality of standing on the stage of history in realistic terms requires us to pay attention to international constraints.”
This says more or less flat out that the Jewish state of Israel has a “right” (a moral right, I infer) not just to the territory within the 1967 borders, but to the entire land of Palestine, everything from the Negev to the Lebanese border, everything from the Mediterranean to the West Bank — if not more. By saying “We have to demarcate a border within the land of Israel,” he seems to be saying that because of international concerns, the Jewish state must accept, at least temporarily, that it cannot have all the territory it has a right to. All of Palestine is “Israel”, but circumstances require the Jewish state to compromise. One can only wonder what they would do if not for the “international constraints.”
Of course, anyone who has been paying attention has figured out long ago that this was the Israeli position, but it is interesting to hear it stated more or less directly.
One question I would really like to ask Barak is whether he really has any moral objection to apartheid, or if a Jewish-controlled apartheid state would be just fine with him if not for “international constraints.” I wonder if he would answer that question so clearly.
Craig asks:
One question I would really like to ask Barak is whether he really has any moral objection to apartheid, or if a Jewish-controlled apartheid state would be just fine with him if not for “international constraints.”
Since Barak will not answer I will. Of course he has no moral objection to apartheid. I suspect that he is finally beginning to realize that the “international constraints” are becoming a real obstruction to his zionist goals.
The big puzzle remains whether he is serious about these concerns or whether he is just throwing more smoke and dust into the works to deflect peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.
He is blowing more smoke and dust, as he always has.
This fellow is a brainless general, but with enough oumph to see that Israel is clearly headed down the path to apartheid, but doesn’t really care, as it has always pursued that path anyway, and has long been an apartheid state
No niggers or munts in Apartheid South Africa endured major massacres (Sharpeville – 69 people killed)
No niggers or munts in Apartheid South Africa ever had to pass along separate roads, and carry special license plates.
None (so far as I know) were ever denied specialist medical care outside their areas, and none were denied access to foreign higher education.
None were deliberately starved in a vast prison camp, as in Gaza.
No fishermen or farmers were deliberately attacked, as in Gaza.
None were hemmed in, and deliberately prevented from being refugees from a vast prison camp, during a major onslaught, as in Gaza.
Apartheid is not the Israeli game, and needs a new name.
Bibi is nothing but but another one in the long line of Zionist bigots (sorry for not calling him a Jew bigot, because he is as much an atheist as any other Zionist Jew leader). Anytime some leader of Israel-friendly country dared to criticized Israel for its own good – the Zionazis call it “the stage of history”. It happened to the US during Nixon and JFK administration, Iran after Reza Shah, and now Turkey under Erdogan.
Turks turning to their eastern roots
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
Pingback: Palestinian Reconciliation, Like Dating The Popular Girl « بنسبة لنا