Thursday, August 23, 2001 Elul 4, 5761Israel Time: 07:15
(GMT+3)
Ha'aretz - Internet Edition
Unilateral separation leads inexorably to apartheid
By Meron Benvinisti
While a wall separates Israel from the West Bank
between Bat Hefer (left) and Tulkarm, unilateral
separation of Israel from the Palestinians, like
all ideologies, mocks any argument that dares
challenge the feasibility of its implementation.
(Photo: AP )
One day, more than 30 years ago, two Israelis who dealt
with handling the Palestinian population - one in
Jerusalem and the other in the West Bank - met a
high-ranking South African official. At the meeting, the
two explained their jobs and the way they were improving
Israeli-Palestinian relations by letting the
Palestinians manage their own lives.
Suddenly, the guest said, "What would you say if I
invited you to assist the new regime in the Transkei
homeland?" The Israelis were astonished. Their guest's
question insinuated that their tolerant and liberal
activities were similar to the racist practices of
apartheid rule.
When they objected, he smiled at them. "I understand
your reaction. But aren't you basically doing the same
thing? You and we both face the same existential
problems, so we reach the same solution. The only
difference is that your solution is pragmatic and ours
ideological. Yes, we're all in love with the compromises
we make with ourselves."
More than 30 years have passed, and the pragmatic
solutions "necessitated by reality" have crystallized
into a coherent ideology. It's called unilateral
separation. Like all ideologies, unilateral separation
"rises above" pragmatic solutions to immediate needs,
and purports to provide "an answer" to existential
problems: Jewish existence (dubbed "Zionist") is in
mortal danger because of the demo-geographic threat.
Therefore everyone - liberals, conservatives, leftists
and nationalists - rally round to save the Zionist
enterprise by "separating" all the others, including
Arab citizens of the state, using three barbed-wire
fences - one "around Area A," the second "near the Green
Line," and a third, never mentioned, along the
international borders of mandatory Palestine.
Like all ideologies, unilateral separation mocks any
argument that dares challenge the feasibility of its
implementation. It all depends on making "brave national
decisions" that rise to the occasion of the expected
catastrophe, and those who are not ready to rise up to
face the severity of the situation are being
irresponsible. Opposition to the ideology of unilateral
separation on principle, for example, like using the
"demographic threat" to characterize "the proliferation"
of the other, and that its implemention will only meet
the needs of the ruling group and the price will be paid
by the other, are rejected with disgust.
Along with mocking the soft bleeding hearts, the
ideologues of unilateral separation emphasize the "fact"
that it will require "the evacuation of 30-35
settlements in Judea and Samaria and tearing out
sections of the state populated by Arabs of Israel."
That heavy price will remain, of course, theoretical,
since the ideology of separation is based on the
monopoly of absolute power (the "unilateral") remaining
forever in the hands of the stronger side - whether it
has a demographic majority or whether it becomes a
minority "in 2010." And when the demographic reversal
does take place, they'll simply stop counting the
"others": in any case there's no relevance to the number
of heads as long as they cannot raise their hands to
vote.
The demographic "threat" is nothing more than a
contemptible means to enlist xenophobia and the
isolationist tendencies beating in the breasts of masses
of frightened people who are lost without leadership,
for the purpose of creating political movements that
pretend to offer "solutions for the situation."
The ideological preaching serves as a cover for
"pragmatic" steps like closures and sieges, and the
failure of the method requires ever-more extreme
measures of separation, accompanied by ever-more
extremist declarations about the "others" to justify the
extreme measures. And then, when the separation comes
dangerously close to apartheid, everyone cries out, "How
dare you compare? We're in favor of a Palestinian state
prospering on the other side of and between the three
barbed-wire fences. Bantustan, you say? That's an
insult."
If that South African official were to return today,
he'd shake his head in sorrow. "We reached the
conclusion ten years ago that unilateral separation that
keeps the monopoly of coercion in the hands of the white
community simply won't last and has to go. Your
political thinking now is the same as it was back when
we first met. True, as I said then, the existential
problems are the same; we chose a united multi-racial
state (what you call a "binational" state). Maybe
there's still the alternative of dividing the country
with an agreement. If there is, grab it. Believe me,
unilateral separation is not an option. It only will
turn you into a pariah state isolated from the West,
just as we were. We also thought the world didn't
understand us, wasn't sensitive to our plight. You have
it a little easier, because you can think it's all
anti-Semitism. Forget it. Learn from us."
END
