i hope jimmy carter reads this article too, since he insists that the
issue of palestinian human rights only exists in the occupied
territories and not within israel.
the construct described in the article is essential to apartheid, which
was a system based on two designs: native american reservations, and
u.s. jim crow (segregation) laws. the reservations (bantustans) address
the issue of the conquered population within ghettos separate from the
dominant culture, often on land that can not be cultivated, in what are
called, but hardly resemble “sovereign nations.” segregation laws
pertain to the laws and practices for controlling the non dominant
population that lives in proximity to and among the dominant culture.
generally, the bantustan/reservation policy is a policy of genocide. (as
the u.s. experience demonstrates, genocide doesn’t have to be 100
percent to be effective.) essential to that program is the establishment
of “facts on the ground.” — the u.s. is a perfect example of a colonial
state with such immense “facts on the ground” that there is no
possibility of any return of land or life style to the indigenous
populations– reduced to subsistence or a corrupting new economy based
on casino gambling money.
the segregation laws are established so that the dominated culture can
serve the dominant group. in the case of israeli arabs this relationship
has always been tenuous, even more so, with the influx of guest workers,
from third world countries, brought in to work, with even fewer human
and civil rights than palestinians. the transfer movement as described
in the article below is an attempt to force the segregated population
into reservations, or bantustans.
of note: the pine trees mentioned in the article were part of “making
the desert bloom.” a zionist policy and an ideology that negates century
of sustainable and fruitful desert agriculture. i remember growing up,
campaigns to plant trees in israel. i think several trees were planted
in my name by well intentioned relatives and family friends. these trees
are not native, nor are they sustainable, and were for the most part
planted upon the ruins of palestinian towns to cover up the genocide
(there’s nothing clean about removing an ethnic group from its land) and
displacement that was occurring and that continues to occur to this day.
these trees are, in themselves an environmental problem, increasing the
intensity of forest fires, for example.
salam abu sita, in his profound research determined that the right of
return was not only just, but viable, as most israelis don’t live on
palestinian land, that most of the land remains unsettled and
uncultivated, the establishment of the state resulting in the
displacement, both internally and externally of much of the indigenous
palestinian population.
back to the jimmy carter connection. while israelis struggle with how to
disempower, dominate and destroy the indigenous population, neo-liberal
(neo-colonial) u.s. ruling class leaders look for ways to cultivate arab
labor and establish privatized methodologies for extracting labor and
raw materials from the indigenous populations. a two state solution,
addresses more than just the palestinian issue, from the point of view
of u.s empire. it pacifies the wider arab population. a fully democratic
state of arabs and jews would be very destabilizing to these u.s.
interests in that it would serve as a democratic model for the region
which would threaten the neo-colonial relationship that the u.s. enjoys
with the surrounding arab oligarchies, theocracies and monarchies. a
subordinate palestinian state, with little more than nominal autonomy,
and the establishment of a new governing elite dependent on an
oppressive debt structure beneficial to western interests is much more
favorable to these statesmen than promoting a paradigm that addresses
the issues of human rights, social justice and self determination.
emma rosenthal
Sam BAHOUR wrote:
>> Dear Friends,
>>
>> This article from yesterday’s NYT requires many corrections, namely,
>> how one can equate “statehood” from 2000 years ago with today’s notion
>> of a nation state. That said, the article remains powerful in that it
>> looks at Palestinians INSIDE Israel, those that did not flee in 1948,
>> but are rather being squeezed out, “democratically, today!
>>
>> If you are interested: SEND LETTERS TO THE EDITOR to letters@nytimes.com
>>
>> In a region that measures in centuries, 60 years is a drop in the bucket,
>> Sam
>>
>> —————————-
>>
>> “We are prohibited from using our own land,” he said, standing in the
>> former village of Lajoun, now a mix of overgrown scrub and pines
>> surrounded by the fields of Kibbutz Megiddo. “They want to keep it
>> available for Jews. My daughter makes no distinction between Jewish
>> and Arab patients. Why should the state treat me differently?”
>>
>> The New York Times
>> May 7, 2008
>> After 60 Years, Arabs in Israel Are Outsiders
>> By ETHAN BRONNER
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/world/middleeast/07israel.html?_r=3&oref=slogin
>>
photos by Rina Castelnuovo for The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/05/07/world/20080507ISRAEL_5.html
