United Nation Resolutions

The Fourth Geneva Convention on Rules of War was adopted in 1949 by the international community in response to Nazi atrocities during World War II. The international treaty governs the treatment of civilians during wartime, including hostages, diplomats, spies, bystanders and civilians in territory under military occupation. The convention outlaws torture, collective punishment and the resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control. In the fifty years since its adoption, the Fourth Geneva Convention has never been used to condemn world atrocities including those in Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Tibet, etc. 

*Since 1997 the Arab group at the United Nations has been trying to invoke the Fourth Geneva Convention against Israel, in regard to its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and in particular at Har Homa in Jerusalem. The UN General Assembly has adopted a number of non-binding resolutions condemning Israeli settlements, and calling for a convening of the signatory nations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In February 1999 the GA adopted a resolution calling for a special UN session to be held on July 15, 1999 in Geneva to examine “persistent violations” by Israel.  

*Israel rejects the interpretation of the 4^th Geneva Convention applying it to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, stating that those territories were captured in 1967 as a result of a defensive war against countries which had illegally occupied them since 1948.  

*Switzerland is the Depository for the 4^th Geneva Convention. This means that the Swiss are technically responsible for organizing and convening a meeting of the signatory nations. However, the Swiss may only convene the meeting if a majority of the signatory nations agree to do so.  

*ADL has vigorously opposed convening the Fourth Geneva Convention in regard to Israeli settlements arguing that it could dangerously politicize the international legitimacy and high standings of the Geneva Conventions. It could open a Pandora’s box across the globe haphazardly applying the convention to a plethora of nations. Furthermore, it would give credence to the Palestinian tactic of using the international community to air grievances regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and thereby threatens the peace process itself.  

*International efforts led by the United States were successful in scaling down the July 15^thspecial UN meeting in Geneva. The closed-door meeting lasted a mere 45 minutes. However, a resolution was unanimously passed stating that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply to Israeli settlements in the “occupied territories.”

Posted on: February 27, 2014

By IMEU

         New settlements contruction & theft of Palestinian land

• In the approximately seven months since negotiations restarted between Palestinians and
  

  Talking Peace While Making War: Benjamin Netanyahu and the Peace Process

  Israelis in late July 2013, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has approved plans for11,700 new settlement units to be built on occupied Palestinian land in violation of international law. As each unit represents one house or apartment, most if not all of which will likely be home to more than one person, this means once these plans have been realized the settler population will increase by well over 20,000 people.

• Additionally, Israeli authorities have moved ahead with several other construction projects intended to confiscate Palestinian land, restrict the growth of Palestinian population centers, and cement Israeli control over parts of the occupied territories, including through the creation of dubious “national parks” and archeological digs on occupied Palestinian land.

Provocative military raids & killings of Palestinians

• Since the restart of negotiations in late July, Israeli forces have killed approximately 30 Palestinians, mostly unarmed civilians, including an 85-year-old man and a 15-year-old boy who was shot in the back with live ammunition. Most of these killings took place during aggressive raids carried out by the Israeli army into Palestinian towns, cities, and refugee camps.
• On February 26, 2014, Amnesty International released a report entitled “Trigger-happy: Israel’s use of excessive force in the West Bank,” which documented “mounting bloodshed and human rights abuses in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) as a result of the Israeli forces’ use of unnecessary, arbitrary and brutal force against Palestinians since January 2011.” The report found that “Israeli forces have displayed a callous disregard for human life by killing dozens of Palestinian civilians, including children, in the occupied West Bank over the past three years with near total impunity.” It noted that Israeli forces killed more Palestinians in the West Bank last year than were killed in 2011 and 2012 combined. The director of Amnesty’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, Philip Luther, concluded:

The frequency and persistence of arbitrary and abusive force against peaceful protesters in the West Bank by Israeli soldiers and police officers – and the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators – suggests that it is carried out as a matter of policy.”

Destruction of Palestinian homes & structures

• Since talks restarted in late July, Israel has destroyed approximately 400 Palestinian homes and other structures in the occupied territories. In the process, approximately 800 Palestinians were forcibly displaced, including approximately 350 children. According to the UN, in January 2014 alone, 100 Palestinian-owned structures were demolished in the occupied territories, displacing more than 180 people, including almost 100 children. Most of the Palestinian homes and other structures targeted for destruction by Israel are located in occupied East Jerusalem and in the Jordan Valley in the West Bank, areas that Israel has been attempting to squeeze the Palestinian population out of in order to cement its control. Israel normally destroys Palestinian structures on the pretext that they were built without permission from Israeli authorities, however such permission is nearly impossible for Palestinians to obtain.
• During this period, numerous human rights and humanitarian organizations, including Amnesty International, Oxfam, Save the Children, and the United Nations, have issued reports and statements, individually and in conjunction with other groups, condemning Israel’s policy of destroying Palestinian homes. On January 31, UN Humanitarian Coordinator James W. Rawley condemned a recent wave of Israeli demolitions, stating:

I am deeply concerned about the ongoing displacement and dispossession of Palestinians in Area C [the 60% of the West Bank under total and direct Israeli control], particularly along the Jordan Valley where the number of structures demolished more than doubled in the last year. This activity not only deprives Palestinians of access to shelter and basic services, it also runs counter to international law.”

On February 7, a group of 25 humanitarian organizations working in the occupied territoriesissued a statement expressing grave concern over the steep increase in Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes and other structures. The statement noted that the number of demolitions carried out by Israel between July 2013, when talks restarted, and December 2013 increased by almost half over the same period in 2012, and the number of Palestinians displaced increased by almost three quarters.

Adding new demands to negotiations

• Since returning to office for his second and third terms as prime minister, Netanyahu has added at least two new demands to the negotiations that were never formally made by previous Israeli governments: Insisting on recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, andinsisting that four so-called settlement “blocs” built on occupied Palestinian land would become part of Israel under any peace deal, rather than the three previously demanded by Israeli negotiators. Settlement blocs encompass a far greater amount of land than the currently existing buildings within them cover, and are strategically located to divide Palestinian population centers from one another and to sever the West Bank into easily controlled cantons. In past negotiations, Israel has insisted on keeping the massive settlement blocs of Ariel, Gush Etzion and Maale Adumim, while Netanyahu reportedly also wants to keep Beit El, which is located near Ramallah in the central West Bank.

Provocative & inflammatory statements

• Since talks restarted, senior members of Netanyahu’s government, including ministers and deputy ministers, have made a steady stream of racist and inflammatory statements, including asserting that Jews are superior to non-Jews; accusing US Secretary of State John Kerry of anti-Semitism and attempting to “terrorize” Israel; claiming that Palestinians are “wolves” who don’t want peace; denying that Israel is in fact militarily occupying Palestinian land; declaring again and again eternal Israeli control over Palestinian East Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley, and the whole of the occupied territories; and pledging to fight against the creation of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories. Netanyahu has failed to demote or punish any of his ministers, despite the fact that they have repeatedly voiced such inflammatory rhetoric that in many instances directly contradicts his alleged support for the two-state solution.
• Netanyahu has made a number of provocative and inflammatory statements himself, including:
  • On January 24, 2014, Netanyahu told a press conference in Davos, Switzerland, where he was attending the World Economic Summit, that he had no intention of removing Jewish settlers from the Jordan Valley in the West Bank, a requirement for the creation of a viable and genuinely independent Palestinian state, telling reporters: “I do not intend to evacuate any settlements or uproot a single Israeli.” Following criticism from right-wing allies who feared Netanyahu intended to leave settlers inside a Palestinian state, Netanyahu’s office replied by explaining that his statement was merely a ploy “designed to expose the true face of the Palestinian Authority” as he expected it would reject the idea of having settlers inside a Palestinian state.
  • On December 19, 2013, Netanyahu promised members of his Likud party that he would never stop building settlements, declaring: “We will not stop, even for a moment, building our country and becoming stronger, and developing … the settlement enterprise.”
  • On November 13, Netanyahu blamed Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and alleged PA “incitement” for the killing of an Israeli soldier by a young Palestinian man on a bus in northern Israel, despite providing no evidence to back up the claim.
  • In October, Netanyahu praised the recently deceased, notoriously racist Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, spiritual leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, which sat in his two previous coalition governments. Netanyahu declared that Yosef, who preached that non-Jews “were born only to serve us [Jews]” and once called on God to “annihilate” and “exterminate” Arabs, was “one of the great Torah sages of our generation.” (See here for more on Yosef.)
  • On October 6, Netanyahu blamed the PA after a nine-year-old girl living in a settlement was shot and wounded by an unknown assailant, despite having no evidence to connect Palestinian leaders to the incident.

Source:

http://imeu.org

Posted on: Jan 4, 2013

By Wayne Madsen

The Israeli government calls them Areas A, B, and C of “Judea and Samaria.” To the rest of the world, the areas are known as Palestine, a nation that has state observer status in the United Nations and is a full member of the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the Arab League.

 

Palestinians throw stones toward Israeli troops during clashes in the village of Kafr Qaddum near the West Bank city of Nablus on December 21, 2012

No other country in the world recognizes the existence of “Judea and Samaria” but 142 nations recognize the independence and statehood of Palestine.

Area C of the West Bank of Palestine is under full Israeli political and military control and there are plans underway to annex Area C to Israel. The Israeli military has security control over Area B, largely Palestinian rural land and in danger of being gobbled up by Israeli annexation if the expansionist Israel Home Party, Yisrael Beiteinu, and the right-wing of Likud have their way. Area A is under the control of the Palestinian Authority and includes its administrative headquarters city of Ramallah and other Palestinian population centers.

When one looks at a map of the Israeli area boundaries in the West Bank one can only be reminded of the patchwork quilt of majority African “Bantustans” created by apartheid South Africa. In fact, what the Benjamin Netanyahu government has offered to Palestine in the way of independence is for an unarmed and defenseless entity to exist as an unequal part of a greater Israeli zone of influence with Area C being exchanged for Israel’s recognition of Palestine’s faux “independence.” Netanyahu has referred to the co-principality of Andorra as a template for Palestine. Andorra’s actual heads of state are a Spanish Catholic bishop and the French president. Andorra’s actual independence from Spain and France is highly debatable, even though the country is a member of the UN and Council of Europe.

Such contrivances as planned by Israel for Palestine have been seen before in Bantustans with the names of Transkei, Ciskei, Venda, and Bophuthatswana.

And in what should be taught to every African student, Israel was not only a major supporter of apartheid South Africa but it had close trade and security relations with the Bantustans because it saw them as a model for future “Arabstans” in the occupied Palestinian territories. These “Arabstans” now exist in the Gaza Strip and Areas A, B, and C of the West Bank.

Close Israeli-South African relations were capped off by a visit from South African Prime Minister B. J. Vorster to Israel in April 1976, the first by a South African head of government. Israel and South Africa jointly manufactured military hardware and weapons and electronic and signals intelligence systems as a way to bypass UN sanctions imposed on the apartheid state. And the two countries, with the assistance of Taiwan, jointly produced nuclear weapons and the fissionable U-235 uranium isotope, testing an atomic bomb in the South Atlantic near the Prince Edward Islands on September 22, 1979.

Although South Africa’s self-proclaimed Bantustans were only recognized by South Africa, Israel maintained de facto relations with the four entities. Transkei, Ciskei, and Bophuthatswana maintained trade missions in Tel Aviv staffed by Israelis. In fact, these Israelis were using passports from the “republics,” as well as other diplomatic contrivances, to support the illegal side of Mossad and international Jewish lobbying and Israeli influence-peddling operations worldwide.

With Transkei, Israel maintained close intelligence and counter-insurgency ties. Its Prime Minister George Matanzima, a nephew of then-imprisoned African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela, visited Israel in 1984, along with four Transkei Cabinet ministers.

But it was Ciskei, headed by President Lennox Sebe, which provided Israel with its closest Bantustan ally. Sebe traveled to Israel, supported illegal settlements in occupied Palestine, and received Israeli assistance, especially for his brutal police force. Relations were so close between the Bantustan and Israel, the Ciskei capital of Bisho had a sister city relationship with Ariel, an illegal Israeli settlement on the West Bank. A number of Israeli companies, many led by Likud officials, established themselves in Ciskei. Mossad and Israel Defense Force personnel helped Ciskei establish paramilitary units and an intelligence service. Ciskei’s flag shared its light blue and white colors with those of Israel’s flag.

Bophuthatswana resembled Palestine’s Area A and B territories. The Tswana “homeland” consisted of eight non-contiguous enclaves within South Africa. The Bantustan’s Sun City casino not only attracted top Western entertainers who did not want to run afoul of the sanctions on the apartheid regime, but also a fair number of Israeli-South African dual national organized crime figures who ran casino operations and opened up nearby strip clubs and bordellos catering to inter-racial sex.

Bophuthatswana maintained an unofficial embassy in Israel and the Bantustan’s President Lucas Mangope was received by a number of Israeli officials, including the famed General Moshe Dayan. Israel provided Bophuthatswana’s official armed forces with training and equipment and, in 1994, when Mangope was overthrown, he could only rely on the support of the white racist Afrikaner Weerstand Beweging (AWB), which was also believed to have received covert support from Israeli trainers and equippers. North West University in the former capital of Bophuthatswana, Mafikeng, honored the late Mangope in 2010. Unsurprisingly, the university also maintains close ties with Ben Gurion University in Israel.

Venda also received security assistance from Israel and its president, Patrick Mphephu, paid an official visit to Israel in 1980. In 1983, Israel hosted a large delegation from the Venda Chamber of Commerce.

Israel showed every intention of supporting other Bantustans after they became fully independent. In 1985, Israel received KwaZulu Bantustan’s Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi. There were low-level Israeli links, mostly by Israeli military intelligence operatives in the guises of tourists and backpackers, with the Bantustan governments of Lebowa and Qwa Qwa in South Africa and Kavangoland, Ovamboland, and East Caprivi.

The Bantustans disappeared after the end of apartheid and were incorporated back into South Africa. Today, South Africa has implemented plans to boycott any goods originating from Israeli businesses in the occupied territories. Israel, the second-most ardent supporter of the Bantustans, after apartheid South Africa, has cried foul and is accusing South Africa of anti-Semitism. However, Israel stands guilty of racism and pro-segregation in Africa. It is a shameful history that Israel should not be permitted to run away from.

Source:

http://217.218.67.22/

14-May- 1948

The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and national identity was formed. Here they achieved independence and created a culture of national and universal significance. Here they wrote and gave the Bible to the world.

Exiled from the Land of Israel, the Jewish people remained faithful to it in all the countries of their dispersion, never ceasing to pray and hope for their return and the restoration of their national freedom.

Impelled by this historic association Jews strove throughout the centuries to go back to the land of their fathers and regain their statehood. In recent decades they returned in their masses. They reclaimed the wilderness, revived their language, built cities and villages, and established a vigorous and ever-growing community, with its own economic and cultural life. They sought peace yet were prepared to defend themselves. They brought the blessings of progress to all inhabitants of the country and looked forward to sovereign independence.

In the year 1897 the First Zionist Congress, inspired by Theodor Herzl’s vision of the Jewish State, proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national revival in their own country. This right was acknowledged by the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, and re-affirmed by the mandate of the League of Nations, which gave explicit international recognition to the historic connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and their right to reconstitute their National Home.

The recent holocaust, which engulfed millions of Jews in Europe, proved anew the need to solve the problem of the homelessness and lack of independence of the Jewish people by means of the re-establishment of the Jewish State, which would open the gates to all Jews and endow the Jewish people with equality of status among the family of nations.

The survivors of the disastrous slaughter in Europe, and also Jews from other lands, have not desisted from efforts to reach Eretz Israel, in face of difficulties, obstacles and perils; and have not ceased to urge their right to a life of dignity, freedom and honest toil in their ancestral land.

In the Second World War the Jewish people in Palestine made their full contribution to the struggle of the freedom-loving nations against the Nazi evil. The sacrifices of their soldiers and their war effort gained them the right to rank with the nations, which founded the United Nations. On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Resolution requiring the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine. The General Assembly called upon the inhabitants of the country to take all the necessary steps on their part to put the plan into effect. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their independent State is unassailable.

It is the natural right of the Jewish people to lead, as do all other nations, an independent existence in its sovereign State.

ACCORDINGLY WE, the members of the National Council, representing the Jewish people in Palestine, and the World Zionist Movement, are met together in solemn assembly today, the day of termination of the British mandate for Palestine; and by virtue of the natural and historic right of the Jewish people and of the Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

WE HEREBY PROCLAIM the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine to be called ‘Medinal Israel’ (The State of Israel). WE HEREBY DECLARE that, as from the termination of the British Mandate at midnight, the 14th-15th May, 1948, and pending the setting up of the duly elected bodies of the State in accordance with a Constitution, to be drawn up by the Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October, 1948, the National Council shall act as the Provisional State Council, and that the National Administration shall constitute the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, which shall be known as Israel.

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for immigration of Jews from all countries of their dispersion; will promote the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; will be based on the principles of liberty, justice and peace as conceived by the Prophets of Israel, will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of religion, race or sex will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, education and culture; will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and will loyally uphold the principles of the United Nations Charter.

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be ready to cooperate with the organs and representatives of the United Nations in the implementation of the Resolution of the Assembly of November 29, 1947, and will take steps to bring about Economic Union over the whole of Palestine. We appeal to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building of its State and to admit Israel into the family of Nations. In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions – provisional and permanent.

We extend our hand in peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to co-operate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is prepared to make its contribution to the progress of the Middle East as a whole.

Our call goes out to the Jewish people all over the world to rally to our side in the task of immigration and development and to stand by us in the great struggle for the fulfillment of the dream of generations for the redemption of Israel.

With trust in Almighty God, we set our hand to this Declaration, at this Session of the Provisional State Council, on this Sabbath eve, the fifth of Iyar, 5708, the fourteenth day of May, 1948.

The Signatories
David Ben-Gurion, Daniel Auster, Mordechai Bentov,
Isaac Ben-Zvi, Eliyahu Berligne, Fritz (Peretz) Bernstein,
Rabbi Wolf Gold, Meir Grabovsky, Isaac Gruenbaum,
Dr Abraham Granovsky (Granott), Eliyahu Dobkin,
Meir Wilner-Kovner,Zerach Wahrhaftig, Herzl Vardi,
Rachel Cohen, Rabbi Kalman Kahana,Saadia Kobashi,
Rabbi Isaac Meir Levin, Meir David Loewernstein, Zvi Luria,
Golda Myerson (Meir), Nachum Nir, Zvi Segal,
Rabbi Yehuda Leib Fishman (Maimon), David Zvi Pinkas,
Aharon Zisling,Moshe Kolodny (Kol), Eliezer Kaplan,
Abraham Katznelson, Felix Rosenblueth (Rosen), David Remez,
Berl Repetur, Mordechai Shattner, Ben Zion Sternbery,
Bechor Shitreet, Moshe Shertok (Sharett).

Maps 3-7: Five Elements Defining the Palestinian Bantustan

Israel defines its policy of ensuring permanent control over the Occupied Territories as “creating facts on the ground.” In this conception, Israeli control must be made immune from any external or internal pressures to remove Israel from the Occupied Territories (which Israel vehemently denies is an occupation at all), as well as to foreclose forever the possibility of a viable and truly sovereign Palestinian state. Nevertheless, even Sharon recognizes that Israel needs a Palestinian state, since it can neither extend citizenship to the Territories’ three and a half million Palestinians nor deny it to them. It also needs a Palestinian state to relieve itself of the necessity of accepting the refugees. A Bantustan, a cantonized Palestinian mini-state controlled by Israel yet possessing a limited independence, thus solves Israel’s fundamental dilemma of how to keep control over the entire country yet “get rid of” its Palestinian population (short of actual “transfer”). The contours of that Bantustan are defined by five elements comprising Israel’s Matrix of Control as illustrated in the following maps: (1) Areas A and B; (2) the closure; (3) the settlement blocs; (4) the infrastructure; and (5) the Separation Barrier/Wall. A full (if complex) picture of the Matrix of Control is depicted in Map 10, and the truncated Palestinian mini-state Israel is creating in Map 11.

Map 3: Defining the Palestinian Bantustan. Element  #1:West Bank Areas A, B and C

In the Oslo II agreement of 1995, the West Bank was divided into three Areas: A, under full Palestinian Authority control; B, under Palestinian civil control but joint Israeli-Palestinian security; and C, under full Israeli control. Although Area A was intended to expand until it included all of the West Bank except Israel’s settlements, its military facilities and East Jerusalem – whose status would then be negotiated – in fact the division became a permanent feature. Area A comprises 18% of the West Bank, B another 22%, leaving a full 60%, Area C, including most of Palestinian farmland and water, under exclusive Israeli control. These areas, comprising 64 islands, shape the contours of the “cantons” Sharon proposed as the basis of the future Palestinian state. The emerging Bantustan will thus consist of five truncated cantons: a northern one around Nablus and Jenin; a central one around Ramallah; a southern one around Bethlehem and Hebron; enclaves in East Jerusalem; and Gaza. In this scheme Israel will expand from its present 78% to 85-90%, with the Palestinian state confined to just 10-15% of the country.

Source:

http://www.icahd.org

Posted on: 2005

By Leila Farsakh

The Palestinian state remains an internationally endorsed project, yet an increasingly difficult one to implement. By analyzing the territorial, legal, and demographic developments that took place in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip over the past ten years, this article assesses the extent to which the prospective Palestinian state has become unattainable. A comparison between the South African apartheid experience and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is made to shed light on the ways in which the Palestinian territories are becoming analogous to Bantustans. While historical comparisons are never exact or prescriptive, they raise interesting parallels whose implications need to be considered, if not altered, in any attempt to materialize the project of a viable Palestinian Independence.

The idea of the Palestinian state as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a new one. Yet, it is still far from being realised. It received its clearest endorsement by the international community with the publication of the US backed Road Map in May 2003. This plan called for the establishment of an “independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors,” as envisaged by UNSC resolution 1397 and the Saudi Initiative of March 2002.1 However after four years of the al-Aqsa Intifada that resulted in the killing of over 3,500 Palestinians and 989 Israelis,2 the economic and social resources of the Palestinians was severely damaged,3 and the infrastructure of the Palestinian authority destroyed; the prospects of a viable Palestinian state could not be more remote. The Israeli government’s decision in June 2004 to “disengage” unilaterally from the Gaza Strip and to continue the construction of a separation wall in the West Bank gave another blow to the project of a viable contiguous sovereign Palestinian entity in the Occupied Territories.

International scholars, as well as Palestinian NGOs, have long argued that the Oslo process and the Intifada did not bring the Palestinians closer to statehood, but rather confirmed an Israeli “apartheid” in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (WBGS).4 Ariel Sharon, Israel’s Prime Minister since 2001, had long contended that the Bantustan model, so central to the apartheid system, is the most appropriate to the present Israeli-Palestinian conflict.5 Others, by contrast, have maintained that the Palestinian territories have been transformed into cantons whose final status is still to be determined. 6 The difference in terminology between cantons and Bantustans is not arbitrary though. The former suggests a neutral territorial concept whose political implications and contours are left to be determined. The latter indicates a structural development with economic and political implications that put in jeopardy the prospects for any meaningfully sovereign viable Palestinian state. It makes the prospects for a binational state seem inevitable, if most threatening to the notion of ethnic nationalism.

The aim of this article is to analyze the demise of a potential Palestinian state by drawing on the South African apartheid paradigm. Although the comparison between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and apartheid South Africa is not new, 7 it has not always been fully explained or accepted. This article seeks to fill this gap by exploring how the South African and the Zionist colonial experiences converged despite their significant historical differences. By carefully exploring the South African apartheid edifice, particularly the Bantustans, and comparing it with the structural developments set in place in the Palestinian territory since the Oslo process, it shows how the West Bank and Gaza Strip have moved towards a process of “Bantustanization” rather than of sovereign independence. This is a process by which Palestinian territories have been transformed into de facto population reserves out of which Palestinians cannot exit without the possession of a permit issued by Israeli military authorities. These “reserves” have remained dependent on the Israeli economy, but at the same time have been unable to gain access to it, nor capable of evolving into a sovereign independent entity. Whether by default or design, the Israeli response to the Al-Aqsa Intifada and the Road Map have simply consolidated this process.

Read full document here

Source:

http://works.bepress.com

16-May-1916

Letter 1: From Sir Edward Grey To Paul Cambon May 16, 1916. I shall have the honor to replyfully in a further note to your Excellency’s note of the 9th instant, relative to the creation of an Arab state, but I should meanwhile be grateful if your excellence could assure me that in those regions which, under the conditions recorded in that communication, become entirely French, or in which French interests are recognized as predominant, any existing British concessions, rights of navigation or development, and the rights and privileges of any British religious, scholastic, or medical institutions will be maintained. His majesty’s government is; of course, ready to give a reciprocal assurance in regard to the British area. Sir Edward Grey.

Letter 2: From Sir Edward Grey To Paul Cambon May 16, 1916. I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency’s note of the 9th instant, stating that the French government accept the limits of a future Arab state, or confederation of states, and of those parts of Syria where French interests predominate, together with certain conditions attached thereto, such as they result from recent discussions in London and Petrograd on the subject. I have the honor to inform your Excellency in reply that the acceptance of the whole project, as it now stands, will involve the abdication of considerable British interests, but, since his majesty’s government recognize the advantage to the general cause of the allies entailed in producing a more favorable internal political situation in turkey, they are ready to accept the arrangement now arrived at, provided that the co-operation of the Arabs is secured, and that the Arabs fulfill the conditions and obtain the towns of Homs, Hama, Damascus and Aleppo. It is accordingly understood between the French and British governments:
1. That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states (a) and (b) marked on the annexed map, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) Great Britain, shall have priority of right of enterprise and local loans. That in area (a) France, and in area (b) Great Britain, shall alone supply advisers or foreign functionaries at the request of the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.
2. That in the blue area France, and in the red area great Britain, shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab state or confederation of Arab states.
2. That in the brown area there shall be established an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other allies, and the representatives of the sheriff of Mecca.
4. That Great Britain is accorded (1) the ports of Haifa and acre, (2) guarantee of a given supply of water from the Tigres and Euphrates in area (a) for area (b). His majesty’s government, on their part, undertakes that they will at no time enter into negotiations for the cession of Cyprus to any third power without the previous consent of the French government.
5. That Alexandretta shall be a free port as regards the trade of the British empire, and that there shall be no discrimination in port charges or facilities as regards British shipping and British goods; that there shall be freedom of transit for British goods through Alexandretta and by railway through the blue area, or (b) area, or area (a); and there shall be no discrimination, direct or indirect, against British goods on any railway or against British goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.
6. That Haifa shall be a free port as regards the trade of France, her dominions and protectorates, and there shall be no discrimination in port charges or facilities as regards French shipping and French goods. There shall be freedom of transit for French goods through Haifa and by the British railway through the brown area, whether those goods are intended for or originate in the blue area, area (a), or area (b), and there shall be no discrimination, direct or indirect, against French goods on any railway, or against French goods or ships at any port serving the areas mentioned.
7. That in area (a) the Baghdad railway shall not be extended southwards beyond Mosul, and in area (b) northwards beyond Samara, until a railway connecting Baghdad and Aleppo via the Euphrates valley has been completed, and then only with the concurrence of the two governments.
8. That great Britain has the right to build, administer, and be sole owner of a railway connecting Haifa with area (b), and shall have a perpetual right to transport troops along such a line at all times. It is to be understood by both governments that this railway is to facilitate the connection of Baghdad with Haifa by rail, and it is further understood that, if the engineering difficulties and expense entailed by keeping this connecting line in the brown area only make the project unfeasible, that the French government shall be prepared to consider that the line in question may also traverse the Polgon Banias Keis Marib Salkhad tell Otsda Mesmie before reaching area (b).
9. For a period of twenty years the existing Turkish customs tariff shall remain in force throughout the whole of the blue and red areas, as well as in areas (a) and (b), and no increase in the rates of duty or conversions from ad valorem to specific rates shall be made except by agreement between the two powers.
10. There shall be no interior customs barriers between any of the above-mentioned areas. The customs duties livable on goods destined for the interior shall be collected at the port of entry and handed over to the administration of the area of destination.
11. It shall be agreed that the French government will at no time enter into any negotiations for the cession of their rights and will not cede such rights in the blue area to any third power, except the Arab state or confederation of Arab states, without the previous agreement of his majesty’s government, who, on their part, will give a similar undertaking to the French government regarding the red area.
12. The British and French government, as the protectors of the Arab state, shall agree that they will not themselves acquire and will not consent to a third power acquiring territorial possessions in the Arabian peninsula, nor consent to a third power installing a naval base either on the east coast, or on the islands, of the red sea. This, however, shall not prevent such adjustment of the Aden frontier as may be necessary in consequence of recent Turkish aggression.
13. The negotiations with the Arabs as to the boundaries of the Arab states shall be continued through the same channel as heretofore on behalf of the two powers.
14. It is agreed that measures to control the importation of arms into the Arab territories will be considered by the two governments.
I have further the honor to state that, in order to make the agreement complete, his majesty’s government are proposing to the Russian government to exchange notes analogous to those exchanged by the latter and your Excellency’s government on the 26th April last. Copies of these notes will be communicated to your Excellency as soon as exchanged. I would also venture to remind your excellency that the conclusion of the present agreement raises, for practical consideration, the question of claims of Italy to a share in any partition or rearrangement of turkey in Asia, as formulated in article 9 of the agreement of the 26th April, 1915, between Italy and the allies. His majesty’s government further considers that the Japanese government should be informed of the arrangements now concluded. Sir Edward Grey

Letter 1: From Sir Edward Grey To Count Benckendorff May 10/23, 1916
I have received from the French ambassador in London copies of the notes exchanged between the Russian and French governments on the 26th ultimo, by which your excellency’s government recognize, subject to certain conditions, the arrangement made between great Britain and France, relative to the constitution of an Arab state or a confederation of Arab states, and to the partition of the territories of Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia, provided that the co-operation of the Arabs is secured. His majesty’s government take act with satisfaction that your excellency’s government concur in the limits set forth in that arrangement, and I have now the honor to inform your excellency that his majesty’s government, on their part, in order to make the arrangement complete, are also prepared to recognize the conditions formulated by the Russian government and accepted by the French government in the notes exchanged at Petrograd on the 26th ultimo. In so far, then, as these arrangements directly affect the relations of Russia and great Britain, I have the honor to invite the acquiescence of your excellency’s government in an agreement on the following terms:
1. That Russia shall annex the regions of Restroom, Trapezoid, van, and Battles, up to a point subsequently to be determined on the littoral of the black sea to the west of Trapezoid.
2. That the region of Kurdistan to the south of van and of Battles between Mush, Sort, the course of the Tigris, Jazzier Ben Omar, the crest line of the mountains which dominate Acadia, and the region or Merge Vary, shall be ceded to Russia; and that starting from the region of Merge Vary, the frontier of the Arab state shall follow the crest line of the mountains which at present divide the ottoman and Persian dominions, these boundaries are indicated in a general manner and are subject to modifications of detail to be proposed later by the delimitation commission which shall meet on the spot.
3. That the Russian government undertake that, in all parts of the ottoman territories thus ceded to Russia, and concessions accorded to British subjects by the ottoman government shall be maintained, if the Russian government express the desire that such concessions should later be modified in order to bring them into harmony with the laws of the Russian empire, this modification shall only take place in agreement with the British government.
4. That in all parts of the ottoman territories ceded to Russia, existing British rights of navigation and development, and the rights and privileges of any British religious, scholastic, or medical institutions shall be maintained. His majesty’s government, on their part, undertakes that similar Russian rights and privileges shall be maintained in those regions which, under the conditions of this agreement, become entirely British, or in which British interests are recognized as predominant.
5. The two governments admit in principle that every state which annexes any part of the ottoman empire is called upon to participate in the service of the ottoman debt. Sir Edward Grey

Letter 2: From Sir Edward Grey To Count Benckendorff Oct. 10/23, 1916
In reply to your Excellency’s note of the 1st ultimo, regarding the arrangement between great Britain, Russia, and France, relative to the creation of an Arab state, or of a confederation of Arab states, and to the partition of the territories of Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia, provided that the cooperation of the Arabs is secured, i have the honor to state that his majesty’s government take note of the reservation formulated by the imperial Russian government at the end of article 4 of the arrangement respecting the rights of the imperial government to grant sabotage in the black sea, and of the desire manifested by that government that this question should be submitted later to a friendly examination by the governments of the parties interested.

Sir Edward Grey

Posted on: 19 August 2013

By Jessica Purkiss

After a long career as a journalist covering the apartheid in South Africa, Allister Sparks travelled Israel and Palestine, shocked by what he witnessed he was compelled to comment, “When I look at Israel, when I traveled through the West Bank, I was looking at Bantustans-totally unviable, impossible states”.

Bantustans were Apartheid South Africa’s answer to the “problem” of the black majority. Under the Bantu Authorities Act, the man behind the vision, Dr. Hendrick Verwoerd, set about cutting little islands in the map of South Africa that were to become “states” exclusively created for the black population.

Under the façade that there would be no peace until the white man had his country and the black man had his, each island was declared an independent state. They had their own governments and infrastructure, but in reality they were merely impoverished puppet states controlled by South Africa and acted as a smokescreen for the continued policies of Apartheid.

In his speech to congress Verwoerd referenced the conflict between the Arabs and Jews as one in which the solution chased was Apartheid. Years later, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have met in Jerusalem to carve the map of peace for Israel and Palestine to the shape of a one state for them, one state for us solution, in the hope of ending the decades long conflict.

But the question remains what will these two states look like in a two state solution, or rather what will Palestinian statehood look under this vision?

Jeff Halper, Director of the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions, said to Memo that he believes Israel had created a situation in which it is impossible to detach any definable territory from Israel. He said, “There’ s one territory under Israeli control from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, with one army, even one electrical system and one water system.”

Shortly after the commencement of talks Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the approval of 1,200 new settlement units to be constructed in the West Bank and annexed East Jerusalem. Settlement construction has eaten away at Palestinian land, with the 125 Israeli sanctioned but internationally deemed illegal settlements carving up the diminishing West Bank and increasingly encircling the major cities.

Meanwhile the remaining land of the West Bank is subject to further fracturing. A network of Jewish only roads connect the flourishing settler communities from their homes in the West Bank to Israel proper, a 8 meter high Separation Wall casts a shadow over the Palestinian villages whose land it cuts through, while military checkpoints dot the West Bank.

“Israel doesn’t want a two state solution, it wouldn’t be building settlements if it did, but Israel also can’t accept one state because it wants a Jewish state. Just like South Africa, the only way to control a whole country and exclude Palestinians is apartheid,” said Halper.

Following the announcement, Netanyahu claimed that the building of further settlements would not derail the peace talks because they would be built in the urban blocks he believes will become part of Israel proper in the final agreement. The real issue, the leader said, is creating a de-militarized Palestinian state to finally recognize and accept the one and only Jewish State. Theechoes of Verwoerd can be heard as he stood up and delivered his Senate speech with conviction, “After all, there cannot be domination by Whites over Blacks where there are two neighboring states, the White state and the Black state…A White state, a big and strong White nation, along with various Bantu national units and areas (or states, if you like)”.

The Bantustans were seen by the world as fantasy entities with governments and borders that gave them a veneer of reality. Similarly a de-militarized “state” of Palestine as envisaged by Israel leads one to consider when a state ceases to be a state.

This vision of Palestinian statehood has been set forward since the Oslo Accords and reiterated through years of failed negotiations. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon reportedly said to the Former Italian Prime Minister Massimo D’Alemhe that the Bantustan model was the most appropriate solution to the conflict.

The Oslo Accords divided Palestine into three areas, with a 60% slice of the West bank, called Area C, placed under complete Israeli control, where it still remains today. Memo spoke to Chris McGreal, a journalist who has written extensively on the subject as Guardian correspondent in both Johannesburg in the 90’s and Jerusalem during the second intifada. He said this slice contains only around 2% of the population, corroborating South Africa’s Bantustan model.

“It was about putting people where you want them, about White South Africans keeping as much land while shedding responsibility for of the black population. Take as much land for as little people, that to me is the Bantustan model.”

The Bantustans led to the herding of the majority black population into reserves that made up only 13% the land. Israel extends the Bantustan model past the West Bank, to include Palestinian residents of Israel. Under a similar façade of the protection of rights, Israel is in the process of passing the Prawer Plan. Through policies of displacement and dispossession the plan aims to relocate 70,000 Palestinian Bedouin from 35 unrecognized villages in the Naqab Desert, southern Israel, to government-regulated towns and cities that will condense them into an urban area that occupies only one percent of the land.

The Olso Accords also established the Palestinian Authority, the body that governs the West Bank. According to Na’eem Jeenah, a South African journalist, “What Oslo did was create an authority, which allowed Israel to still control the occupied Palestinian territory, but control it through a Palestinian authority. In fact, Israel controls the borders. Israel controls taxes. Israel controls all kinds of things-access in and out of that area,”

“Israel can’t create a situation of control without a pretend president of a Palestinian Bantustan, that’s Abu Mazen,” said Halper.

When asked at what point a state ceases to be a state, McGreal pointed to the reality that some countries in Africa are so dependent on Western aid, for example, they are effectively neo-colonies. Aside from defining physical borders, he argued there are much more intricate details in establishing a Palestinian state. He pointed to the example of water, a commodity Israel takes from the West Bank and questioned whether they would be willing to give up access to the water.

“The real danger of a Bantustan parallel is that you emerge with a Palestinian leadership that is effectively dependant on Israel, this would be the definition of a Bantustan Palestine. Israel may cede sovereignty but will seek to agree some kind of control,” he said.

The essence of the Bantustans was the creation of a fantasy entity for one race exclusively. The entity was to resemble a state but not to be a state, with sovereignty but dependent, run by a leader that governed the oppressed but who was a puppet for the oppressor. As settlements flourish amid peace talks discussing Palestinian statehood is this that far from the reality Israel has and continues to create today?