Israeli PM Olmert compares Israel to Apartheid South Africa

The Israel/Palestine negotiations in Annapolis over the final status elements of the two state treaty are presented in the West as some sort of prelude to the liberation of the Palestinians. But the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in an interview published the 29th November made it absolutely clear that they are nothing of the kind. He compared the struggle for the survival of Israel, with that of the racist South African Apartheid state, Olmert explained to Haaretz newspaper;

"If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished."

Israel was founded in 1948 through the ethnic cleansing of the historic territory of Palestine, of its Palestinian inhabitants. This crime means that uniquely, of any state in the world, Israel can only exist as long as it prevents the majority of its inhabitants, the Palestinians, from returning to their homes.

Traditionally Israel has objected to comparisons between it and Apartheid South Africa, only too aware of the damage comparison with the racist white rulers of the discredited Apartheid regime will have for its self proclaimed international image as the “only democracy in the middle east”. Olmert however, has no such qualms - he said the same thing five years ago and insists that, "Since then, I have systematically repeated those positions." In his original interview, entitled the “Maximum Jews the minimum Palestinians ,” he said;

“More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against `occupation,' in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle - and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state.”

It is the fear of a democratic solution to the Palestinian question which motivates Olmert towards the foundation of two states – an expanded Israel, including much of the Palestinian occupied territories with up to 88% of the original territory of Palestine under Israeli control. This would leave a “Palestinian state”, completely surrounded by and under the economic domination of Israel on the remaining 12%. No wonder this solution is known in Palestinian circles, following on from Olmert’s lead as the creation of a “banthustan”, a phrase which refers to the “homelands” given to reactionary, bought and paid for tribal leaders by the Apartheid South African regime, which was their alternative to the democratic abolition of their racist state.

Olmert explains that it is the role of Tony Blair, the gang of fours Middle East envoy, to try and sell this racist two-state solution to the Palestinians, through the offices of their stooge representative Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas;

"He is a weak partner, who is not capable, and, as Tony Blair says, has yet to formulate the tools and may not manage to do so. But it is my job to do everything so that he receives the tools, and to reach an understanding on the guidelines for an agreement. Annapolis is not a historic turning point, but it is a point that can be of assistance."

This also explains the relatively positive words of George Bush in support of Olmert’s proposal, such a banthustan poses at least one path towards the legitimisation of Israel. That Bush’s support is not more fulsome reflects a further real ambiguity in the situation, hard line neo-cons in his administration and their allies on the Israeli right, object to any Palestinian state whatsoever as they fear it could become in some perverted way a road to a single Palestinian state. Hence they oppose even Olmert’s racist plan, for in effect, not being racist enough.

Anyone with a democratic bone in their body cannot accept anything less than the right of the inhabitants of Palestine to have an equal vote to the Israelis or for them to return to the homes from which they were so cruelly ejected just 60 years ago. The struggle for Palestinian self determination is an elementary and just democratic struggle, as Olmert himself understands and explains. That is after all the reason he opposes it - Olmert is an undemocratic and chauvinist defender of an undemocratic and chauvinist state, Israel.

And for exactly that reason, the struggle for self determination cannot be limited to any two state solution. It can only be realised in a single, democratic and secular bi-national state. But to achieve that demand the working class of the region must come to head of the movement and transform that struggle from a democratic one into that for a socialist federation of the middle east.

Mon 03, December 2007 @ 23:07