If Palestinians were black, Israel would now be a pariah state subject to economic sanctions led by the United States. Its development and settlement of the West Bank would be seen as a system of apartheid, in which the indigenous population was allowed to live in a tiny fraction of its own country, in self-administered Bantustans, with whites monopolising the supply of water and electricity. And just as the black population was allowed into our ”white” areas in disgracefully under-resourced townships, so Israel’s treatment of Israeli Arabs – flagrantly discriminating against them in housing and education spending – would be recognised as scandalous too. One fallout from the current violence in the West Bank is that the world is beginning to recognise the extraordinary injustice with which Palestinians are treated by Israel. Israel likes to portray itself as an island of democratic civility whose peace-making efforts have now been destroyed by a Palestinian onslaught directed by Yasser Arafat. Yes, there is dreadful hatred. And yes, Arafat – cynical and corrupt – is no Nelson Mandela. But the responsibility for ending hatred must lie with the stronger partner. With the latest grim scorecard showing about 100 Palestinian and Israeli Arab fatalities and many more wounded, against two Israeli soldiers and several other Jews dead, there is no doubting where the balance of power actually lies. An enraged Israeli population, united by fear and despair, will regard such criticism as grossly unfair. They argue that they signed the Oslo accords seven years ago. At Camp David last July, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered a partial handover of East Jerusalem and offered to place the holy sites outside Jewish control in order to get a peace deal. Within Israel there was a move to recognise Palestine as an independent state. It was thrown back in their face, they say, and Arafat has been inciting Palestinians to riot, inevitably prompting the Israeli police and army to react. But that is a self-serving account. The Oslo accords built in an overwhelming Israeli territorial advantage in the West Bank, and turned Arafat into a compromised leader. He is caught between an intransigent negotiating partner and a sullen, suspicious population over whom he has little direct control – a stooge created by Israeli policy and sustained by it. And all the while Israeli settlers extend their settlements in the West Bank. There never can be any long-term legitimacy for the Israeli state in the Middle East as long as this process continues, and it is this that threatens Israel’s long-term survival. It was not only Ariel Sharon’s visit to the al-Aqsa compound on September 28 that triggered the mayhem; it was Israeli soldiers killing seven Palestinians and wounding 220 others the next day, a calculated act of oppression for which the ”peacemaking” Barak must accept responsibility.
It is all very well calling for summits and truces, and if they succeed in creating short-term calm, then they are welcome. But this is a moment of truth for Israel. It can threaten all-out war and even reoccupy southern Lebanon. However, it is a course that leads nowhere. If it wants genuine and lasting peace, Israel must work to construct a legitimate Palestinian state, draw back its illegal settlements from the West Bank to build confidence around an agreed timetable, and, in the interim, exercise restraint in the way it polices. Playing the role of Old Testament hammer of the non- Jewish will offer no permanent solution to the crisis. Ominous indications of what this could mean for world peace and the international economy are already being felt. The oil price is rising and there is immense support for the Palestinians welling up across the Arab world. Perhaps this rise in the stakes could jolt the United States out of its craven support for whatever Israel does. Maybe even President Bill Clinton could be outspoken about the situation; he has no more to lose. Israel’s indefensible policy of apartheid must be condemned for what it is. Until then there can be only more distrust, hatred and violence. Silver lining For more than a decade the Mail & Guardian has recognised corporate social responsibility through our Investing in the Future awards. This year’s winners – Richard Bay Minerals and the Social Change Assistance Trust – amply meet the standards set by their predecessors.
The Mbonambi Rural Development Programme has been sponsored by Richards Bay Minerals since 1977, with the results spread across the countryside surrounding the mining dunes. The company has helped local communities build and run schools, clinics, farms, and wells. The fruits of RBM’s investment over the years include numerous small businesses nurtured by an advice centre.
Cape-based Social Change Assistance Trust won its award for an innovative funding scheme that helps rural communities raise capital for group projects themselves rather than turn to loan sharks to find the money. Improving the lot of employees and the social structures from which they come, in turn helps companies’ bottom line, in the form of happier – and more loyal employees. While our currency steadily heads downwards, the jobless numbers mount, crime infests our cities, and millions of people live with HIV/Aids, it is critical to remember that there are signs of life and hope in South Africa. One of these is the way that a large slice of corporate South Africa is involved in the struggle to erase the heritage of the past, and help the poorest and most vulnerable people to overcome the disadvantages conferred by apartheid and an unequal economic system.