It would be a mistake to dismiss Israel’s dissolution of its settlements in the Gaza Strip as an irrelevancy, as some supporters of the Palestinian cause are prone to do. There is a powerful symbolism to the spectacle of Israeli troops cracking down on recalcitrant settlers, and in the fact that the architect of the withdrawals, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, was a prime mover behind the settlements after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. This is the first time that Israelis have pulled back from the occupied territories — which has to be regarded as a step in the right direction.
At the same time, it would be a grave mistake to think that the withdrawals are a sufficient concession for the attainment of lasting peace in the Middle East. While 8 000 settlers were packing up in Gaza, the consolidation and extension of settlements in the occupied West Bank continue apace. Indeed, the intention is to settle 35 000 more Israelis and build more than 6 000 new residential apartments on the West Bank.
Nor is there any sign that Sharon intends to yield to demands for Palestinian control of East Jerusalem. How can there be a two-state solution when the Palestinian state is deprived of most of its land and its capital? When the West Bank consists of alternating Israeli and Palestinian enclaves, separated by barricades and fences? When contact between the two segments of Palestinian land has been rendered virtually impossible by restrictions on the movement of Palestinians? While welcoming the Gaza withdrawals, representatives of the Palestinian Authority — the moderate leaders of that community — are adamant that Sharon’s underlying purpose is to circumvent the “road map” for peace, which enjoys international support and represents the only realistic hope of a peaceful and durable two-state settlement.
Ominously, there is no sign that the Gaza concession has dampened militancy among the Palestinians. Because it is essentially a unilateral move, the withdrawal appears to be widely seen as the achievement of Hamas, rather than the fruit of negotiation. In the Palestinian demonstrations that greeted the Gaza withdrawal, Hamas flags and other symbols were everywhere in evidence. A Hamas member has been quoted as saying the Palestinian struggle will now be carried forward on the West Bank. It should be remembered that the organisation recently made major advances as an above-ground political entity in local government elections in the Gaza Strip.
Left-wing Israeli commentator Uri Avnery has suggested that down the line, the Gaza withdrawals may have a larger impact that cannot now be foreseen. The most likely effect is to give Palestinian militants heart, and a belief that given enough time and resolve, Israeli obduracy can be broken throughout the occupied territories. The settlers may be right in predicting that the Gaza withdrawal may merely foment further terrorism. Sooner or later, Israelis will have to confront the reality that a minimum condition for peace is the whole-scale evacuation of the West Bank to create conditions for a viable Palestinian state. The fact is that Israel had no business settling on conquered lands, in defiance of the Geneva Convention. And the longer the Israelis leave a complete pull-back, the weaker the Palestinian moderates, and the stronger Hamas and its ilk, will grow.
Nonsense
Very often, the Congress of South African Trade Unions’ resolutions make good sense, but this week’s bombast about former deputy president Jacob Zuma was nonsense.
Union members gathered at the party’s central committee meeting this week resolved that Zuma should be reinstated, incumbent Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka should be fired and that President Thabo Mbeki should drop charges against his former deputy. Imagine!
This is a two-faced reversal of its previous push for Zuma to be charged. Now that a trial date is looming, the good men of the left have decided that they will shift the goal-posts.
The week has not been good for Cosatu’s position as a moral authority in South Africa. While it has led the way on defining a rights-based position on Zimbabwe, on forcing government to take more account of poverty and of joblessness, and on myriad other key contributions to post-apartheid, society, the moral beacon has flickered in a wave of misguided support for Zuma.
And while Cosatu general-secretary Zwelinzima Vavi is trying to distance the federation’s leadership from the resolution, painting it as democracy in action, the burdens of leadership mean that he (and the other union leaders) cannot be let off the hook quite so eaily.
For it was Vavi who signalled to members that nothing should be put in the way of a Zuma presidency, following Mbeki’s departure in 2009. In March, he told union representatives at a Johannesburg conference that trying to stop Zuma becoming president would be like “trying to fight against the big wave of the tsunami”. When the leadership speaks, union members listen.
On June 14, Zuma was relieved of his duties and two months later, Cosatu has launched an attack on the integrity of the judicial system and of the Constitution. It is a failure of leadership, not a show of democracy as Cosatu is now trying to paint it.
While many look to a party of the left (which will have to come from within Cosatu) to one day form a mass-based opposition and perhaps even to contest power, democrats must shudder at this abrogation of constitutional duty by Cosatu.