Apartheid plan for Palestine
By Dara MacNeil
It appears that Israel's Binyamin Netanyahu is composing a
cunning plan to guarantee peace in his time. Unfortunately, it
also appears that the object of Premier Netanyahu's conciliatory
overtures is not the Palestinians, but elements within his own
fractious cabinet.
In an effort to convince his smaller partners in government that
he is not contemplating a `sellout' of the holy land of Israel,
Netanyahu has begun drawing up his own proposal for the final
status of the occupied West Bank.
d, as his outrageous decision to proceed with the Har Homah
settlement clearly demonstrated, when presented with a choice
between making peace with the Palestinians, or making peace
within his own cabinet (thus ensuring he remains in power),
Binyamin Netanyahu invariably chooses the latter. If serious, his
`proposal' for the future of the West Bank merely confirms that
unwelcome tendency.
Although the plan has not yet been made public, details have been
leaked to the media. They reveal that Netanyahu proposes that
Israel retain control over and possession of some 60% of the
territory in question. In other words, 60% of a territory that
Israel annexed and on which it has no rightful claim. It gets
worse.
As the, ahem, `peace process' stands, the Palestinian Authority
currently control the Gaza Strip (a territory so reviled by
Israel that former Premier Yitzshak Rabin once said he wished it
would sink into the sea) and 3% of the West Bank. It should be
remembered that the area under Palestinian control amounts to a
mere 6.5% of the original land of Palestine.
Under Netanyahu's `deal' the most they could ever hope to control
is 40% of the territory. But that territory would be divided up
into three or four enclaves, each of which would be surrounded on
all sides by `Israeli' territory. In other words, the separate
territories would have to acquire Israeli permission in order to
establish physical links with each other.
In addition, the enclaves would be subjected to the further
humiliation of being traversed by four major highways - all
controlled by the Israeli military. Israel would also, of course,
retain control over all the territories' water sources. As it
stands, Israel currently draws and uses over 80% of the West
Bank's water. And naturally, the Netanyahu plan says, Israel
would retain full and complete control over Jerusalem and its
hinterland.
In the aftermath of the signing of the Oslo Accords, in 1993, the
noted Palestinian intellectual Edward Said was fiercely critical
of the deal that had been struck by Arafat. His fear was that the
deal would allow Israel to impose upon the Palestinians the
`Bantustan' solution forged by South Africa's Apartheid regime.
There, territories were set aside for blacks and given a
quasi-independent status. In reality, they were little more than
internal colonies fronted by a few `local' faces. Israel has
learned well from the Apartheid regime.
US to ``engage'' with Nigeria
Two and a half years after the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and
eight other Ogoni activists, the Nigerian regime shows no
inclination to relinquish power voluntarily. Repeatedly, the
regime has promised elections within a given period and,
repeatedly, it has reneged on those promises.
At the time of Saro-Wiwa's executions, opponents of the regime
within and without Nigeria urged the imposition of a boycott of
Nigerian oil. Revenues from the industry account for 90% of the
country's export earnings and a full 80% of the regime's revenue.
Western governments, however, knew better. They decided to impose
a wholly meaningless sanctions package. As General Abacha's
continued presence in power demonstrates, the sanctions are
ineffectual.
The reluctance to impose an oil embargo was explained by a US
official who told reporters in an off-the-record briefing: ``There
is plenty of oil (available), but there's only so much Bonney
Light.'' Nigeria specialises in producing this brand of crude oil,
a brand that is extremely pure and economical to refine.
But even the meaningless sanctions may soon be a thing of the
past.
According to a recent Washington Post report, the Clinton
administration is currently engaged in a rethink on its Nigeria
policy. The report makes it clear that many White House officials
expect the sanctions will soon be replaced by a policy of
`engagement'. In other words, Nigeria will become a `friendly'
country deserving of aid and investment, a regime worthy of
support. The supposed logic of this approach is that the
recalcitrant dictators will learn the error of their ways simply
by coming into closer contact with such paragons of democratic
virtue as the US. Note the success of this policy in Indonesia.
Right way round
Refreshing to see that South Africa's post-Apartheid judicial
system is, at last, getting to grips with the country's growing
crime wave. In an admirable show of zero tolerance, a court
recently sentenced one Eugene Terreblanche to six years in jail
for attempting to murder one of his black employees. Mr
Terreblanche is also the head of the AWB, South Africa's answer
to the Nazi Party.
Still, at least Terreblanche was spared the fate experienced by
one of his compatriots in the 1980s. Claiming a black employee on
his farm was guilty of a minor infraction, the outraged white
Boer boss began beating the unfortunate man with the nearest
thing to hand.
Unfortunately for him that turned out to be a shotgun. And as he
held the barrel and beat the defenceless employee with the butt
of the gun, it went off. He died instantly. Poetic justice.
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)