No country is more important for the future of Palestine than Israel, which controls most of Palestinian territory, its borders and most aspects of the daily lives of the Palestinians living there. It might be expected then that the elections that have just taken place in Israel [2] would be of great interest to Palestinians and followed closely with bated breath. They were not. Indeed, one Palestinian teenager in Ramallah reacted to my question about how he felt about the Israeli elections using an Arab proverb: "leave the clay pots to crush each other" (rather than us). Few Palestinians I know wasted any sleep following the results through the night although no one needs change as much as the disenfranchised Palestinians under occupation. Why the lack of interest?
Perhaps the closest analogy would be the attitude that black people in South African had to the elections of the white apartheid regime. As long as the apartheid ideology dominated, whoever won might carry out some cosmetic changes to relations between the white and black South African populations, but the apartheid regime would remain in place.
Since the beginning of the occupation more than 44 years ago, no Israeli government has indicated willingness to accept that its status is that of an occupier of territory acquired through a belligerent war, and consequently been willing to withdraw from these areas and hand them over either to the surrounding Arab states or to a newly created sovereign, independent Palestinian state. The difference in the attitudes of successive Israeli governments over these past four decades has been in the details not in the nature of the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian territories. All major political parties in Israel took the attitude, whether explicitly or though their actions, that these newly acquired territories were Israel's to do what they wanted with.
Some advocated all-out annexation, others annexation in all but name, preferring the term "administration", but all recognised the right of Israeli Jews to settle in these territories and were generous in their support of the settlement enterprise. Thus the Labour government that remained in power until 1977 began building settlements early on after the beginning of the occupation. They favoured certain areas of the West Bank. Then Likud came to power and began building settlements everywhere in the West Bank well beyond the outline of the Allon Plan [3] devised by the Labour party.
The problem for successive Israeli government was not whether or not to settle their own citizens in the occupied Palestinian territories but what to do with the Palestinians living there. Should they be administered by Jordan, should they be given a measure of self-rule, what kind of jurisdiction should they be allowed to exercise? These questions were resolved in the 1993-95 Oslo Accords that relieved Israel of administering many of the civilian affairs of the Palestinians while leaving the bulk of the land effectively under Israeli sovereignty, with Israel controlling the borders. Thus Oslo determined the colonial nature of the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
As far as Israel was concerned it related to the occupied territories not as an occupier but as a colonial ruler whose security forces (sometimes in co-operation with those of the colonised) kept the peace and quelled any resistance to the status quo. All the privileges of colonial masters accrued to Israel from access to and exploitation of the resources of land and water and archaeological sites to prohibiting any construction outside the land areas designated for the colonised population. Access in and out of the borders of the territory is only through Israeli ports under full control and authority of Israel. Whatever the results of the Israeli elections this will not change.
Habayit Hayehudi, which at exit polls was expected to win 11 seats, believes in the full annexation of Area C constituting over 60% of the West Bank [4] whereas the other Zionist parties make no indication of vigorous opposition to preserving the status quo. According to this, large parts of the Palestinian territories continue to be treated as effectively part of greater Israel but without the explicit annexation that would be expected to bring condemnation of outside powers. Meretz, which believes in the right of the Palestinians to self-determination is the only exception amongst Zionist parties. The doubling of its seats, according to exit polls, as well as the continued presence of the indomitable Knesset member Hanan Zoabi, from the Balad party, and the 2,000 Israelis who gave their votes to disenfranchised Palestinians [5] are perhaps flickers of light in the desolate landscape of Israeli politics.
Still, Palestinians are right not to follow with any enthusiasm the Israeli elections because as long as Israel can get away with violating international law with impunity, as it has been doing over the past 64 years of its existence, no real change affecting their lives and future is expected as a result of these elections. Change can only come when third party states who are signatories of the 1949 fourth Geneva Convention relative to protection of civilian persons in time of war, who have the duty to enforce the convention, use their influence and power to exert the necessary pressure to force Israel to abide by the rules of international law and withdraw from the land it occupied 44 years ago.
As one Israeli driver told the Haaretz journalist [6] Roy Arad, "voting this time is like picking out an ice cream flavour".
Front Page Features