“Ethnic Cleansing and Apartheid, Israel’s Way to Rid itself of Palestinians.”
Report from a Palestine Center briefing by Diana Buttu

From the start, critics of the Oslo Accords pointed out that Israel would use the agreement to “get rid of as many Palestinians as possible while holding on to as much land as possible.” The critics came to this conclusion based on a study of Zionist ideology which follows one of two patterns, apartheid and “transfer”—commonly known as ethnic cleansing.

However, after World War II, ethnic cleansing was no longer an option for nations so Israel, argued Diana Buttu, a legal advisor from the Negotiations Support Unit (NSU) of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s (PLO) Negotiations Affairs Department, saw apartheid as the best option to achieve its goal.

Speaking at a 8 August 2002 Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine (Palestine Center) briefing, Buttu argued that Israel saw the Oslo Accords as a mechanism to impose an apartheid system on the Palestinians. Israel began implementing apartheid by agreeing to give the PLO control over thirteen disconnected localities that account for only 17.2 percent of the West Bank while the remaining 82.8 percent remained under Israel’s exclusive security jurisdiction. The PLO, argued Buttu, would act as a “security sub-contractor” for Israel, responsible for the people but not the land.

Since the signing of the Oslo Accords there has been a steady deterioration in the quality of Palestinian daily life. Dozens of Israeli checkpoints ring Palestinian cities and villages, severely restricting Palestinian movement. The restrictions caused a decline in the quality of goods and services. Freedom of religion was also restricted as Israel isolated Jerusalem and its holy places from the rest of the West Bank and Gaza.

Parallel to this apartheid system, Israel carried out an “unprecedented” colonization campaign. Buttu pointed out that from 1993-2000, the settler population in the occupied Palestinian territories doubled from approximately 200,000 to 400,000 Jewish settlers, including in East Jerusalem. Successive Israeli governments encouraged Jews to settle in the Occupied Territories through a series of incentives. Spacious homes in the settlements were sold at a reduced price compared to cramped homes in major Israeli cities. Jews living in a settlement receive a 7 percent income tax reduction.

Buttu argued that the culmination of the apartheid system came during the 2000 Camp David summit. If the Palestinians had accepted the proposals at Camp David, the Palestinian territories would have been permanently divided into four separate areas, entirely controlled by Israel. Palestinians would have no control over the borders, water resources, and airspace. “The Camp David process would have enlarged the prison cells Palestinians are living in but would not have let them out of prison,’’ Buttu said.

Buttu believes that when the Oslo Accords reached a dead end, Israel decided to replace its apartheid option with the ethnic cleansing option. According to Buttu’s statistics, in 22 months of violence, almost 2,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli army. Approximately 1 percent of the population—35,000 Palestinians—have been killed or injured. Buttu argued that if 1 percent of the U.S. population were killed or injured that would add up to roughly three million people. Moreover, 30 percent of Palestinian children under the age of six suffer from chronic malnutrition and another 21 percent suffer from severe malnutrition. The malnutrition rates are equivalent to those in sub-Saharan Africa and Bangladesh. However, in those areas the cause is environmental or economical. In the Palestinian territories, explained Buttu, Israel is deliberately starving the people. “The idea is to make life so horrendous that people will leave,” Buttu said.

In case that does not drive Palestinians out, Israel has pressed ahead with assassinations, home demolitions, expulsions, and harsh closures that have left the Palestinians in dire economic conditions. Some 70 percent of families live in poverty and unemployment has reached 50 percent.

Buttu accused the international community of allowing Israel to act as a nation above the law and of failing to enforce international law when dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. She argued that the Western media has also played a role in denying the conflict its legal basis by reversing the language used to characterize the situation. The word occupation, argued Buttu, has been replaced by the word dispute. The conflict has been termed as one of violence not resistance to occupation. “If there is no occupation, international law does not apply,’’ Buttu said.

Americans, explained Buttu, must highlight these issues to the media and to Congress. She urged the American people to demand that the media reflect what is happening on the ground and the breaches of international law.

The above text is based on remarks delivered on 8 August 2002 by Diana Buttu. The speaker’s views do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine (Palestine Center) or The Jerusalem Fund. This “For the Record” may be used without permission but with proper attribution to Palestine Center. To reach Buttu, write to dbuttu@nsu-pal.org.

This information first appeared in “For the Record” No. 126, 9 August 2002.