Analysis of events in the Israel occupation of Palestine.
In the course of an interview given to the Lambeth and Wandsworth (London)
branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in July 2007, the celebrated
American intellectual and activist Noam Chomsky provided a devastating
insight into what lies behind the continuing conflict - and could lead to
the death of the Palestinian nation itself, if the 'rejectionists' are
allowed to prevail against overwhelming public opinion, East and West.
What is your view of the situation in Gaza today? Could it mark the
beginning of the end for the Palestinian Authority?
Some background is necessary. Let's begin with January 2006, when
Palestinians voted in a carefully monitored election, pronounced to be free
and fair by international observers - despite US efforts to swing the
election towards their favourite, Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party. But
Palestinians committed a grave crime, by Western standards. They voted 'the
wrong way'. The US instantly joined Israel in punishing Palestinians for
their misconduct, with Europe toddling along behind as usual.
There is nothing novel about the reaction to these Palestinian misdeeds.
Though it is obligatory to hail our leaders for their sincere dedication to
bringing democracy to a suffering world - perhaps in an excess of idealism -
the more serious scholar/advocates of the mission of 'democracy promotion'
recognize that there is a 'strong line of continuity' running through all
administrations: the US supports democracy if, and only if, it conforms to
US strategic and economic interests (Thomas Carothers, head of the Law and
Democracy Program of the Carnegie Endowment). In short, the project is pure
cynicism, if viewed honestly. The US project should be described as one of
blocking democracy, not promoting it - dramatically so in the case of
Palestine.
The punishment of Palestinians for the crime of voting the wrong way was
severe. With constant US backing, Israel increased its violence in Gaza,
withheld funds that it was legally obligated to transmit to the Palestinian
Authority, tightened its siege and, in a gratuitous act of cruelty, even cut
off the flow of water to the arid Gaza Strip. The Israeli attacks became far
more severe after the capture of Corporal Gilad Shalit on 25 June, which the
West portrayed as a terrible crime.
Again, pure cynicism. Just one day before, Israel kidnapped two civilians in
Gaza - a far worse crime than capturing a soldier - and transported them to
Israel (in violation of international law, but that is routine), where they
presumably joined the roughly 1,000 prisoners held by Israel without
charges, hence kidnapped. None of this merits more than a yawn in the West.
There is no need here to run through the ugly details. The US-Israel made
sure that Hamas would not have a chance to govern. Of course, the two
leaders of the rejectionist camp flatly rejected Hamas's call for a
long-term cease-fire to allow for negotiations for a settlement in terms of
the international consensus on a two-state settlement, which the US-Israel
reject - as they have done in virtual isolation for over 30 years, with rare
and temporary departures.
Meanwhile, Israel stepped up its programmes of annexation, dismemberment and
imprisonment of shrinking Palestinian cantons in the West Bank, always with
decisive US backing, despite occasional minor complaints accompanied by the
wink of an eye and munificent funding. The programmes were formalized in
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's 'convergence programme', which spells the end
of any viable Palestinian state. His programme was greeted in the West with
much acclaim as 'moderate', because it did not satisfy the demands of
'greater Israel' extremists. It was soon abandoned as 'too moderate', again
with understanding - if mild - notes of disapproval by Western hypocrites.
There is a standard operating procedure for overthrowing an unwanted
government: arm the military to prepare for a military coup. The US-Israel
adopted this conventional plan, arming and training Fatah to win by force
what it lost at the ballot box. The US also encouraged Mahmoud Abbas to
amass power in his own hands - steps that are quite appropriate in the eyes
of Bush administration advocates of presidential dictatorship. As for the
rest of the Quartet, Russia has no principled objection to such steps, the
UN is powerless to defy the Master and Europe is too timid to do so.
Egypt and Jordan supported the effort, consistent with their own programmes
of internal repression and barring of democracy, with US backing.
The strategy backfired. Despite the flow of military aid, Fatah forces in
Gaza were defeated in a vicious and brutal conflict, which many close
observers describe as a pre-emptive strike, targeting primarily the security
forces of the brutal Fatah strongman Mohammed Dahlan (Alistair Crooke,
Jonathan Steele, and others).
However, those with overwhelming power can often snatch victory from the
jaws of defeat, and the US-Israel quickly moved to turn the outcome to their
benefit. They now have a pretext for tightening the stranglehold on the
people of Gaza, cheerfully pursuing policies that the prominent
international law scholar Richard Falk describes as a prelude to genocide
that 'should remind the world of the famous post-Nazi pledge of "never
again"'.
The US-Israel can pursue the project with international backing, unless
Hamas meets the three conditions imposed by the 'international community' -
a technical term referring to the US Government and whoever goes along with
it. For Palestinians to be permitted to peek out of the walls of their Gaza
dungeon, Hamas must: (1) recognize Israel or, in a more extreme form,
Israel's 'right to exist' - that is, the legitimacy of their expulsion from
their homes; (2) renounce violence; (3) accept past agreements - in
particular, the Road Map of the Quartet.
The hypocrisy again is stunning. No such conditions are imposed on those who
wear the jackboots: (1) Israel does not recognize Palestine, in fact is
devoting extensive efforts to ensure that there will be no viable Palestine
ever, always with decisive US support; (2) Israel does not renounce violence
- and it is ridiculous even to raise the question with regard to the US; (3)
Israel firmly rejects past agreements, in particular, the Road Map, with US
support. The first two points are obvious. The third is correct, but
scarcely known. While Israel formally accepted the Road Map, it attached 14
Reservations that completely eviscerate it. To take just the first, Israel
demanded that for the process to commence and continue, the Palestinians
must ensure full quiet, education for peace, cessation of incitement,
dismantling of Hamas and other organizations, and other conditions. Even if
they were to satisfy these virtually impossible demands, the Israeli Cabinet
proclaimed that 'the Roadmap will not state that Israel must cease violence
and incitement against the Palestinians'. The other reservations continue in
the same vein.
Israel's instant rejection of the Road Map, with US support, is unacceptable
to the Western self-image, so it has been suppressed. The facts did finally
break into the mainstream with the publication of Jimmy Carter's Palestine:
Peace Not Apartheid. The book elicited a torrent of abuse and desperate
efforts to discredit it, but these sections - the only part of the book that
would have been new to readers with some familiarity with the topic - were
scrupulously avoided. It would, rightly, be considered utterly ludicrous to
demand that a political party in the US or Israel meet such conditions -
though it would be fair to ask that the two states with overwhelming power
meet them. But the imperial mentality is so deeply embedded in Western
culture that this travesty passes without criticism, even notice.
While now in a position to crush Gaza with even greater cruelty, Israel can
also proceed, with US backing, to implement its plans in the West Bank,
expecting to have the tacit co-operation of Fatah leaders, who will be amply
rewarded for their capitulation. Among other steps, Israel began to release
the funds - estimated at $600 million - that it had stolen in reaction to
the January 2006 election, and is making a few other gestures. The
programmes of undermining democracy are proceeding with shameless
self-righteousness and ill-concealed pleasure, with gestures to keep the
natives contented - at least those who play along - while Israel continues
its merciless repression and violence ; and, of course, its immense projects
to ensure that it will take over whatever is of value to it in the West
Bank. All thanks to the benevolence of the gracious rich uncle.
To turn, finally, to your question ; the end of the Palestinian Authority
might not be a bad idea for Palestinians, in the light of US-Israeli
programmess of rendering it nothing more than a quisling regime to oversee
their extreme rejectionist designs. What should concern us much more is that
US-Israeli triumphalism - and European cowardice - might be the prelude to
the death of a nation, a rare and somber event.
Do you think that there are any conditions under which the US might change
its policy of `unconditional support` for Israel?
A large majority of Americans oppose US Government policy and support the
international consensus on a two-state settlement - in recent polls it's
called the 'Saudi Plan', referring to the position of the Arab League,
supported by virtually the entire world, apart from the US and Israel.
Furthermore, a large majority think that the US should deny aid to either of
the contending parties - Israel and the Palestinians - if they do not
negotiate in good faith towards this settlement. This is one of a great many
illustrations of a huge gap between public opinion and public policy on
critical issues.
It should be added that few people are likely to be aware that their
preferences would lead to cutting off all aid to Israel. To understand this
consequence one would have to escape the grip of the powerful and largely
uniform doctrinal system, which labours to project an image of US
benevolence, Israeli righteousness and Palestinian terror and
obstructionism, whatever the facts. To answer your question: US policy might
well change if the US became a functioning democratic society, in which an
informed public has a meaningful voice in policy formation. That's the task
for activists and organizers, and not just in this case. One can think of
other possible conditions that might lead to a change in US policy, but none
that holds anywhere near as much promise as this one.
What message do you think the appointment of Tony Blair as the Quartet's
envoy will send to the Palestinians and others around the region?
Perhaps the most apt comment was by the fine Lebanese political analyst Rami
Khouri. He said that 'appointing Tony Blair as special envoy for
Arab-Israeli peace is something like appointing the Emperor Nero to be the
chief fireman of Rome'.
Blair was indeed appointed as an envoy, but not as the Quartet's envoy,
except in name. The Bush administration made it very clear at once that he
is Washington's envoy, with a very limited mandate. It announced in no
uncertain terms that Secretary of State Rice (and the President) would
retain unilateral control over the important issues, while Blair would be
permitted to deal only with problems of institution building - an impossible
task as long as Washington maintains its extreme rejectionist policies.
Europe had no noticeable reaction to yet another slap in the face.
Washington evidently assumes that Blair will continue to be 'the
spear-carrier for the Pax Americana', as his role was described in the
journal of Britain's Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Do you think that the corporate media in the US should worry about its lies
and fantasies being exposed by online fringe media (ZNet, Counterpunch, GNN,
etc), or is there a finite limit on how far these alternative media can ever
penetrate in a population like the US?
For the present, the media - and the intellectual community - need not be
too concerned about the exposure of 'lies and fantasies'. The limit is
determined by the strength and commitment of popular movements. They
certainly face barriers, but there is no reason to think they are
insurmountable ones.
Do you see any cracks in American Zionism? Do you see any factors that would
at least temper it, and force a more pragmatic policy?
One has to be cautious in speaking of American Zionism. The most strident
and extremist voices are those of the organized Jewish community. They do
not reflect the opinions of most American Jews. That is probably true of
ethnic diaspora communities generally, but it has been dramatically true in
this case since 1967, when attitudes towards Israel changed radically for a
variety of reasons, many of them having little to do with Israel.
For the late Edward W Said, the solution was one state where all the
citizens (Arabs, Jews, Christians.) will have the same democratic rights. Do
you think that because of the situation in Gaza and the ever-spreading
settlements, the pendulum will now swing towards a one-state solution, as
being the only possible end point to the conflict?
Two points of clarification are necessary. First, there is a crucial
difference between a one-state solution and a bi-national state. In general,
nation-states have been imposed with substantial violence and repression;
for one reason, because they seek to force varied and complex populations
into a single mold. One of the more healthy developments in Europe today is
the revival of some degree of regional autonomy and cultural identity,
reflecting somewhat more closely the nature of the populations.
In the case of Israel-Palestine, a one-state solution will arise only on the
US model: with extermination or expulsion of the indigenous population. A
sensible approach would be advocacy of a bi-national solution, recognizing
that the territory now includes two fairly distinct societies. The second
point is that Edward Said - an old and close friend - was one of the
earliest and most outspoken supporters of a two-state solution. By the 1990s
he felt that the opportunity had been lost and he proposed, without much
specification, a unitary state - by which I am sure he would have meant a
bi-national state.
I purposely use the word 'propose', not 'advocate'. The distinction is
crucial. We can propose that everyone should live in peace and harmony. The
proposal rises to the level of advocacy when we sketch a path from here to
there. In the case of a unitary (bi-national) solution, the only advocacy I
know of passes through a number of stages: first a two-state settlement - in
terms of the international consensus that the US-Israel have prevented -
followed by moves towards bi-national federation, and finally closer
integration, perhaps to a bi-national democratic state, as circumstances
allow.
It is of some interest that when bi-nationalist federation, opening the way
to closer integration, was feasible - from 1967 to the mid-1970s -
suggestions to this effect (my own writings, for example) elicited near
hysteria. Today, when they are completely unfeasible, they are treated with
respect in the mainstream (New York Times, New York Review of Books, etc.).
The reason, I suspect, is that a call today for a one-state settlement is a
gift to the jingoist right, who can then wail that 'they are trying to
destroy us, so we must destroy them in self-defence'. But true advocacy of a
bi-national state seems to me just as appropriate as it has always been.
That has been my unchanged opinion since the 1940s. Advocacy, that is, not
mere proposal.
Looking ahead, what do you consider to be the best case, worst case and most
likely scenarios for the boundaries and control of occupied Palestine in the
next 10 years?
The worst case would be the destruction of Palestine. The best case, in the
short term, would be a two-state settlement in terms of the international
consensus. That is by no means impossible. It is supported by virtually the
entire world, including the majority of the US population. It has come
rather close, once, during the last month of Clinton's presidency, the sole
US departure from extreme rejectionism in the past 30 years. The US lent its
support to the negotiations in Taba, Egypt (January 2001), which came very
close to a settlement in the general terms of the international consensus,
before they were called off prematurely by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud
Barak. In their final press conference, the negotiators expressed some hope
that if they had been permitted to continue their joint work a settlement
could have been reached. The years since have seen many horrors, but the
possibility remains.
As for the most likely scenario, it looks unpleasantly close to the worst
case - but human affairs are not predictable: too much depends on will and
choice.
The University and College Union in Britain has recently voted in favour of
considering an academic boycott of Israeli universities. Do you think that
this and other types of boycott are appropriate measures and could have a
positive effect on Israeli policies?
I have always been sceptical about academic boycotts. There may be
overriding reasons, but in general I think that those channels should be
kept open. As for boycotts in general, they are a tactic, not a principle.
Like other tactics, we have to evaluate them in terms of their likely
consequences. That is a matter of prime importance, at least for those who
care about the fate of the victims. And circumstances have to be considered
with care.
Let's consider South Africa and Israel, which are often compared in this
context. In the case of South Africa, boycotts had some impact, but it is
worth remembering that they were implemented after a long period of
education and organizing, which had led to widespread condemnation of
apartheid, even within mainstream opinion and powerful institutions. That
included the US corporate sector, which has an overwhelming influence on
policy formation. At that stage, boycott became an effective instrument.
The case of Israel is radically different. The preparatory educational and
organizing work has scarcely been done. The result is that calls for boycott
can easily turn out to be weapons for the hard right, and in fact that has
regularly (and predictably) happened. Those who care about the fate of
Palestinians will not undertake actions that harm them.
Nevertheless, carefully targeted boycotts, which are comprehensible to the
public in the current state of understanding, can be effective instruments.
One example is calls for university divestment from corporations that are
involved in US-Israeli repression and violence, and denial of elementary
human rights.
In Europe, a sensible move would be to call for an end to preferential
treatment for Israeli exports until Israel stops its systematic destruction
of Palestinian agriculture and its barring of economic development.
In the US, it would make good sense to call for reducing US aid to Israel by
the estimated $600 million that Israel has stolen by refusing to transmit
funds to the elected government. And the cynicism of funneling aid to the
faction it supports should be exposed as just another exercise in
undermining democracy.
Looking farther ahead, a sensible project would be to support the stand of
the majority of Americans that all aid to Israel should be cancelled, until
it agrees to negotiate seriously for a peaceful diplomatic settlement,
instead of continuing to act vigorously to undermine the possibility of
realizing the international consensus on a two-state settlement.
That, however, will require serious educational and organizational efforts.
Readers of the mainstream press were well aware of the shocking nature of
apartheid. But they are presented daily with the picture of Israel
desperately seeking peace, but under constant attack by Palestinian
terrorists who want to destroy it.
That is not just the media, incidentally. Just to illustrate, Harvard
University's Kennedy School of Government published a research paper on the
2006 Lebanon war that has to be read to be believed - but is not untypical.
It's by Marvin Kalb, a highly respected figure in journalism, head of the
Kennedy School's media programme. According to his account, the media were
almost totally controlled by Hezbollah, and failed to recognize that Israel
was 'engaged in an existential struggle for survival', fighting a two-front
war of self-defence against attacks in Lebanon and Gaza. The attack on the
pathetic victim from the south was the capture of Corporal Shalit. The
kidnapping of Gaza civilians the day before, and innumerable other crimes
like it, are more self-defence.
The attack from the north was the Hezbollah capture of two soldiers on 12
July. More cynicism. For decades Israel has been kidnapping and killing
civilians in Lebanon, or on the high seas between Lebanon and Cyprus,
holding many for long periods as hostages, while unknown numbers of others
were sent to secret prison-torture chambers, like Facility 1391 (not
reported in the US). No-one has ever condemned Israel for aggression or
called for massive terror attacks in retaliation. As always, the cynicism
reeks to the skies, illustrating imperial mentality so deeply rooted as to
be imperceptible.
Continuing with the Kennedy School version of the war - it demonstrates the
extreme bias of the Arab press with the horrified revelation that it
portrayed Lebanese to Israeli casualties at a ratio of 22-1, whereas
objective Western journalism would of course be neutral. The actual ratio
was about 25-1.
Kalb quotes New York Times correspondent Steven Erlanger, who was greatly
disturbed that photos of destruction in South Beirut lacked context: they
did not show that the rest of Beirut was not destroyed. By the same logic,
photos of the World Trade Center on 9/11 revealed the extreme bias of
Western journalism by failing to show that the rest of New York was
untouched. The falsification and deceit - of which these are a small sample
- would be startling if they were not so familiar. Until that is overcome,
punitive actions that are well-merited are likely to backfire.
All of this raises another point. For the most part, Israel can act only
within the framework established by the Great Power on which it has chosen
to rely ever since it made the fateful decision, in 1971, to prefer
expansion to peace, rejecting Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's proposal for
a full Israel-Egyptian peace treaty in favor of settlement in the Egyptian
Sinai. We can debate the extent to which Israel relies on US support, but
there can be little doubt that its crushing of Palestinians and other
violent crimes are possible only because the US provides it with
unprecedented economic, military, diplomatic and ideological support.
So, if there are to be boycotts, why not of the US, whose support of Israel
is the least of its crimes? Or of the UK, or other criminal states? We know
the answer, and it is not an attractive one, undermining the integrity of
the call for boycott.
0 Have Your Say!:
Post a Comment