💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › noam-chomsky-constructive-action.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:56:46. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Constructive Action? Author: Noam Chomsky Date: May 11, 2002 Language: en Topics: Israel/Palestine, US foreign interventions Source: Retrieved on 2nd July 2021 from https://chomsky.info/20020511/ Notes: Published in Red Pepper.
A year ago, the Hebrew University sociologist Baruch Kimmerling observed
that “what we feared has come true … War appears an unavoidable fate”,
an “evil colonial” war. His colleague Ze’ev Sternhell noted that the
Israeli leadership was now engaged in “colonial policing, which recalls
the takeover by the white police of the poor neighbourhoods of the
blacks in South Africa during the apartheid era”. Both stress the
obvious: there is no symmetry between the “ethno-national groups” in
this conflict, which is centred in territories that have been under
harsh military occupation for 35 years.
The Oslo “peace process” changed the modalities of the occupation, but
not the basic concept. Shortly before joining the Ehud Barak government,
historian Shlomo Ben-Ami wrote that “the Oslo agreements were founded on
a neo-colonialist basis, on a life of dependence of one on the other
forever”. He soon became an architect of the US-Israel proposals at Camp
David in 2000, which kept to this condition. At the time, West Bank
Palestinians were confined to 200 scattered areas. Bill Clinton and
Israeli prime minister Barak did propose an improvement: consolidation
to three cantons, under Israeli control, virtually separated from one
another and from the fourth enclave, a small area of East Jerusalem, the
centre of Palestinian communications. The fifth canton was Gaza. It is
understandable that maps are not to be found in the US mainstream. Nor
is their prototype, the Bantustan “homelands” of apartheid South Africa,
ever mentioned. No one can seriously doubt that the US role will
continue to be decisive. It is crucial to understand what that role has
been, and how it is internally perceived. The version of the doves is
presented by the editors of the New York Times, praising President
Bush’s “path-breaking speech” and the “emerging vision” he articulated.
Its first element is “ending Palestinian terrorism” immediately. Some
time later comes “freezing, then rolling back, Jewish settlements and
negotiating new borders” to allow the establishment of a Palestinian
state. If Palestinian terror ends, Israelis will be encouraged to “take
the Arab League’s historic offer of full peace and recognition in
exchange for an Israeli withdrawal more seriously”. But first
Palestinian leaders must demonstrate that they are “legitimate
diplomatic partners”.
The real world has little resemblance to this self-serving portrayal –
virtually copied from the 1980s, when the US and Israel were desperately
seeking to evade PLO offers of negotiation and political settlement. In
the real world, the primary barrier to the “emerging vision” has been,
and remains, unilateral US rejectionism. There is little new in the
current “Arab League’s historic offer”.
It repeats the basic terms of a security council resolution of January
1976 which called for a political settlement on the internationally
recognised borders “with appropriate arrangements … to guarantee … the
sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of all
states in the area”. This was backed by virtually the entire world,
including the Arab states and the PLO, but opposed by Israel and vetoed
by the US, thereby vetoing it from history. Similar initiatives have
since been blocked by the US and mostly suppressed in public commentary.
Not surprisingly, the guiding principle of the occupation has been
incessant humiliation. Israeli plans for Palestinians have followed the
guidelines formulated by Moshe Dayan, one of the Labour leaders more
sympathetic to the Palestinian plight. Thirty years ago, Dayan advised
the cabinet that Israel should make it clear to refugees that “we have
no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes
may leave”. When challenged, he responded by citing Ben-Gurion, who said
that “who- ever approaches the Zionist problem from a moral aspect is
not a Zionist”. He could have also cited Chaim Weizmann, first president
of Israel, who held that the fate of the “several hundred thousand
negroes” in the Jewish homeland “is a matter of no consequence”.
The Palestinians have long suffered torture, terror, destruction of
property, displacement and settlement, and takeover of basic resources,
crucially water. These policies have relied on decisive US support and
European acquiescence. “The Barak government is leaving Sharon’s
government a surprising legacy,” the Israeli press reported as the
transition took place: “the highest number of housing starts in the
territories since … Ariel Sharon was minister of construction and
settlement in 1992 before the Oslo agreements” – funding provided by the
American taxpayer. It is regularly claimed that all peace proposals have
been undermined by Arab refusal to accept the existence of Israel (the
facts are quite different), and by terrorists like Arafat who have
forfeited “our trust”. How that trust may be regained is explained by
Edward Walker, a Clinton Middle East adviser: Arafat must announce that
“we put our future and fate in the hands of the US” – which has led the
campaign to undermine Palestinian rights for 30 years.
The basic problem then, as now, traces back to Washington, which has
persistently backed Israel’s rejection of a political settlement in
terms of the broad international consensus. Current modifications of US
rejectionism are tactical. With plans for an attack on Iraq endangered,
the US permitted a UN resolution calling for Israeli withdrawal from the
newly-invaded territories “without delay” – meaning “as soon as
possible”, secretary of state Colin Powell explained at once. Powell’s
arrival in Israel was delayed to allow the Israeli Defence Force to
continue its destructive operations, facts hard to miss and confirmed by
US officials.
When the current intifada broke out, Israel used US helicopters to
attack civilian targets, killing and wounding dozens of Palestinians,
hardly in self-defence. Clinton responded by arranging “the largest
purchase of military helicopters by the Israeli Air Force in a decade”
(as reported in Ha’aretz), along with spare parts for Apache attack
helicopters. A few weeks later, Israel began to use US helicopters for
assassinations. These extended last August to the first assassination of
a political leader: Abu Ali Mustafa. That passed in silence, but the
reaction was quite different when Israeli cabinet minister Rehavam
Ze’evi was killed in retaliation. Bush is now praised for arranging the
release of Arafat from his dungeon in return for US-UK supervision of
the accused assassins of Ze’evi. It is inconceivable that there should
be any effort to punish those responsible for the Mustafa assassination.
Further contributions to “enhancing terror” took place last December,
when Washington again vetoed a security council resolution calling for
dispatch of international monitors. Ten days earlier, the US boycotted
an international conference in Geneva that once again concluded that the
fourth Geneva convention applies to the occupied territories, so that
many US-Israeli actions there are “grave breaches”, hence serious war
crimes. As a “high contracting party”, the US is obligated by solemn
treaty to prosecute those responsible for such crimes, including its own
leadership. Accordingly, all of this passes in silence.
The US has not officially withdrawn its recognition that the conventions
apply to the occupied territories, or its censure of Israeli violations
as the “occupying power”. In October 2000 the security council
reaffirmed the consensus, “call[ing] on Israel, the occupying power, to
abide scrupulously by its legal obligations…” The vote was 14–0. Clinton
abstained.
Until such matters are permitted to enter discussion, and their
implications understood, it is meaningless to call for “US engagement in
the peace process”, and prospects for constructive action will remain
grim.