Israeli Leaders Speak of Palestinians the Way Nazis Spoke of Jews

Commenting on the Israeli government's
enthusiastic calls for the US to attack Iraq [1],
Knesset member Zehava Gal'on of Meretz, a
member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and
Defense committee, said "It is hard to
understand the government's fervor. This is an
American matter and not one we should be
involving ourselves in. The Europeans are
making it clear there is no coalition, while we
are pushing for war. Beyond that, Israel is
going to get hit if there is a war." [2] Iraqi
foreign minister Tareq Aziz, however, thinks
that "What Bush the father did in 1991 was in
the interest of America, what his son is
planning to do now is in the interests of Israel
and the Zionists." [3]

If Aziz doesn't offer Gal'on the missing link
towards understanding her government and the
danger it is putting her in, perhaps she found
the clue in the interview with Israeli chief of
staff Moshe Ya'alon in Ha'aretz last week:

"Q: There is something surprising in the fact
that you see the Palestinian threat as an
existential threat.

"A: The characteristics of that threat are
invisible, like cancer. When you are attacked
externally, you see the attack, you are
wounded. Cancer, on the other hand, is
something internal. Therefore, I find it more
disturbing, because here the diagnosis is
critical. If the diagnosis is wrong and people
say it's not cancer but a headache, then the
response is irrelevant. But I maintain that it is
cancer. My professional diagnosis is that there
is a phenomenon here that constitutes an
existential threat.

"Q: Does that mean that what you are doing
now, as chief of staff, in the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip, is applying chemotherapy?

A: There are all kinds of solutions to cancerous
manifestations. Some will say it is necessary to
amputate organs. But at the moment, I am
applying chemotherapy, yes." [4]

Later in the interview he explains: "they believe
that time is on their side and that, with a
combination of terrorism and demography, they
will tire us out and wear us down."

The "demography" part of the threat can only
mean that each and every Palestinian, in his
mind, is a cancerous cell to be eliminated. To
be a demographic threat, you don't need to do
anything. You only need to be Palestinian. [5]
Prime minister Sharon backed his words [6],
thus placing them in line with government
policy. It is irrelevant, therefore, to speak of
the Israeli actions against the Palestinians as
"collective punishment." They are not a
population which is collectively punished for the
crimes of a few. Each and every Palestinian is a
target in the Sharon-Ya'alon "war against
cancer".

Uri Avnery described everything that Ya'alon
said in the interview as "myths that are taught
in Israeli elementary schools instead of
history." [7] This is not true. Children learn
terrible things in school, but three years ago a
teacher would probably be fired for saying that
the Palestinians are a demographic cancer that
should be dealt with by chemotherapy and
possibly amputation of organs. I have no
doubts about the Avnery's good intentions, but
see his reaction as yet another example of the
power of monotonous escalation. What shocked
us yesterday, seems today like something that
was always there. What would have sounded
like a Nazi statement three years ago is
accepted today as a standard and familiar
rightwing line, eliciting the standard and
familiar response.

In November 2000, when the "war against
cancer" had just begun, then deputy chief of
staff Ya'alon already made it clear what this
war is about when he said "this is the second
half of '48." [8] The Jerusalem Post reported
last week about an organization that helps
Palestinians emigrate. The president of this
organization, who said that its "aim is to empty
the state of Arabs," claims that 380,000
Palestinians have emigrated already since
October 2000. [9]

During the first Intifada, in 1989, I attended a
political gathering of the rightwing Moledet
party in a Haifa suburb. The crowd consisted of
about 20 people, half of whom were teenagers
in leftist T-shirts like myself, who came to
listen. Rehav'am Ze'evi, who was then the
leader of Moledet, spoke of his "voluntary
transfer" plan: cut electricity and water, shut
down universities and deny jobs, and they will
leave. At the time, this was the lunatic fringe.
In the second Intifada, Moledet became a
member of the coalition and Ze'evi became
tourism minister (he was later assassinated by
the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine). Moledet hired billboards in Tel Aviv
and put up signs saying "only transfer will bring
peace." The "voluntary transfer" is already
happening, and the rightwing is now talking
about the next stage, transfer without
"voluntary." In weekly rightwing vigils in Haifa
and elsewhere, their banners read "The Land of
Israel for the People of Israel - 'Palestinians' to
Jordan!" A glimpse into the soul of a transfer
advocate can be found online. [10] He makes
three main points: 1. Transfer is the way to
create a healthy relationship between Israelis
and Palestinians. 2. If you don't agree with
this, it proves that you are anti-Jewish. 3.
Transfer will be achieved by extreme measures
of state terror.

Sharon and Ya'alon are drunk with power
("Israel is a regional superpower. It is a military
superpower, an economic superpower, a
cultural-spiritual superpower," Ya'alon told a
Rabbis' conference last week [11]). They are
selling stories about being prepared for
conventional and non-conventional attacks,
while it is obvious that they are willing to
sacrifice many Israelis to achieve their goals (is
this what Ya'alon calls "amputating organs"? It
reminds me of Moussolini's view of the nation
as a body that sometimes needs to sacrifice
some of its cells for the sake of the body as a
whole). Maybe this is why Israeli radio reported
last week that 30,000 coffins were ordered by
the state. (Only soldiers are buried in coffins in
Israel. Civilians are buried according to Jewish
law in shroud).

Meron Benvenisti, former deputy mayor of
Jerusalem, has warned of a possible "transfer"
scenario: "an American assault on Iraq against
Arab and world opposition, and an Israeli
involvement, even if only symbolic, leads to the
collapse of the Hashemite regime in Jordan.
Israel then executes the old 'Jordanian option' -
expelling hundreds of thousands of Palestinians
across the Jordan River ... Anyone who regards
such ethnic cleansing as a horrible crime must
raise their voice now, without any of the 'ifs,
ands or buts' so typical of the response to the
punishment already being meted out in ever
more strict steps." [12] There are also other
transfer scenarios in the air -- with a war with
Syria as the cover or an exceptionally
murderous terror attack as the pretext.

The Israeli liberals are perhaps in a habit of
disregarding Moledet and their like as a lunatic
fringe, and are still hesitant to acknowledge
that they have taken control. There is also the
reluctance to speak about "transfer", in order
not to belittle the current horrors of curfews and
starvation, and not to help raise "transfer" to
the status of the "thinkable." But when the
chief of staff talks of a cancerous demographic
threat and the prime minister backs his words,
it is time to realize that the rules of the game
have changed. The opposition, so much as it
still exists, cannot stop Sharon and Ya'alon by
ridiculing them or by "not understanding their
logic." It has to turn outside for help.
Diplomatic isolation and boycotts are by far
better than the consequences of the "war
against cancer".

Chancellor Shroeder, when asked if Germany
will come to Israel's aid if it will be attacked by
Iraq, replied "when friends are attacked, it's
clear, we help." [13] A real friend will not only
call an ambulance after you crash, but will tell
you not to drive when you're drunk.

Irit Katriel is an Israeli activist, currently living
in Germany. This article originally appeared in
Dissident Voice. Email: iritka [at] zahav.net.il

NOTES

[1] Ha'aretz, Aug 16 2002, "PM urging U.S. not
to delay strike against Iraq."

[2] Christian Science Monitor, August 30, 2002,
"Israel sees opportunity in possible US strike on
Iraq".

[3] Albawaba.com, August 21 2002, (quoting
CBS evening news), "Aziz: Bush plans towards
Iraq serve interests of Israel."

[4] Ha'aretz, August 30 2002, "The enemy
within."

[5] On the "demographic problem," see my
article "Deep Ideological Crisis", July 8 2002,

[6] Ha'aretz, August 31 2002, "Sharon backs
Ya'alon remarks on 'cancerous Palestinian
threat'."

[7] Uri Avnery, August 30 2002, "The return of
the dinosaurs."

[8] Ha'aretz, Nov 17 2000, "Truth or
consequences."

10, "'The second half of '48' - The
Sharon-Ya'alon plan,"
http://www.zmag.org/reinsyplan.htm

[9] Jerusalem Post, Aug 26 2002, "New
organization aims 'to empty the state of
Arabs'." The website of this organization is at
http://www.emigrations.net .