Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
on "israeli" refuseniks
a look at the "israeli peace camp"
with the continued noise made by those who glorify "israeli refuseniks", it may be useful to repost here a critique published last February in the Free Arab Voice (http://www.freearabvoice.org). You can read the text as originally published at http://www.freearabvoice.org/issueHumanBombs.htm#text1
FRUITS OF THE INTIFADA:
"Israeli" reservists "refuse" to serve inside the part of Palestine occupied in 1967,
by Abu Nicola Al Yunani/FAV's Webmaster
On Friday, January 25 an ad appeared in the "Israeli" newspaper Haaretz,
signed by a group of reservists of the Zionist occupation army (the
so-called "Israeli Defense Forces", IDF). In it, the reservists proudly
declare that they have been raised with the principles of Zionism, that they
have served in the occupation army, and that they continue to serve in it
"for long weeks every year, in spite of the dear cost to our personal
lives". Mind you, "Israeli" men continue to serve in the occupation forces
for a month every year up to the age of 45; "Israeli" women are drafted in
the IDF just the same as men even if that was for lesser periods- those are
the ones called "civilians" every time they are targeted by acts of
resistance. At any rate, the IDF reservists go on to state that "We shall
not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel,
starve and humiliate an entire people". The initial signatories were around
60. Within 10 days that number rose to 150. Their stated aim is to reach 500
signatures, so as to force the beginning of a debate inside the "Israeli"
society on the issues they raise in their statement.
This statement, whose importance is undeniable, has been hyped up and
presented as something different from what it really is. It is therefore
useful to examine it and see what it is, what it isn't, and what we can
learn from it.
What the statement is NOT:
In spite of all the hype, this statement isn't a sign of a progressive
movement gaining strength inside "Israel". The trend this statement shows is
by no means a trend with which Palestinians could work, to achieve a just
and viable solution.
Even the UN has affirmed time and again - most recently in the Durban
conference on racism - that Zionism is a form of racism. Yet the signatories
of the statement take pride in their Zionist roots, in "all the values we
had absorbed while growing up in this country", in their past, continuing
and future service in the occupation army. "[We,] who have always served in
the front lines, and who were the first to carry out any mission, light or
heavy, in order to protect the State of Israel and strengthen it", "We
hereby declare that we shall continue serving in the Israel Defense Forces
in any mission that serves Israel's defense". Then the reservists'
statement refers to an imaginary glorious past of the IDF and the Zionist
state, which is now being destroyed ("We, who understand now that the price
of Occupation is the loss of IDF's human character and the corruption of the
entire Israeli society").
The authors and signatories of the statement of course refrain from even
touching on the subject of occupation of pre-67 "Israel". On the contrary,
they make clear that this occupation is for them sacrosanct; an arbitrary
distinction for which they are correctly criticized by their right-wing
opponents. Moreover, they avoid to touch on the subject of the racist nature
of their state and the heinous oppression of the Palestinian Arab population
inside the 1948 borders - they aren't even demanding a "binational state".
Reading their statement, one is forced to conclude that an apartheid police
state inside the 1948 borders is for them something normal and desirable.
Moreover, the statement stops short of even unambiguously demanding a
withdrawal from the part of Palestine occupied in 1967. A careful reading
shows that it is written in an ambiguous language, which can mean different
things - some will read it as a call for a unilateral withdrawal from the
so-called "occupied territories", others will read a call for a more decent
and civilized form of occupation, or for efforts to continue the "peace
process" (a process, it should be noted, which would have died a natural
death, having reached a dead-end due to its inherent contradictions, even if
it had not been given the coup-de-grace by Butcher Sharon).
It is significant that the signatories refrain from declaring in no
uncertain terms that they will, under any circumstances, refuse to serve
outside the 1967 borders of their beloved "Israel". Instead, they state that
they will refrain from doing so "in order to dominate, expel, starve and
humiliate an entire people" - does this mean they would fight in order to
dominate, starve and humiliate PART OF a people? Does it imply that they
would be willing to fight in the "occupied territories" if they saw this as
necessary for the defense of "Israel"? They state they will take no part in
the "The missions of occupation and oppression" which do not serve the
purpose of defense. They don't make clear whether they would take part in
missions in the "occupied territories" which would have a different purpose
- e.g., punitive expeditions whose purpose would be to "root out terrorism"
and safeguard the security of the Zionist entity - they don't, but the
overall tone shows they are keeping this option open.
It is also important to note that the signatories are obviously driven by
despair at a war they can no longer hope to win, not by some high moral
principles that they only recently discovered. They don't shrink from
equating the criminal with his victim ("the bloody toll this Occupation
exacts from both sides"). They decided NOW, after 50 years of collective
silence, to speak ("We, who understand now ..."). While serving in the IDF
they "were issued commands and directives that had nothing to do with the
security of our country, and that had the sole purpose of perpetuating our
control over the Palestinian people" - and we must assume that they obeyed
these commands, because they hadn't yet "understood".
What the statement IS:
A careful reading of the statement reveals the motives and wishes of its
signatories, and the nature of the current they represent.
Twice in the text, the authors voice their opposition to the settlements
("[we] know that the Territories are not Israel, and that all settlements
are bound to be evacuated in the end", "We hereby declare that we shall not
continue to fight this War of the Settlements"). Here we are approaching the
crux of the issue: The statement voices a will - and a half-hearted one at
that - to dump the post-1967 "settlers" and "settlements" (as if the entire
"Israeli" society isn't a huge settlement to begin with), in order to save
"Israel proper". The old thief who wants to enjoy in peace the spoils of his
theft proposes to the victim a deal: "leave me alone, and I shall give you
the new thieves".
It is not a secret that "Israeli" society is sharply divided. Not among
supporters and opponents of Zionism, as some would have us believe - this
conception, widely spread in the West, is at best the result of wishful
thinking. Even the class divisions, which are dominant in normal societies,
are in "Israel" secondary in importance. On a political level, the dominant
division in "Israel" is between two sides: 1) those who see the
infeasibility of the original Zionist dream of conquering and keeping by
force the entire region "from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates", and are
willing to settle for something less - provided this "something" protects
THEIR stolen property -, and 2) those, on the other hand, who are not
willing, or cannot afford, to cede a single inch of "their" spoils. Those
who settled in the lands occupied in 1948 form the main force behind the
first current. The 200.000 settlers who live within the lands occupied in
1967 and those living in the land that is constantly being expropriated from
its Arab owners inside the 1967 lines are obviously the more vociferous
supporters of the second. The first side often disguises as dovish,
peace-loving, moral. But we must not forget that Nobel laureate for peace
(and former general) Yitzhak Rabin was the one who, as chief of staff, led
the army that occupied additional territories in 1967. As prime minister in
the mid-seventies, he launched the policy of the "Iron Hand", under which
more than 300.000 West Bank and Gaza Palestinians were tortured in his
jails. As minister of defense, he was the one who ordered his soldiers to
"break the bones" of Palestinians in response to the first Intifada under
the infamous policy of the "Iron Fist". He has proudly admitted to driving
out 50.000 Palestinians from Lydda. His partner in the Nobel peace prize
(and former general), Shimon Peres, launched the 1996 attack against
Lebanon, including the bombing of the UN camp in Qana, where more than 100
civilians were murdered. He is now gladly serving as a foreign minister
under war criminal Ariel Sharon. Former Labor prime minister (and former
general) Ehud Barak was deputy commander during the 1982 invasion in Lebanon
and subsequent massacres in Sabra and Shatila, the most ardent builder of
settlements, and the man who gave war criminal Sharon an escort of a couple
of thousand policemen, when he desecrated al Aqsa mosque and triggered the
second Intifada.
In a sense, both sides are equally quixotic - the one believes it can
subjugate indefinitely a nation which numbers in the hundreds of millions,
which has behind it a history of millennia and an illustrious civilisation,
the other believes such a nation can be bought out and manipulated.
The two currents have been more complementary than antithetic up to now.
They shared the same aims, but differed in the means for their
implementation. But now that the future of "Israel" no longer looks bright,
the differences are becoming sharper. The statement is, more likely than
not, a sign of things to come. It portends the coming total collapse of
cohesion of Zionist society. Yet contrary to the wishful thinking of Western
"leftists" and Arab defeatists, the coming conflict within the Zionist
society will not be between the forces of the past and those of the future.
"Israeli" society is at a dead end. Its only possible future is its demise.
There are no progressive forces inside it. The conflict within "Israel" will
be between two (possibly more) equally doomed, equally corrupt, equally
immoral camps. It will not be a revolution, but a dogfight, where Zionists,
will throw themselves at each other's throat.
Of course, this will make the job or the Palestinian resistance much easier.
Lessons to draw from this statement:
"Leftists" and "pacifists" of various colors, in the Arab world and
elsewhere, support the signatories and claim the armed acts of resistance
should stop, so as to give pacifists inside "Israel" a chance to be heard.
The fact is, although we have in the past seen isolated cases of individuals
refusing to serve in the occupation army, we have never before seen a
reaction on such a massive scale.
The only possible explanation for this is the recent increase in acts of
armed resistance within occupied Palestine. "Israeli" society has shown in
the past, especially in Lebanon, that it is extremely sensitive to loss of
life. The days of Zionist pioneers who were willing to shed their blood have
long passed. Their dream proved to be a nightmare. In an attempt to save
what could be saved, the Rabin-Peres gang started the "peace process". This
bought them almost ten years. But that time ran out. The interim agreements
had to be eventually followed by a permanent one - and such was not
possible. There are issues - such as the refugees' right of return, the
Issue of East Jerusalem - on which no compromise was possible. When the
bankruptcy of the "peace process" became obvious, "Israeli" society made one
last try: if the problem cannot be solved by peaceful means, let's try war.
So they elected the arch-war criminal, the butcher of Kibya, Sabra and
Shatilla, to subdue the Palestinians by force. But instead of bringing
security, as he had promised, his policies have led to an escalation of the
conflict and forced even moderate Palestinian forces to take the path of
armed struggle.
The Intifada has shown that it is here to stay. The more morons like Sharon
try to quench it with naked violence, the more momentum it gains. The
economy of "Israel" is suffering greatly. Foreign investors are fleeing like
mice in a sinking ship. Tourists are not exactly crowding at the borders of
"Israel". Unemployment is rising. The wave of immigration has been brought
to a halt, and many "Israelis", especially the younger ones, are openly
contemplating emigration - a subject that was until recently taboo, but has
began to be discussed openly, even in the press. No end to violence is
visible.
The recent statement by "IDF" reservists was a result of armed resistance.
They have been forced to publicise their dissent not by their conscience,
but by their mortal fear - fear for themselves, for their families, for
their properties, for their "beloved country". The explosives of suicide
bombers proved to be more effective at setting the brains of Zionists to
motion than all the eloquence of defeatist "pacifists".
For our part, despite all our criticism of this statement, for all its
half-hearted and dead-end character, we want to see more such initiatives.
But we understand that the only way to give strength to this current, to
force the "pacifists" to shed their ambivalence and throw themselves at the
throats of the Sharonistas, is to drive them to even worse despair. Only
when they sense the hot breath of the lion at their backs, are they able to
take a stand for their "moral principles". So let's work for peace. Let's
give the "peace camp" in "Israel" a chance. The only way to do it is by
increasing the acts of armed resistance. A bomb speaks more than a thousand
words.
Note: The text of the statement is as follows:
We, reserve combat officers and soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces,
who were raised upon the principles of Zionism, sacrifice and giving to
the people of Israel and to the State of Israel, who have always served in
the front lines, and who were the first to carry out any mission, light or
heavy, in order to protect the State of Israel and strengthen it.
We, combat officers and soldiers who have served the State of Israel for
long weeks every year, in spite of the dear cost to our personal lives, have
been on reserve duty all over the Occupied Territories, and were issued
commands and directives that had nothing to do with the security of our
country, and that had the sole purpose of perpetuating our control over the
Palestinian people. We, whose eyes have seen the bloody toll this Occupation
exacts from both sides.
We, who sensed how the commands issued to us in the Territories, destroy
all the values we had absorbed while growing up in this country.
We, who understand now that the price of Occupation is the loss of IDF's
human character and the corruption of the entire Israeli society.
We, who know that the Territories are not Israel, and that all settlements
are bound to be evacuated in the end.
We hereby declare that we shall not continue to fight this War of the
Settlements.
We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate,
expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.
We hereby declare that we shall continue serving in the Israel Defense
Forces in any mission that serves Israel's defense.
The missions of occupation and oppression do not serve this purpose - and we
shall take no part in them.
FRUITS OF THE INTIFADA:
"Israeli" reservists "refuse" to serve inside the part of Palestine occupied in 1967,
by Abu Nicola Al Yunani/FAV's Webmaster
On Friday, January 25 an ad appeared in the "Israeli" newspaper Haaretz,
signed by a group of reservists of the Zionist occupation army (the
so-called "Israeli Defense Forces", IDF). In it, the reservists proudly
declare that they have been raised with the principles of Zionism, that they
have served in the occupation army, and that they continue to serve in it
"for long weeks every year, in spite of the dear cost to our personal
lives". Mind you, "Israeli" men continue to serve in the occupation forces
for a month every year up to the age of 45; "Israeli" women are drafted in
the IDF just the same as men even if that was for lesser periods- those are
the ones called "civilians" every time they are targeted by acts of
resistance. At any rate, the IDF reservists go on to state that "We shall
not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel,
starve and humiliate an entire people". The initial signatories were around
60. Within 10 days that number rose to 150. Their stated aim is to reach 500
signatures, so as to force the beginning of a debate inside the "Israeli"
society on the issues they raise in their statement.
This statement, whose importance is undeniable, has been hyped up and
presented as something different from what it really is. It is therefore
useful to examine it and see what it is, what it isn't, and what we can
learn from it.
What the statement is NOT:
In spite of all the hype, this statement isn't a sign of a progressive
movement gaining strength inside "Israel". The trend this statement shows is
by no means a trend with which Palestinians could work, to achieve a just
and viable solution.
Even the UN has affirmed time and again - most recently in the Durban
conference on racism - that Zionism is a form of racism. Yet the signatories
of the statement take pride in their Zionist roots, in "all the values we
had absorbed while growing up in this country", in their past, continuing
and future service in the occupation army. "[We,] who have always served in
the front lines, and who were the first to carry out any mission, light or
heavy, in order to protect the State of Israel and strengthen it", "We
hereby declare that we shall continue serving in the Israel Defense Forces
in any mission that serves Israel's defense". Then the reservists'
statement refers to an imaginary glorious past of the IDF and the Zionist
state, which is now being destroyed ("We, who understand now that the price
of Occupation is the loss of IDF's human character and the corruption of the
entire Israeli society").
The authors and signatories of the statement of course refrain from even
touching on the subject of occupation of pre-67 "Israel". On the contrary,
they make clear that this occupation is for them sacrosanct; an arbitrary
distinction for which they are correctly criticized by their right-wing
opponents. Moreover, they avoid to touch on the subject of the racist nature
of their state and the heinous oppression of the Palestinian Arab population
inside the 1948 borders - they aren't even demanding a "binational state".
Reading their statement, one is forced to conclude that an apartheid police
state inside the 1948 borders is for them something normal and desirable.
Moreover, the statement stops short of even unambiguously demanding a
withdrawal from the part of Palestine occupied in 1967. A careful reading
shows that it is written in an ambiguous language, which can mean different
things - some will read it as a call for a unilateral withdrawal from the
so-called "occupied territories", others will read a call for a more decent
and civilized form of occupation, or for efforts to continue the "peace
process" (a process, it should be noted, which would have died a natural
death, having reached a dead-end due to its inherent contradictions, even if
it had not been given the coup-de-grace by Butcher Sharon).
It is significant that the signatories refrain from declaring in no
uncertain terms that they will, under any circumstances, refuse to serve
outside the 1967 borders of their beloved "Israel". Instead, they state that
they will refrain from doing so "in order to dominate, expel, starve and
humiliate an entire people" - does this mean they would fight in order to
dominate, starve and humiliate PART OF a people? Does it imply that they
would be willing to fight in the "occupied territories" if they saw this as
necessary for the defense of "Israel"? They state they will take no part in
the "The missions of occupation and oppression" which do not serve the
purpose of defense. They don't make clear whether they would take part in
missions in the "occupied territories" which would have a different purpose
- e.g., punitive expeditions whose purpose would be to "root out terrorism"
and safeguard the security of the Zionist entity - they don't, but the
overall tone shows they are keeping this option open.
It is also important to note that the signatories are obviously driven by
despair at a war they can no longer hope to win, not by some high moral
principles that they only recently discovered. They don't shrink from
equating the criminal with his victim ("the bloody toll this Occupation
exacts from both sides"). They decided NOW, after 50 years of collective
silence, to speak ("We, who understand now ..."). While serving in the IDF
they "were issued commands and directives that had nothing to do with the
security of our country, and that had the sole purpose of perpetuating our
control over the Palestinian people" - and we must assume that they obeyed
these commands, because they hadn't yet "understood".
What the statement IS:
A careful reading of the statement reveals the motives and wishes of its
signatories, and the nature of the current they represent.
Twice in the text, the authors voice their opposition to the settlements
("[we] know that the Territories are not Israel, and that all settlements
are bound to be evacuated in the end", "We hereby declare that we shall not
continue to fight this War of the Settlements"). Here we are approaching the
crux of the issue: The statement voices a will - and a half-hearted one at
that - to dump the post-1967 "settlers" and "settlements" (as if the entire
"Israeli" society isn't a huge settlement to begin with), in order to save
"Israel proper". The old thief who wants to enjoy in peace the spoils of his
theft proposes to the victim a deal: "leave me alone, and I shall give you
the new thieves".
It is not a secret that "Israeli" society is sharply divided. Not among
supporters and opponents of Zionism, as some would have us believe - this
conception, widely spread in the West, is at best the result of wishful
thinking. Even the class divisions, which are dominant in normal societies,
are in "Israel" secondary in importance. On a political level, the dominant
division in "Israel" is between two sides: 1) those who see the
infeasibility of the original Zionist dream of conquering and keeping by
force the entire region "from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates", and are
willing to settle for something less - provided this "something" protects
THEIR stolen property -, and 2) those, on the other hand, who are not
willing, or cannot afford, to cede a single inch of "their" spoils. Those
who settled in the lands occupied in 1948 form the main force behind the
first current. The 200.000 settlers who live within the lands occupied in
1967 and those living in the land that is constantly being expropriated from
its Arab owners inside the 1967 lines are obviously the more vociferous
supporters of the second. The first side often disguises as dovish,
peace-loving, moral. But we must not forget that Nobel laureate for peace
(and former general) Yitzhak Rabin was the one who, as chief of staff, led
the army that occupied additional territories in 1967. As prime minister in
the mid-seventies, he launched the policy of the "Iron Hand", under which
more than 300.000 West Bank and Gaza Palestinians were tortured in his
jails. As minister of defense, he was the one who ordered his soldiers to
"break the bones" of Palestinians in response to the first Intifada under
the infamous policy of the "Iron Fist". He has proudly admitted to driving
out 50.000 Palestinians from Lydda. His partner in the Nobel peace prize
(and former general), Shimon Peres, launched the 1996 attack against
Lebanon, including the bombing of the UN camp in Qana, where more than 100
civilians were murdered. He is now gladly serving as a foreign minister
under war criminal Ariel Sharon. Former Labor prime minister (and former
general) Ehud Barak was deputy commander during the 1982 invasion in Lebanon
and subsequent massacres in Sabra and Shatila, the most ardent builder of
settlements, and the man who gave war criminal Sharon an escort of a couple
of thousand policemen, when he desecrated al Aqsa mosque and triggered the
second Intifada.
In a sense, both sides are equally quixotic - the one believes it can
subjugate indefinitely a nation which numbers in the hundreds of millions,
which has behind it a history of millennia and an illustrious civilisation,
the other believes such a nation can be bought out and manipulated.
The two currents have been more complementary than antithetic up to now.
They shared the same aims, but differed in the means for their
implementation. But now that the future of "Israel" no longer looks bright,
the differences are becoming sharper. The statement is, more likely than
not, a sign of things to come. It portends the coming total collapse of
cohesion of Zionist society. Yet contrary to the wishful thinking of Western
"leftists" and Arab defeatists, the coming conflict within the Zionist
society will not be between the forces of the past and those of the future.
"Israeli" society is at a dead end. Its only possible future is its demise.
There are no progressive forces inside it. The conflict within "Israel" will
be between two (possibly more) equally doomed, equally corrupt, equally
immoral camps. It will not be a revolution, but a dogfight, where Zionists,
will throw themselves at each other's throat.
Of course, this will make the job or the Palestinian resistance much easier.
Lessons to draw from this statement:
"Leftists" and "pacifists" of various colors, in the Arab world and
elsewhere, support the signatories and claim the armed acts of resistance
should stop, so as to give pacifists inside "Israel" a chance to be heard.
The fact is, although we have in the past seen isolated cases of individuals
refusing to serve in the occupation army, we have never before seen a
reaction on such a massive scale.
The only possible explanation for this is the recent increase in acts of
armed resistance within occupied Palestine. "Israeli" society has shown in
the past, especially in Lebanon, that it is extremely sensitive to loss of
life. The days of Zionist pioneers who were willing to shed their blood have
long passed. Their dream proved to be a nightmare. In an attempt to save
what could be saved, the Rabin-Peres gang started the "peace process". This
bought them almost ten years. But that time ran out. The interim agreements
had to be eventually followed by a permanent one - and such was not
possible. There are issues - such as the refugees' right of return, the
Issue of East Jerusalem - on which no compromise was possible. When the
bankruptcy of the "peace process" became obvious, "Israeli" society made one
last try: if the problem cannot be solved by peaceful means, let's try war.
So they elected the arch-war criminal, the butcher of Kibya, Sabra and
Shatilla, to subdue the Palestinians by force. But instead of bringing
security, as he had promised, his policies have led to an escalation of the
conflict and forced even moderate Palestinian forces to take the path of
armed struggle.
The Intifada has shown that it is here to stay. The more morons like Sharon
try to quench it with naked violence, the more momentum it gains. The
economy of "Israel" is suffering greatly. Foreign investors are fleeing like
mice in a sinking ship. Tourists are not exactly crowding at the borders of
"Israel". Unemployment is rising. The wave of immigration has been brought
to a halt, and many "Israelis", especially the younger ones, are openly
contemplating emigration - a subject that was until recently taboo, but has
began to be discussed openly, even in the press. No end to violence is
visible.
The recent statement by "IDF" reservists was a result of armed resistance.
They have been forced to publicise their dissent not by their conscience,
but by their mortal fear - fear for themselves, for their families, for
their properties, for their "beloved country". The explosives of suicide
bombers proved to be more effective at setting the brains of Zionists to
motion than all the eloquence of defeatist "pacifists".
For our part, despite all our criticism of this statement, for all its
half-hearted and dead-end character, we want to see more such initiatives.
But we understand that the only way to give strength to this current, to
force the "pacifists" to shed their ambivalence and throw themselves at the
throats of the Sharonistas, is to drive them to even worse despair. Only
when they sense the hot breath of the lion at their backs, are they able to
take a stand for their "moral principles". So let's work for peace. Let's
give the "peace camp" in "Israel" a chance. The only way to do it is by
increasing the acts of armed resistance. A bomb speaks more than a thousand
words.
Note: The text of the statement is as follows:
We, reserve combat officers and soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces,
who were raised upon the principles of Zionism, sacrifice and giving to
the people of Israel and to the State of Israel, who have always served in
the front lines, and who were the first to carry out any mission, light or
heavy, in order to protect the State of Israel and strengthen it.
We, combat officers and soldiers who have served the State of Israel for
long weeks every year, in spite of the dear cost to our personal lives, have
been on reserve duty all over the Occupied Territories, and were issued
commands and directives that had nothing to do with the security of our
country, and that had the sole purpose of perpetuating our control over the
Palestinian people. We, whose eyes have seen the bloody toll this Occupation
exacts from both sides.
We, who sensed how the commands issued to us in the Territories, destroy
all the values we had absorbed while growing up in this country.
We, who understand now that the price of Occupation is the loss of IDF's
human character and the corruption of the entire Israeli society.
We, who know that the Territories are not Israel, and that all settlements
are bound to be evacuated in the end.
We hereby declare that we shall not continue to fight this War of the
Settlements.
We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate,
expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.
We hereby declare that we shall continue serving in the Israel Defense
Forces in any mission that serves Israel's defense.
The missions of occupation and oppression do not serve this purpose - and we
shall take no part in them.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 21 November 2002
When the PLO formally recognized Israel within its internationally recognized borders and agreed to a two-state solution in 1993, like most Palestinians, I swallowed hard but accepted it. We believed that this unprecedented historic compromise, though bitter, was necessary to bring about peace. Those who completely rejected the creation of a state limited to the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- a mere twenty two percent of the country in which Palestinians were an overwhelming majority just fifty years ago -- were relegated to the margins of the Palestinian movement, both on the left and the Islamist right.
Israel gave everyone the impression that it would agree to a Palestinian state, and that it was only a matter of working out the technical formalities. But almost 10 years later, Israel has still never recognized the Palestinian right to statehood, much less agreed to the creation of such a state. On the contrary, in practice it has done everything to make the emergence of such a state impossible by continuing to furiously build colonies all over the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. The settler population in the West Bank has more than doubled since 1993, and not a day goes by without further colonization.
Because this policy has succeeded in solidifying Israeli control, and has, as intended, rendered a rational partition of the country virtually impossible, an increasing number of Palestinians, including some representatives of the Palestinian Authority, have started to talk once again about bi-nationalism -- the creation of a single democratic state for Israelis and Palestinians -- as the only viable solution to the conflict.
This idea is horrifying to many Israelis, who view it as a plot to "destroy Israel" since the vastly higher birth rate among Palestinians will soon make them a majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, just as they were until 1948.
None are more horrified by this prospect than Israel's traditional "peace camp," represented by the Labor and Meretz parties. And yet, because of its liberal values, the "peace camp" is unable to embrace formal apartheid or ethnic cleansing to "solve the demographic problem" as do Israel's right wing parties. The liberals want both the benefits of Jewish privilege that comes from living in a "Jewish state" while at the same time being faithful to their democratic values. They have shown themselves to be entirely bankrupt morally, intellectually and politically, and to have no serious ideas whatsoever for resolving the conundrum of their hypocrisy. They embrace Palestinian statehood warmly in theory but miss no opportunity to undermine and sabotage it in practice and to present proposals for meaningless and nominal statehood within a greater Israel.
I am one of those who accepted the two-state solution (although I opposed the Oslo Accords because I believed they could not lead to that goal) not enthusiastically, but because it offers Palestinians and Israelis a chance at normalcy from which they could one day -- like the European Union -- build a future of peace and prosperity from the ashes of war and hatred. Moreover, an international legal framework already exists for the transition from the current situation to Palestinian statehood, at least in theory making the path easier than to any other solution.
For Palestinians, giving up the seventy-eight percent of Palestine that became Israel in 1948 is giving up a part of themselves. It is gut-wrenchingly hard, and for some impossible. I respect that. For millions of Palestinians this is the land from which they, their parents or grandparents were expelled, in which homes and farms, shops and factories, churches and mosques, an entire society, was uprooted in exchange for decades of dispossession, misery in refugee camps, and demonization by Israel and its apologists. But, like millions of others, I was prepared to accept it for the sake of peace.
Although I recognize that the two-state solution will soon become impracticable, if it is not already, due Israel's relentless settlement construction, I believe it may still have a last chance if Israel is willing to embrace the following principles:
1) Israel must recognize that the Palestinians have already made an historic compromise by accepting a state in only twenty-two percent of their homeland, and that no further concessions can justly be asked of them. Israel must declare that by conquering seventy eight percent of Palestine in 1948, far more than was allotted to it in the 1947 UN partition plan, it has completely fulfilled its territorial ambitions and will not seek any more expansion.
2) Israel must immediately cease all construction in the occupied territories, including "natural growth" and all the other devices that are used to disguise ongoing settlement building. Israel must immediately stop confiscating Palestinian land either for building settlements or settler roads.
3) Israel must agree that the goal of any further negotiations is a complete end to the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem within a fixed, early period, and agree to withdraw under neutral international supervision and guarantees.
4) Israel must recognize an independent, sovereign Palestinian state whose borders are those of June 4, 1967, with minor, agreed-upon modifications to rectify anomalies, such as divided villages and bisected roads. Any land ceded on one side of the line must be compensated with land of equal size, value and utility on the other side, as close as possible to the exchanged land.
5) Israel must agree to evacuate all settlements in the occupied territories, without exception, including settlements in and around occupied East Jerusalem.
6) Jerusalem, as an open city, would be the capital of two states. A formula for sharing power fairly between Palestinians and Israelis, with guaranteed access to holy places for peoples of all faiths, would replace the illegal Israeli occupation "municipality" imposed on the city since 1967. This could be accomplished by various formulas. If the Palestinians agree to allow any settlements to remain in and around Jerusalem, Israel must compensate both the State of Palestine and the private land owners for the land, and the settlers must agree to live either as Palestinian citizens or permanent residents under Palestinian laws. If Palestinians agree that some Israeli settlers can remain in East Jerusalem then Israel must agree to allow Palestinians to return to the homes from which they were expelled in West Jerusalem in 1947-48.
7) The most difficult issue is the right of return of Palestinian refugees and compensation and restitution for their property and suffering. The right to return is an individual legal right and is not negated by the two-state solution. At the same time, recognition of Israel as a sovereign state means acknowledging a political reality and interest that will have to be factored into any formula to implement the right of return. It is not difficult to imagine solutions which fall between the maximalist positions of both sides and which simultaneously take into account Israel's concerns, and provide Palestinian refugees with real choices, including return to their original homes, as mandated by UN Resolution 194. Palestinians could, for example, agree among themselves to a system of priority where those with the greatest need to return get to choose first (among the choices Palestinian refugees whose original homes no longer exist might be offered is a home in an evacuated Israeli settlement). Israel will not be able to get away with a merely symbolic recognition of Palestinian refugee rights, but nor would millions of refugees suddenly flood back as in the Israeli "nightmare" scenario. There is ground in between that can be reached through negotiations and international mediation.
Palestinian private property remains inviolate and all property seized by Israel, even of those who choose not to return, must be returned to its owners or paid for at the fair market price, including use and interest. Clinton Administration Deputy Treasury Secretary Stuart Eizenstat set out some sensible principles for dealing with property confiscated from European Jews and others by Nazi Germany, which could be adopted here. The same principles should apply to any Jews who were forced to leave Arab states as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
These conditions represent an enormous historic compromise. They call for two states, a Jewish Israel on seventy eight percent of the territory of historic Palestine and a State of Palestine on just twenty two percent. They call for full recognition of Israel within secure and recognized borders, the implementation of UN resolutions, sharing of Jerusalem and a just resolution to the refugee problem that respects refugee rights as well as Israel's needs.
From this basis, Israelis, Palestinians and later perhaps Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese and Syrians, might after a couple of generations feel they can join together in something like the European Union. That would be a choice freely made among sovereign peoples. I could live with this, and, though I do not speak for anyone but myself, I believe that other Palestinians could too -- indeed this is basically what millions of them thought they were endorsing when they elected Yasir Arafat as president of the Palestinian Authority.
The problem is that there is not one major Israeli party or leader who is willing to put such a vision to the Israeli people. Even the most "dovish" want to keep most of the settlers where they are, annex large chunks of the West Bank, keep control of most of Jerusalem, and reject categorically any discussion of the right of return. No allowance is made for the massive compromises already made by the Palestinians, and more still are demanded. Israeli sociologist Jeff Halper argues that it is already too late and Israel's "matrix of control" in the occupied territories cannot, in effect, be dismantled. If Halper is right, then nothing any Israeli leader says will save the two-state solution. But if he is wrong and it can be saved, time is very short and we must hear a commitment to completely end the occupation from the Israelis now. After all, they are the principal beneficiaries of this solution.
The whole world is waiting, not least the Arab world which again held out its hand to Israel last March when the Arab League unanimously reaffirmed its commitment to a two-state solution.
Sadly, though, the political field in Israel looks unlikely produce anyone who will seize this golden opportunity. I believe, therefore, that Israel will likely miss the boat on the two-state solution, and we will have to think about what it will be like to live together in one state, and more importantly how to get there peacefully because no road map exists. For me, that is not a bad thing. I have no problem with the idea of living with Israelis, as long as we are equal before the law and in practice. I do not see the births or immigration of Jews as a "demographic time bomb" to be regarded with horror, nor am I frightened of having next door neighbors who speak a different language or worship in different ways. I embrace human and cultural diversity, no less in the land where my parents were born, than I do here in the United States.
I am prepared to accept two states as a practical solution to the conflict and do everything in my power to make it work. However, the mere trappings of nationalism -- flags, anthems, stately buildings, and passports -- mean absolutely nothing to me in themselves and I would just as soon do away with them. What matters is the content: does the flag represent true independence and sovereignty? Does the anthem represent common humanist values? Do the buildings enclose genuinely democratic institutions that do justice? Does a passport give its holder the freedom to travel the world and live securely in his homeland? These are the questions that matter.
Palestine/Israel could be two countries with a border between them that may one day lose its significance, just as the border between France and Germany has lost its power to divide people. Or, it could be one country for two peoples. I do not really care as long as we choose one path quickly and stick to it, and that, in the end, Israelis and Palestinians enjoy peace, democracy and human rights together, not at each other's expense.
True peace, whatever way we choose to achieve it, has a price. The powerful must give up some of their power and share it with the weak, or conflict is inevitable. Both a genuine two-state solution, as well as a single democratic state, would require that Israelis relinquish their monopoly on power in a manner they have never seriously considered thus far. Peace only came to South Africa when whites realized this and gave up their monopoly on power. Israel is far from that point and still seems to be looking for a way to avoid the choice. That means discussion about how to live together will remain only academic, while conflict and bloodshed rage on.
-Noam Chomsky
http://web.media.mit.edu/~nitin/mideast/chomsky_qa.html
----------------------------------
There is a video of this very interesting speech here:
http://web.media.mit.edu/~nitin/mideast/chomsky.html
Noam Chomsky is an impartial and unbiased source for information on this conflict. The only reason he might come across as non-impartial is because the discussion on this conflict has become so skewed in favor of Israel that a true impartial analysis naturally *appears* biased. If the American people were regularly allowed to see images of what has been done to the Palestinian people (not to mention the people of Lebanon), average Americans might not be so enthused about handing over their tax dollars to the state of Israel.
This idea is horrifying to many Israelis, who view it as a plot to "destroy Israel"...
None are more horrified by this prospect than Israel's traditional "peace camp," represented by the Labor and Meretz parties. And yet, because of its liberal values, the "peace camp" is unable to embrace formal apartheid or ethnic cleansing to "solve the demographic problem" as do Israel's right wing parties. The liberals want both the benefits of Jewish privilege that comes from living in a "Jewish state" while at the same time being faithful to their democratic values. They have shown themselves to be entirely bankrupt morally, intellectually and politically, and to have no serious ideas whatsoever for resolving the conundrum of their hypocrisy. They embrace Palestinian statehood warmly in theory but miss no opportunity to undermine and sabotage it in practice and to present proposals for meaningless and nominal statehood within a greater Israel.
Palestinian private property remains inviolate and all property seized by Israel, even of those who choose not to return, must be returned to its owners or paid for at the fair market price, including use and interest. Clinton Administration Deputy Treasury Secretary Stuart Eizenstat set out some sensible principles for dealing with property confiscated from European Jews and others by Nazi Germany, which could be adopted here. The same principles should apply to any Jews who were forced to leave Arab states as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The problem is that there is not one major Israeli party or leader who is willing to put such a vision to the Israeli people. Even the most "dovish" want to keep most of the settlers where they are, annex large chunks of the West Bank, keep control of most of Jerusalem, and reject categorically any discussion of the right of return. No allowance is made for the massive compromises already made by the Palestinians, and more still are demanded. Israeli sociologist Jeff Halper argues that it is already too late and Israel's "matrix of control" in the occupied territories cannot, in effect, be dismantled. If Halper is right, then nothing any Israeli leader says will save the two-state solution. But if he is wrong and it can be saved, time is very short and we must hear a commitment to completely end the occupation from the Israelis now. After all, they are the principal beneficiaries of this solution.
The whole world is waiting, not least the Arab world which again held out its hand to Israel last March when the Arab League unanimously reaffirmed its commitment to a two-state solution.
...Israel will likely miss the boat on the two-state solution, and we will have to think about what it will be like to live together in one state... For me, that is not a bad thing. I have no problem with the idea of living with Israelis, as long as we are equal before the law and in practice. I do not see the births or immigration of Jews as a "demographic time bomb" to be regarded with horror, nor am I frightened of having next door neighbors who speak a different language or worship in different ways. I embrace human and cultural diversity, no less in the land where my parents were born, than I do here in the United States.