[Peace-discuss] Primer on Gaza

Sat Jan 17 09:23:54 CST 2009

	Chomsky: Undermining Gaza
	Sameer Dossani | January 16, 2009

[Noam Chomsky is a noted linguist, author, and foreign policy expert. Sameer 
Dossani interviewed him about the conflict between Israel and Gaza.]

DOSSANI: The Israeli government and many Israeli and U.S. officials claim that 
the current assault on Gaza is to put an end to the flow of Qassam rockets from 
Gaza into Israel. But many observers claim that if that were really the case, 
Israel would have made much more of an effort to renew the ceasefire agreement 
that expired in December, which had all but stopped the rocket fire. In your 
opinion, what are the real motivations behind the current Israeli action?

CHOMSKY: There's a theme that goes way back to the origins of Zionism. And it's 
a very rational theme: "Let's delay negotiations and diplomacy as long as 
possible, and meanwhile we'll 'build facts on the ground.'" So Israel will 
create the basis for what some eventual agreement will ratify, but the more they 
create, the more they construct, the better the agreement will be for their 
purposes. Those purposes are essentially to take over everything of value in the 
former Palestine and to undermine what's left of the indigenous population.

I think one of the reasons for popular support for this in the United States is 
that it resonates very well with American history. How did the United States get 
established? The themes are similar.

There are many examples of this theme being played out throughout Israel's 
history, and the current situation is another case. They have a very clear 
program. Rational hawks like Ariel Sharon realized that it's crazy to keep 8,000 
settlers using one-third of the land and much of the scarce supplies in Gaza, 
protected by a large part of the Israeli army while the rest of the society 
around them is just rotting. So it's best to take them out and send them to the 
West Bank. That's the place that they really care about and want.

What was called a "disengagement" in September 2005 was actually a transfer. 
They were perfectly frank and open about it. In fact, they extended settlement 
building programs in the West Bank at the very same time that they were 
withdrawing a few thousand people from Gaza. So Gaza should be turned into a 
cage, a prison basically, with Israel attacking it at will, and meanwhile in the 
West Bank we'll take what we want. There was nothing secret about it.

Ehud Olmert was in the United States in May 2006 a couple of months after the 
withdrawal. He simply announced to a joint session of Congress and to rousing 
applause, that the historic right of Jews to the entire land of Israel is beyond 
question. He announced what he called his convergence program, which is just a 
version of the traditional program; it goes back to the Allon plan of 1967. 
Israel would essentially annex valuable land and resources near the green line 
(the 1967 border). That land is now behind the wall that Israel built in the 
West Bank, which is an annexation wall. That means the arable land, the main 
water resources, the pleasant suburbs around Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and the 
hills and so on. They'll take over the Jordan valley, which is about a third of 
the West Bank, where they've been settling since the late 60s. Then they'll 
drive a couple of super highways through the whole territory — there's one to 
the east of Jerusalem to the town of Ma'aleh Adumim which was built mostly in 
the 1990s, during the Oslo years. It was built essentially to bisect the West 
Bank and are two others up north that includes Ariel and Kedumim and other towns 
which pretty much bisect what's left. They'll set up check points and all sorts 
of means of harassment in the other areas and the population that's left will be 
essentially cantonized and unable to live a decent life and if they want to 
leave, great. Or else they will be picturesque figures for tourists — you know 
somebody leading a goat up a hill in the distance — and meanwhile Israelis, 
including settlers, will drive around on "Israeli only" super highways. 
Palestinians can make do with some little road somewhere where you're falling 
into a ditch if it's raining. That's the goal. And it's explicit. You can't 
accuse them of deception because it's explicit. And it's cheered here.

DOSSANI: In terms of U.S. support, last week the UN Security Council adopted a 
resolution calling for a cease fire. Is this a change, particularly in light of 
the fact that the U.S. did not veto the resolution, but rather abstained, 
allowing it to be passed?

CHOMSKY: Right after the 1967 war, the Security Council had strong resolutions 
condemning Israel's move to expand and take over Jerusalem. Israel just ignored 
them. Because the U.S. pats them on the head and says "go ahead and violate 
them." There's a whole series of resolutions from then up until today, 
condemning the settlements, which as Israel knew and as everyone agreed were in 
violation of the Geneva conventions. The United States either vetoes the 
resolutions or sometimes votes for them, but with a wink saying, "go ahead 
anyway, and we'll pay for it and give you the military support for it." It's a 
consistent pattern. During the Oslo years, for example, settlement construction 
increased steadily, in violation of what the Oslo agreement was theoretically 
supposed to lead to. In fact the peak year of settlement was Clinton's last 
year, 2000. And it continued again afterward. It's open and explicit.

To get back to the question of motivation, they have sufficient military control 
over the West Bank to terrorize the population into passivity. Now that control 
is enhanced by the collaborationist forces that the U.S., Jordan, and Egypt have 
trained in order to subdue the population. In fact if you take a look at the 
press the last couple of weeks, if there's a demonstration in the West Bank in 
support of Gaza, the Fatah security forces crush it. That's what they're there 
for. Fatah by now is more or less functioning as Israel's police force in the 
West Bank. But the West Bank is only part of the occupied Palestinian 
territories. The other part is Gaza, and no one doubts that they form a unit. 
And there still is resistance in Gaza, those rockets. So yes, they want to stamp 
that out too, then there will be no resistance at all and they can continue to 
do what they want to do without interference, meanwhile delaying diplomacy as 
much as possible and "building the facts" the way they want to. Again this goes 
back to the origins of Zionism. It varies of course depending on circumstances, 
but the fundamental policy is the same and perfectly understandable. If you want 
to take over a country where the population doesn't want you, I mean, how else 
can you do it? How was this country conquered?

DOSSANI: What you describe is a tragedy.

CHOMSKY: It's a tragedy which is made right here. The press won't talk about it 
and even scholarship, for the most part, won't talk about it but the fact of the 
matter is that there has been a political settlement on the table, on the agenda 
for 30 years. Namely a two-state settlement on the international borders with 
maybe some mutual modification of the border. That's been there officially since 
1976 when there was a Security Council resolution proposed by the major Arab 
states and supported by the (Palestinan Liberation Organization) PLO, pretty 
much in those terms. The United States vetoed it so it's therefore out of 
history and it's continued almost without change since then.

There was in fact one significant modification. In the last month of Clinton's 
term, January 2001 there were negotiations, which the U.S. authorized, but 
didn't participate in, between Israel and the Palestinians and they came very 
close to agreement.

DOSSANI: The Taba negotiations?

Yes, the Taba negotiations. The two sides came very close to agreement. They 
were called off by Israel. But that was the one week in over 30 years when the 
United States and Israel abandoned their rejectionist position. It's a real 
tribute to the media and other commentators that they can keep this quiet. The 
U.S. and Israel are alone in this. The international consensus includes 
virtually everyone. It includes the Arab League which has gone beyond that 
position and called for the normalization of relations, it includes Hamas. Every 
time you see Hamas in the newspapers, it says "Iranian-backed Hamas which wants 
to destroy Israel." Try to find a phrase that says "democratically elected Hamas 
which is calling for a two-state settlement" and has been for years. Well, yeah, 
that's a good propaganda system. Even in the U.S. press they've occasionally 
allowed op-eds by Hamas leaders, Ismail Haniya and others saying, yes we want a 
two-state settlement on the international border like everyone else.

DOSSANI: When did Hamas adopt that position?

CHOMSKY That's their official position taken by Haniya, the elected leader, and 
Khalid Mesh'al, their political leader who's in exile in Syria, he's written the 
same thing. And it's over and over again. There's no question about it but the 
West doesn't want to hear it. So therefore it's Hamas which is committed to the 
destruction of Israel.

In a sense they are, but if you went to a Native American reservation in the 
United States, I'm sure many would like to see the destruction of the United 
States. If you went to Mexico and took a poll, I'm sure they don't recognize the 
right of the United States to exist sitting on half of Mexico, land conquered in 
war. And that's true all over the world. But they're willing to accept a 
political settlement. Israel isn't willing to accept it and the United States 
isn't willing to accept it. And they're the lone hold-outs. Since it's the 
United States that pretty much runs the world, it's blocked.

Here it's always presented as though the United States must become more engaged; 
it's an honest broker; Bush's problem was that he neglected the issue. That's 
not the problem. The problem is that the United States has been very much 
engaged, and engaged in blocking a political settlement and giving the material 
and ideological and diplomatic support for the expansion programs, which are 
just criminal programs. The world court unanimously, including the American 
justice, agreed that any transfer of population into the Occupied Territories is 
a violation of a fundamental international law, the Geneva Conventions. And 
Israel agrees. In fact even their courts agree, they just sort of sneak around 
it in various devious ways. So there's no question about this. It's just sort of 
accepted in the United States that we're an outlaw state. Law doesn't apply to 
us. That's why it's never discussed.

Sameer Dossani, a Foreign Policy In Focus contributor, is the director of 50 
Years is Enough and blogs at shirinandsameer.blogspot.com.

Recommended citation:
Sameer Dossani, "Chomsky: Undermining Gaza," (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In 
Focus: January 16, 2009).

Web location:
http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/5802