[Peace-discuss] Chomsky on Gaza, Obama

[C. G. Estabrook]

"...it’s convenient for U.S. analysts to blame the Israel lobby for policies 
they don’t like. That leaves us 'clean', just misled by a lot of bad Jews ... 
For some reason, many people prefer illusions about [Obama]. But one cannot 
charge him with concealing his extremist positions."


	India national magazine Frontline interviews Prof. Chomsky
	on the post-Gaza situation in Palestine-Israel and the region.
	Shelly Walia  14-27 Mar 09 | Frontline, Vol. 26 Issue 6

Prof. Shelley Walia is a Fellow and Dean, International Students, at Panjab 
University, Chandigarh.

SHELLEY WALIA: Coming directly to the reasons for the Israeli attack on Gaza, do 
you believe that there could be a larger plan at work that has as its planner 
the U.S. aiming to finally provoke Iran to enter the ongoing conflict?

NOAM CHOMSKY: I doubt it. It would have been highly unlikely for Iran to respond 
more than verbally to the attack. There is a straightforward reason, I believe. 
Israel wants to take over the valuable parts of the West Bank and to leave the 
remnants of Palestinian society barely viable. And it, of course, wants to do so 
without disruption. It has succeeded, by violence, to suppress resistance within 
the West Bank. But the other part of occupied Palestine, Gaza, is still not 
completely under control. For other reasons, Israel has refused to abide by any 
of the ceasefires that have been reached and intends to maintain the siege that 
is suffocating Gaza. Invasion was a means to suppress resistance to its ongoing 
(U.S.-backed) crimes in the occupied territories.

SW: The fertile part of Gaza represents about a third of the Gaza Strip, this 
being the part Israel has always wanted to retain owing to its economic 
productivity and sale of produce to Europe. How would you then react to Israel’s 
withdrawal from Gaza a few years ago? Is it because the maintenance and 
protection of Israeli settlers was proving rather costly for the Israeli 
government or because the U.S. nudged [then Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon in that 
direction, or because Sharon had his own agenda?

NC: The motives do not seem obscure. Gaza has been turned into a disaster area 
under Israeli military occupation of 38 years. A few thousand Israeli settlers 
take a substantial part of the scarce land and resources and have to be 
protected by a large part of the Israeli army. Sane Israeli hawks understand 
that it makes no sense to continue with these arrangements. The settlers, who 
were subsidised to establish themselves there, are now being subsidised to 
settle elsewhere, leaving the population of Gaza to rot in a virtual prison. The 
few scattered West Bank outposts that are being abandoned are also simply an 
annoyance for Israel.

The “disengagement plan” is in reality an expansion plan, as was made plain at 
once. The presentation of the plan was coupled with an announcement of tens of 
millions of dollars for West Bank settlements and infrastructure development, a 
further expansion of the programmes designed to ensure that valuable land and 
resources will be incorporated within Israel, while Palestinians will be left in 
scarcely viable cantons. The shameful “separation wall” is one particularly ugly 
feature of these programmes. The actions are gross violations of international 
law and elementary human rights but can continue as long as they are supported 
by the reigning superpower. American citizens are the only ones who can put an 
end to these continuing and very severe crimes.

The operation was a complete scam, a repeat of “Operation National Trauma ’82” 
as the press called it at the time, carefully orchestrated, a media triumph, 
intended to convey the message: “Never again must Jews suffer so; the West Bank 
is ours.

SW: Would you agree that there is the complicity of [Palestinian President] 
Mahmoud Abbas with the Palestinian contras who are backed by the U.S. and 
Israel? He does not have the authority, moral or otherwise, to call together the 
Palestinian people for anything.

NC: Abbas is in a difficult position, no doubt. He does not want to accept the 
results of the democratic election that was won by his rival Hamas. With U.S. 
support, he attempted a military coup in Gaza, but that was beaten back and 
Hamas took over total control. His forces have been trained and armed by the 
U.S. and its regional allies, and assigned the task of suppressing any 
opposition in the West Bank, in particular, opposition to Israeli crimes in 
Gaza. One result is that he has very little credibility. There may be some 
chance of a unity government. It is possible that Israel’s decision to violate 
the ceasefire by invading Gaza on November 4, 2008, was intended to disrupt 
planned meetings in Cairo to establish a unity government. The pretexts offered 
were too absurd to merit comment.

SW: How far do you think that the military action of Israel is disproportionate 
to the ends that it hopes to achieve? Is it legitimate under international law? 
Israel is crossing every red line of the Fourth Geneva Convention, of the 
Nuremberg Principles, of all of the laws of war that were developed in the 20th 
century. It has the backing of the U.S. and thus feels cocksure of its actions.

NC: That depends on what we think it hoped to achieve. The attack did succeed in 
killing many civilians and destroying villages, institutions, and 
infrastructure, while also devastating much of the agricultural land and the 
limited industrial capacity of Gaza. The actions were “proportional” to 
achieving such ends, which we can only assume were the real ones. Of course, all 
of this is in gross violation of international law, as is U.S. support for it. 
In fact, all of this is in direct violation of U.S. law, which bans the use of 
U.S.-supplied arms apart for “legitimate self-defence”, and it is transparent 
that Israel’s actions do not fall under that category.

SW: Do you think that there may be some reason for going into the attack on Gaza 
at a juncture when the Bush administration was leaving office and Barack Obama 
was to be sworn in on January 20? Was there a feeling that the U.S. government 
at that point would not react in any negative way? Labour gained 50 per cent 
more in the elections, mainly because Ehud Barak was the man who was mostly 
identified with this operation. He was the Minister of Defence, as you know. Or, 
do you think it is just overreaction?

NC: We know from Israeli sources that the attack was meticulously planned in 
advance. It would only make sense, from Israel’s point of view, to carry out the 
attack so that it could do maximal damage but end immediately before Obama’s 
inauguration, which is what happened. That way Obama could pretend that he could 
not comment on it, because “there is only one President” (that didn’t prevent 
him from commenting on many other things, including bitter condemnation of the 
Mumbai terror and the “hateful ideology” behind it). And since the attack had 
formally ended immediately before the inauguration, he could maintain his 
silence after assuming the presidency, thereby continuing Bush’s policies, as he 
has done on other matters as well.

SW: It was not an attack on Hamas but on the whole structure of the society of 
Palestinians. Hospitals, universities, mosques were not spared. And if you keep 
citizens under such a harsh siege there are no options but to retaliate. The 
only democratic election in West Asia should have been given time to prove 
itself. Hamas is not guilty. Israel is for breaking the ceasefire and killing 
civilians. The aim is to see that democracy does not succeed. In spite of the 
siege of the past two months, no bombs were thrown by Hamas. Any comments?

NC: A recent poll of Muslim opinion found that large majorities “see U.S. 
support for democracy in Muslim countries as conditional at best. Only very 
small minorities say ‘the U.S. favours democracy in Muslim countries whether or 
not the government is cooperative with the U.S.’. The most common response is 
that the U.S. favours democracy only if the government is cooperative, while 
nearly as many say that the U.S. simply opposes democracy in the Muslim 
countries.” I am quoting from the summary by one of the world’s most respected 
polling agencies. The large majority are surely correct, and the same principle 
holds elsewhere. As the most strongly pro-government scholarship has conceded, 
the U.S. has supported democracy if and only if it conforms to strategic and 
economic objectives. Europe is, of course, the same.

Western intellectuals and their allies elsewhere naturally prefer a different 
story, but as is often the case, the victims have much clearer insight into 
reality than the servants of power.

SW: Do you agree that the provocation has come from Israel and not Hamas. It 
broke the ceasefire two months earlier and is conveniently blaming Hamas. And 
then it is asking the residents to leave Gaza. How is it possible? Where should 
they go when there is that crippling blockade in operation? This notion that 
Israel has a right to defend itself – against whom?

NC: A state has the right of self-defence by force only if it has exhausted 
peaceful means. In this case, Israel plainly had peaceful means that it refused 
to pursue: ceasefire, and termination of criminal actions in the occupied 
territory. Accordingly, it cannot appeal to the right of self-defence.

SW: Do you not think that the result of this kind of provocation will bring 
about the third Intifada instead of peace and security? Do you think the last 
chance for negotiations is now destroyed? The Hamas leadership in Damascus is 
against any ceasefire.

NC: Before the attack, the Israeli government was aware that Hamas, including 
the Damascus political leadership, was calling for a ceasefire – but a real one, 
which would end the siege. A siege is an act of war. Israel has always insisted 
on that. In fact, Israel launched two wars (1956, 1967) in large part on the 
claim that its access to the outside was partially limited, which is far less 
than a siege. The possibility of a political settlement remains open. As before, 
it turns on whether the U.S. will abandon the strong rejectionist policies it 
has pursued (with Israel), in international isolation, since the mid-1970s.

SW: Would you say that the two-nation theory is now in jeopardy, especially now 
with the escalation of war? Palestinians will now have to seek refuge in Jordan 
or Egypt if Israel decides to push them out of the West Bank. Egypt and, to some 
extent, Jordan have been thrown off balance by the withering criticism they have 
faced. The alliance of Iran, Syria, Hizbollah and Hamas – the quartet that is 
fighting against a diplomatic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – is 
critical of Jordan and Egypt as well of the two-state solution.

NC: I think your description, while conventional, is an error, a reflection of 
the force of Western propaganda. The facts are quite clear. There has been an 
overwhelming consensus in support of a two-state settlement since 1976, when the 
U.S. first vetoed a Security Council resolution to this effect put forth by the 
Arab states (including Syria, which still supports it). It is now supported by 
virtually everyone, including Hamas, which has repeatedly and quite publicly 
called for it. Iran has made clear that it would back the position of the Arab 
states, which formally support this policy, and call for normalisation of 
relations with Israel in that context. Hizbollah’s position is that it will not 
disrupt anything that Palestinians accept. That leaves the U.S. and Israel, the 
leaders of the rejection front since the 1970s. There has been one break in 
U.S.-Israeli rejectionism: negotiations in Taba, Egypt, in January 2001, which 
were coming very close to an agreement when Israel terminated them prematurely.

It is not too late for the two rejectionist states to return to what was almost 
achieved there, and if the U.S. decided to do so, Israel would surely go along. 
Unfortunately, Obama has clearly rejected that position. In his first foreign 
policy declaration, he praised the Arab League position as “constructive” and 
urged the Arab states to proceed with normalisation of relations with Israel. 
But he carefully omitted the crucial precondition for normalisation: a two-state 
settlement. He is an intelligent man and chooses his words carefully. He could 
hardly have been more explicit in rejecting the international consensus.

SW: What do you think is Egypt’s role in the peace process at this juncture? Its 
role as the chief negotiator in the Muslim world has been sagging owing to its 
declining economic situation and escalating poverty.

NC: The Egyptian dictatorship despises Hamas, an offshoot of the Muslim 
Brotherhood, which would surely do very well in Egypt if it were permitted to 
participate in a free election. But even if it tries to be an honest negotiator, 
Egypt can do nothing as long as the U.S. maintains its rejectionist stance, not 
only in words but by providing the decisive military, economic and diplomatic 
support for Israel’s systematic and of course criminal actions to take what it 
wants in the West Bank. And we should add “ideological support”, such as the 
absurd propaganda claims about who is blocking a two-state settlement, which are 
widely believed, thanks to U.S. power.

SW: Evidently, the formulation of the U.S.’ West Asia policy is dependent on the 
pro-Israel lobby and their Zionist supporters within the government. The brutal 
military occupation within Palestine has evoked little concern or response from 
the U.S. government, and its silence, therefore, indicates its complicity with 
the pro-Israel lobby that controls the U.S. political agenda. Do you agree?

NC: No, I don’t agree. I think that is a very serious misunderstanding of how 
policy is made. True, lobbies have influence. There are many dramatic cases. 
Take Cuba. A large majority of Americans have wanted to end the embargo and have 
normal relations for years, powerful business interests (energy, agribusiness, 
pharmaceutical, and others), but the political parties won’t touch it because of 
the Cuban-American vote in Florida and a few other States.

To be sure, there are state interests, and those probably dominate. But the 
lobby has had a powerful effect. Even a tiny lobby like the Armenian lobby came 
very close to severely harming U.S. relations with Turkey, a major ally, last 
year, by getting Congress to (almost) pass an Armenian genocide resolution.

In the case of Israel, it’s convenient for U.S. analysts to blame the Israel 
lobby for policies they don’t like. That leaves us “clean”, just misled by a lot 
of bad Jews. There’s some truth to it, as in the case of other lobbies. But it’s 
much exaggerated.

The debates over the influence of the lobby are typically quite abstract: they 
have to do with sorting out influences that mostly converge – 
strategic-economic, lobby. The test is when U.S. government policies and the 
lobby conflict, as often happens. In that case, invariably, the lobby 
disappears, knowing better than to confront real power. Just happened last 
summer, once again, in an important case: the lobby was intent on ramming 
through Congress a resolution calling for a virtual blockade of Iran, a very 
high priority for Israel. At first they rounded up congressional support, enough 
to pass it, until the White House hinted quietly that it was opposed, not 
wanting to be dragged into a war with Iran. The measure (HR 362) was dropped; 
the lobby was silent. Not uncommon.

The debates also are paralysing. They have no implications for activism, except 
one. If the claims are correct, then I’ve been wasting my time for years in 
talking, writing, organising, activism. I should instead put on a tie and jacket 
and go to the corporate headquarters of Intel, Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, and a 
host of other major corporations investing in Israel, and should explain to 
them, politely, that they are harming their interests by doing so, and should 
use their political and economic power to put the lobby out of business, as they 
can do in five minutes. No one adopts that tactic. But why?

SW: Why is Obama quiet? It suits him to speak on economic matters or Iraq, but 
on Israeli atrocities he has not made a single statement.

NC: Obama made it clear long before that he is a passionate supporter of Israeli 
policies. In his campaign, he emphasised that he was a co-sponsor of a Senate 
resolution in 2006 barring any interference with Israel’s criminal aggression in 
Lebanon. He also called for Jerusalem to be the permanent and undivided capital 
of Israel, a position so outrageous that his campaign had to claim publicly that 
his words did not mean what he said. I wrote about this a year ago, in a book 
published before the elections, simply relying on his formal positions. For some 
reason, many people prefer illusions about him. But one cannot charge him with 
concealing his extremist positions.

SW: Do you think Israel has crossed the line of humanity and legality in its 
recent onslaught on Gaza?

NC: We should describe this as a U.S.-Israeli assault. It surely crosses both 
lines, but hardly for the first time.

http://littlealexinwonderland.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/chomskys-lectern-
geopolitics-of-the-us-israel-gaza-massacre-and-illusions-about-obama/