[Peace-discuss] Chomsky on Israel & the US

[C. G. Estabrook]

	Noam Chomsky: City Magazine (Tel Aviv) Interview
	By Netta Ahituv, Ha-ir (“City”) Magazine (Tel Aviv edition)
	25 June 2010 (Hebrew)

The following is the complete, unedited version of Noam Chomsky’s interview with 
Ha-ir Magazine.

1. What does it mean, on a broader essence, that Israel did not allow you to 
enter her borders? Does it show the direction in which Israel is heading towards?

A few days ago, Yossi Melman observed in Haaretz that “For a long time now the 
Israeli government has refused to listen to reason meant to prevent the 
country’s continuing decline and isolation in the international arena, steadily 
leading it to the place occupied 20 years ago by South Africa.” My impression is 
that he is basically correct, and it is not just the government. In the past few 
years there has been a rising tide of irrationality, paranoia, easy tolerance of 
Israeli crimes, retreat into victimhood (“the world is anti-Semitic and we can’t 
do anything about it”) instead of an honest effort to ask why in international 
polls Israel is now ranked alongside of North Korea as the most disliked and 
feared country in the world, and other very developments that are dangerous for 
Israel itself, as well as others. My being barred from Palestine is an 
illustration, though a very minor one. If the Ministry of Interior had simply 
allowed me to accept the invitation of Bir Zeit university to give talks on 
American foreign and domestic policies, as scheduled, no one would have ever 
heard about it. The Ministry’s insistence on controlling who Bir Zeit and 
Mustapha Barghouti may invite turned a non-event into an embarassing 
international incident. There are far more serious cases, among them the 
purposeful humiliation of the Turkish ambassador and more recently the attack on 
the flotilla in international waters, killing Turks among others, and seriously 
harming relations with Israel’s only regional ally, a crucial alliance for 
Israel tracing back more than half a century. These acts carry irrationality to 
rather extreme limits.

Melman’s reference to South Africa merits attention. Many analogies are drawn, 
most of them dubious at best. But some are realistic. It is worth recalling what 
happened in South Africa. Fifty years ago, the white nationalist regime 
recognized that it was becoming an international pariah. The South African 
Foreign Minister told the American Ambassador that we are facing isolation and 
being condemned in the United Nations, but you and I know that there is only one 
real vote at the UN: yours. As long as the US supports us, it does not matter 
what the world thinks. That turned out to be an accurate prediction. US 
government support for South Africa continued through the 1980s, though by then 
Reagan even had to ignore congressional resolutions to increase his support for 
the apartheid regime in its vicious repression at home and murderous escapades 
abroad. Washington’s pretext was the “war on terror.” In 1988, the Pentagon 
declared that the African National Congress was one of “the more notorious 
terrorist groups” in the world; in fact Nelson Mandela was only removed from the 
official terrorist list a year ago. South Africa then seemed impregnable, 
victorious on all fronts. Shortly after, Washington switched its policies, and 
within a few years the apartheid regime was gone.

Quite apart from issues of right and wrong, Israel would be wise to attend to 
the lessons. It is treading on very thin ice. That is particularly true today 
when the US has large armies in the field in the region, and both military and 
intelligence circles are warning that Israeli extremism and intransigence is 
harming US military operations. Meir Dagan should not be ignored when he warns 
the Knesset that Israel is “gradually turning from an asset of the United States 
to a burden.” If that feeling spreads, the consequences could be very ugly. 
There is much more to say about the matter.

2. Were you surprised by the way the Israeli media treated “your” story (as a 
bureaucracy mistake), and by the gap between that narrative and that of the 
international media?

Yes, I expected more honesty. The facts are completely clear, and it is hard to 
believe that the media were unaware of them. There was no “bureaucracy mistake.” 
The several hours of interrogation were conducted by a border official who was 
in constant contact with the Ministery of Interior. He exercised no initiative. 
He was relaying questions and comments from the Ministry, and finally its 
decision to prevent my daughter and me from entering the West Bank. The reasons 
were also quite explicit. The primary reason, repeated over and over, was that I 
was lecturing at Bir Zeit but not at an Israeli university. I have lectured at 
Bir Zeit before, but only on side trips when I was giving talks and attending 
conferences in Israel, and if I had agreed to follow that procedure again, it 
appeared that there would have been no problem. They also said that they did not 
like what I write about their country, but that puts them into the category of 
just about every country in the world. At the border, I requested that the 
Ministry provide its own version of these events so that others would not have 
to rely solely on what my daughter and I reported. They promised to send a 
formal statement to the US Embassy in Amman. That never happened. When 
international protest was beginning to mount the government produced a series of 
excuses, finally blaming the border official for a misunderstanding. That is not 
only false but cowardly. He was simply transmitting instructions from the 
Ministry. Surely the Israeli media were able to understand this.

3. In the interview for Channel 2 you have mentioned that the only country who 
denied your entrance is Czechoslovakia in 1968. Do you recognize other signs in 
Israel’s behavior that show the process of becoming a totalitarian country?

Israel is a democracy within its borders; the occupied territories are a very 
different matter. It is a flawed democracy, as are others. Some of the most 
serious flaws have been partially remedied, in particular the racist land laws. 
But in the past few years Israeli democracy has been under serious attack from 
within. It is very far from becoming a totalitarian country, but the current 
trajectory is worrisome for people concerned about Israel.

4. Do you think Israel’s democracy is in danger?

If current tendencies persist, the danger is real, I think.

5. Do you find any connection between the source of thought that did not allow 
you to enter Israel and of which caused the flotillas misfortune events?

The attack on the flotilla in international waters is far more significant than 
preventing me from speaking at Bir Zeit, but the decisions trace, I think, to 
the same source: the growing irrationality and paranoia that has been so evident 
in recent years, and is reminiscent of South Africa’s reaction to international 
condemnation.

6. Do you find a course of change in Israel’s reactions – of its government and 
citizens – in the past couple of years? Where do youu think this change comes 
from and where is it going to end?

The changes in the past few years are striking, not just in government actions 
but also in the media and in polls. That is why many Israelis are leaving in 
despair, including very distinguished figures, like the late Amos Elon, Dov 
Yermiah, and others. There was a significant change after the 2006 Lebanon war, 
a vicious and destructive assault on Lebanese society — Israel’s fifth such 
attack — with pretexts that cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. The global 
reaction was harsh, but instead of paying some attention to it, Israeli society 
and opinion retreated into the shelter of victimhood, which only increased 
global condemnation. The attack on Gaza in December 2008 was also bitterly 
denounced in most of the world, and rightly, eliciting the same kind of reaction 
in Israel. There are many other examples. Israelis may take comfort in 
government pronouncements that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, but 
people around the world have access to information from highly reliable sources 
about the shocking brutality of the siege. That is true by now even in the 
United States. See for example the Los Angeles Times, June 8. Israelis may 
choose to hide their heads in the sand, but the world will not go away.

Where does it come from? Apart from a few, Israel has not been willing to face 
up to the fact that it is carrying out serious criminal actions in the occupied 
territories: separating Gaza from the West Bank in violation of international 
agreements, savagely punishing Gaza, and taking what it wants in the West Bank 
while leaving the remnants in what Ariel Sharon called “Bantustans” — too 
politely in fact: South Africa relied on the Bantustans for its labor force, and 
therefore had to sustain them, while Israel has followed Moshe Dayan’s advice 
that it should tell the Palestinians that “you will live like dogs,” and we hope 
that you will leave. This is not the place to run through details, which should 
be familiar to Israelis with their eyes open. But these actions are naturally 
arousing criticism and popular opposition throughout much of the world, 
including by now even the younger Jewish population in the US. Israel’s last 
firm base of international support is visibly eroding as the American Jewish 
population increasingly finds Israel’s behavior intolerable to its generally 
liberal values.

Where will it end? The fate of South African white nationalism is perhaps 
instructive. Those with Israel’s interests at heart can only hope that Israel 
will come to its senses and accept the possibilities for peaceful diplomatic 
settlement that have been open for a long time.

As in the case of South Africa, what is crucial is the stance of the US 
government. As long as it continues its support for Israeli crimes and its 
decisive participation in them, and adheres to the resolute rejectionism that 
has barred a diplomatic settlement for 35 years (with rare and temporary 
exceptions), Israel is likely to persist on its current course, following the 
South African model. Many years ago I wrote that those who call themselves 
“supporters of Israel” are in reality supporters of its moral degeneration and 
possible ultimate destruction. I think that has become increasingly clear, 
particularly in recent years.

7. How do you explain the fact that Israel uses over and over again the victim 
narrative? Can we ever get over it?

It has a solid basis in horrendous fact, of course. But it is notable that the 
“victim narrative” gained much more force after the military victory in 1967 and 
the occupation of Palestinian land, and increasingly so as Israel’s policies are 
alienating international opinion. It is a convenient refuge in the face of 
growing international outrage. It is psychologically easier to retreat into the 
stance of victimhood than to face honestly the hard facts about why Israel is 
becoming so feared and disliked throughout the world. Israel would be wise to 
follow the advice of Avraham Burg and many others that it should face reality on 
these matters.

8. Do you think Barack Obama is good for Israel? Do you think he is good for you 
as an American citizen?

There are many illusions about Obama. In reality, he has been highly supportive 
of Israeli crimes and expansionism. I think that is very bad for Israel, for the 
Palestinians of course, and indeed for the world. On this and many other issues 
the positions he has taken are harmful to Americans. I have reviewed the details 
in print and cannot do so here.

9. What was your impression from your visit in Lebanon? What was your interest 
to meet Hassan Nassrala? What is your impression from the Hamas people you have 
talked to?

I have not met anyone from Hamas, but I did accept an invitation from Hassan 
Nasrallah in May 2006, very willingly, and also spent much more time with his 
leading opponent, Walid Jumblatt, along with others. The reasons should be 
clear. When I visit a country, I try to learn as much about it as I can. 
Nasrallah is one of the most prominent political figures in Lebanon. The 
Hezbollah-based coalition won a clear majority — about the same as Obama’s — in 
the recent elections (but obtained only a minority of representatives because of 
the distortions introduced by the confessional system). May 25 is Lebanon’s 
national holiday, with schools and businesses closed. It is “liberation day,” 
celebrating Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 after 22 years of brutal 
occupation in defiance of Security Council orders. Hezbollah’s resistance is 
credited with that achievement. To try to learn about Lebanon while ignoring 
Nasrallah is senseless.

During my visit in May 2010 I wanted to return to the areas of the south that my 
wife and I had visited 4 years earlier. It was then a time of hope and eager 
anticipation, as the bitter conflicts of the past seemed to have simmered down. 
Shortly after we left came the Israeli invasion — which, to repeat, had no 
credible pretext. The region was devastated once again. Places where we had been 
graciously welcomed were in ruins, people we met had been killed. South Beirut 
was subjected to the criminal “Dahiya doctrine.” I was glad to see that there 
had been substantial reconstruction, mostly by Hezbollah, which seems to command 
overwhelming loyalty in the south. The hopeful mood of the past still persists 
in much of the country, but tinged with a fear of war, and the knowledge that a 
desperate Israel might decide to apply the Dahiya doctrine to the whole country 
the next time.

10. Is there a realistic option to negotiate with Hizballa, Hammas and the rest 
of the Arab world?

It is the only realistic option, at least if Israel seeks peace and security. 
And it is not a new option. It is useful to remember some history. One of 
Israel’s most fateful decisions, in my opinion, was in 1971, when the government 
rejected a full peace offer from President Sadat, offering nothing to the 
Palestinians. His condition was that Israel withdraw from the occupied 
territories, though he was concerned only with the Egyptian Sinai, where Israel 
was then preparing an extensive program of construction and development, 
including the city of Yamit and many settlements. Jordan made a similar offer 
the next year. Apparently Israel did not even reply. In both cases, Israel 
preferred expansion to security. As always, the crucial question was what the US 
would do. An internal bureaucratic battle was won by Henry Kissinger, who 
imposed the policy he called “stalemate”: no negotiations, only force. He gives 
reasons in his memoirs, but they are so outlandish that scholarship politely 
evades them. Sadat made further moves towards accommodation and warned that 
“Yamit means war.” The US and Israel paid no attention. We know the outcome. 
Israel has continued to prefer expansion to security in many ways, in the 
conscious knowledge, since 1967, that expansion is in gross violation of 
international law and Security Council resolutions. It has adopted the belief of 
the South African Foreign Minister: the US will protect us.

For 35 years, there has been an overwhelming international consensus on a 
two-state settlement on the international border with “minor and mutual 
modifications,” to adopt the terms of official US policy prior to 1971, when the 
US was still part of the world on this issue. By now the consensus is virtually 
universal, including the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic States 
(including Iran), and the rest of the world. The Arab League has gone beyond, 
calling for normalization of relations in that context. The US and Israel 
continue to block a diplomatic settlement, still preferring expansion to security.

With Hizbollah and Hamas there can be no political negotations, though it is 
worth remembering that Hamas has repeatedly called for accepting the 
international consensus and Hezbollah has stated that it is a Lebanese party and 
will not disrupt anything that Palestinians accept. With these non-state actors, 
Israel can negotiate other agreements, like the ceasefire agreement with Hamas 
that Israel accepted formally (though not fully in practice) in June 2008. The 
government of Israel officially acknowledges that Hamas did not fire a single 
rocket until Israel violated the ceasefire in November 2008, invading Gaza and 
killing Hamas activists. Hamas offered to renew the ceasefire. The Israeli 
cabinet considered the offer, and rejected it, preferring to launch Operation 
Cast Lead — sheer criminal aggression, without any justification, because 
peaceful means were available, as Israel and its US partner knew.

The refusal to negotiate in 1971 led to the grimmest moment in Israel’s history, 
and preference for expansion over security and diplomacy has had dire 
consequences since, with perhaps worse to come. Israel often speaks of an 
“existential threat.” The most immediate and severe “existential threat” is its 
unwillingness to pursue diplomatic options that are open, and its adoption of 
the South African doctrine that the reigning superpower can enable it withstand 
the world. Not wise, to put it mildly, even putting aside all moral considerations.

http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2010-06-27/noam-chomsky-city-magazine-tel-aviv-interview/