[R-G] Chomsky: Undermining Gaza

[Anthony Fenton]

The video of Chomsky's recent talk on Gaza (at MIT, January 13, 2009),  
is here:
http://web.mit.edu/cis/starr.html

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5802

Chomsky: Undermining Gaza
Sameer Dossani | January 16, 2009

Editor: Emily Schwartz Greco

www.fpif.org

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.

Sources:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1148482035571