zaterdag 9 augustus 2014

Uri Avnery on the Gaza Crisis, His Time in a Zionist "Terrorist" Group & Becoming a Peace Activist...





FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 2014
Fighting in Gaza has resumed after the expiration of a 72-hour truce expired. Israel said it launched airstrikes after Palestinians fired at least 18 rockets into southern Israel after the ceasefire ended. Palestinian officials say a 10-year-old boy was killed earlier today when an Israeli airstrike hit near a mosque in Gaza City. Six other people were wounded in the attack. 
A Hamas military wing spokesman earlier called on Palestinian negotiators holding indirect talks with Israeli negotiators in Cairo to refuse any ceasefire extension unless its long-term demands were met. 
We speak with longtime peace activist Uri Avnery, who has pushed for Israel to engage with Hamas. Avnery is a historic figure within the Israeli peace movement. He was born in Germany in 1923. His family fled the Nazis and moved to what was then Palestine. As a youth, he joined the Irgun Zionist paramilitary group, which he later quit to become a leading peace activist in Israel. In 1950, he founded the news magazine, HaOlam HaZeh. 
Fifteen years later, he was elected to the Knesset on a peace platform. In 1982, he made headlines when he crossed the lines during the Siege of Beirut to meet Yasser Arafat, head of the then-banned Palestine Liberation Organization. In 1993, he started the Gush Shalom peace movement. He will turn 91 next month and still writes a weekly column.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to Gaza, where fighting has resumed after the expiration of a 72-hour truce expired. Israel said it launched airstrikes after Palestinians fired at least 18 rockets into southern Israel after the ceasefire ended. Palestinian officials say a 10-year-old boy was killed earlier today when an Israeli airstrike hit near a mosque in Gaza City. Six other people were wounded in the attack.
AMY GOODMAN: Hamas rejected an extension of the 72-hour ceasefire, saying Israel had failed to meet a key Palestinian demand to ease the crippling blockade on Gaza. A Hamas military wing spokesperson earlier called on Palestinian negotiators holding indirect talks with Israel negotiators in Cairo to refuse any ceasefire extension unless its long-term demands were met. This is Abu Ubaida.
ABU UBAIDA: [translated] We urge the Palestinian delegation who is negotiating not to extend the ceasefire deal unless there is an initial agreement to the demands set by our people, and foremost is the seaport.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Israel’s 29-day offensive in Gaza killed nearly 1,900 people, including at least 1,354 civilians, 415 of them children. More than 10,000 people have been injured. Half-a-million Palestinians have been displaced, with at least 187,000 still living in U.N. emergency shelters. Ten thousand homes have been completely destroyed, 30,000 partially wrecked. Meanwhile, 64 Israeli soldiers were killed in Gaza; three civilians died in Israel.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the situation in Israel and Palestine, we go to Tel Aviv, where we’re joined by Uri Avnery, longtime Israeli peace activist and writer. He’s a former member of the Israeli Knesset, the Parliament, and the founder of the Gush Shalom peace movement. He writes aweekly column published in several countries and is the author of many books, including 1948: A Soldier’s Tale—The Bloody Road to JerusalemIsrael’s Vicious Circle and My Friend, the Enemy.
Uri Avnery, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about the end of the ceasefire and what this means?
URI AVNERY: Well, I think everybody’s very sad about it, because we all have hoped that the war has ended. But the war is going on, and if there’s no new ceasefire, the stakes will get worse on both sides.
AMY GOODMAN: Israel says that it was Hamas that broke the ceasefire by shooting rockets into Israel. Can you respond?
URI AVNERY: That’s very easy to answer. The ceasefire was in force until 8:00 this morning. No one broke it. It was just not renewed.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Now, you have been a longtime founder and leader of the peace movement in Israel. What is the state of the peace movement in your country right now?
URI AVNERY: Well, in any war, it is very difficult to talk about peace, see. Every war creates a war hysteria. People become superpatriotic. People don’t want to hear any criticism of their government or their country. So, it’s a bad situation. But there are demonstrations against the war going on every day. Tomorrow evening, on Saturday evening, there will be a very big demonstration in the center of Tel Aviv. So the peace movement is not silent.
AMY GOODMAN: You have a long history, Uri Avnery, that goes, to say the least., back to before the establishment of the state of Israel. You were born in Germany. You fled Nazi Germany with your family. You were part of the Irgun when you were, what, 15 years old. Can you talk about the Irgun and the Stern Gang in pre-state Israel, what you were doing there, and what these organizations did?
URI AVNERY: Well, we are dealing with day-to-day occurrences, but we do not deal with the root of the matter. The root is that Israel is occupying the Palestinian territories—the territory of the West Bank and the territory of the Gaza Strip. As long as the occupation lasts, there will be no peace. In order to put an end to the occupation, you must make peace, peace between Israel and the Palestinian people. In order to achieve peace with the Palestinian people, Israel must end the occupation, withdraw from the Occupied Territories and enable the Palestinians to set up their own independent nation and state, the state of Palestine. That’s what it’s all about. Everything else flows from this basic problem.
AMY GOODMAN: You have—Israel calls Hamas terrorist. So does the United States. Your group, Irgun, was a paramilitary organization. You have said you ultimately left the group—Shamir was a part of it, as well. You have said you left the group because of its terrorist tactics in—what year was it? In 1942.
URI AVNERY: Well, I was a member of a terrorist organization when I was 15 years old. I believe I understand the psychology of young people who join organizations which are called terrorists by their enemies, but which themselves think of themselves as freedom fighters. Hamas thinks it’s fighting for the freedom of Palestine. They are deeply convinced of this, and therefore they are fighting. And everybody must admit that they are fighting very well, because what you have here during the last month is a guerrilla organization of, I would say, at least—at most 10,000 fighters, fighting against one of four biggest and strongest armies in the world. So it’s not an even fight, yet they are standing there—they are still standing there after more than a month. I think even the Israeli Army recognizes and somehow respects the fighting force of this organization.
One of the basic problems at this moment is that Israelis and Hamas do not talk to each other. The ceasefire was negotiated by Egypt. Egypt, at this moment, is against Hamas more than Israel. At this moment, Egypt and Israel are very close partners. So Egypt appearing as a negotiator, as a mediator, of an honest broker, is ridiculous, the same way that the American mediation was ridiculous. America is a very, very, very close ally of Israel. President Obama repeats like a parrot the most basic Israeli propaganda, and so does John Kerry. So we don’t have somebody who can mediate and who’s being trusted by both sides. I think Hamas went to Cairo to these ceasefire negotiations full of apprehension, full of distrust towards Egypt. I, myself, would say that there’s a very simple solution to this. I think Israel and Hamas must talk to each other. When people are firing on each other and trying to kill each other—indeed, killing each other—the best solution is that they start to talk with each other. I think if the Israelis and the Palestinians would sit together opposite each other at one table and thresh out their real problems, trying to understand, be able to understand each other, the whole thing would look very differently.
The Palestinians, Hamas cannot and will not agree to a real ceasefire, long-lasting ceasefire, if there is a blockade on the Gaza Strip. This is a basic, local problem. You have 1.8 [million] of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. It’s a tiny, tiny, little territory. You can translate it to American geographical facts. The whole thing is about 50 kilometers wide and about 10 kilometers long. So, translate this to New York City, I think it’s smaller than Brooklyn. So, this is this huge population in this small territory. It’s suffering from a blockade for at least eight years. A blockade means that all the borders are closed, including the sea border, and you cannot get in anything except by the permission of Israel, and you cannot get anything out at all. There is no export from the Gaza area.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Uri—
URI AVNERY: So, no one will agree—yes?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you—
URI AVNERY: After such a cruel war, with so many—yes, please?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: You’ve mentioned the need for the Israeli government and Hamas to talk as a first step, but you’ve also written in the past that Israel was complicit in the rise of Hamas and actually, to some extent, supported its rise. Could you talk about that and the significance of the early period of Hamas?
URI AVNERY: Well, at the time, before ’93, not Hamas was considered the main enemy of Israel, but the PLO, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, which was led at the time by Yasser Arafat, and which is being led now by Mahmoud Abbas. Because they considered the PLO their main enemy, they believed that any enemy of the PLO would be a friend of Israel. Under occupation, you cannot have any real political activity. Any political activity in the Occupied Territories was completely forbidden. You went to prison for any kind of political activity, except that you could not close the mosques. So Islamist people who go to the mosque to pray were the only people in the Occupied Territories who could come together and plan action. And this is how—Israel did not create Hamas, but Hamas was tolerated by Israel in order to fight against Yasser Arafat and thePLO.
When the First Intifada started, the first Palestinian uprising started in 1967 [ 1987 ], the Israeli authorities very quickly realized that Hamas is more dangerous than PLO. So they made peace with the PLO, the Oslo Agreement in 1993. And the PLO today is a kind of partner of Israel, and Hamas has become the main enemy. They are much more dangerous because they are much more fanatical. They are very strongly religiously motivated. And at this moment, we have the strange situation that Israel today would like Abu Mazen, Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the PLOand the Palestinian Authority—they want Mahmoud Abbas to help Israel against Hamas. This delegation, which is now conducting negotiations in Cairo for the Palestinian people, is led by Mahmoud Abbas. So, it’s a full swing. It’s a full reversal of Israeli policy. Now—
AMY GOODMAN: We have to break, but we’re going to come back to the discussion with you. And we want to also ask you about that moment in 1982 when you crossed lines and you were the first Israeli Yasser Arafat ever met, when you met with Yasser Arafat. Uri Avnery is a longtime Israeli peace activist. He started in the Irgun, the Zionist paramilitary organization, when he was a teenager. He left there, concerned about terrorist activity, ultimately founded one of the first peace groups in Israel. He was a member of the Knesset and met with Yasser Arafat. We’ll talk all about that when we come back.
[break]
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We continue our conversation with Uri Avnery, longtime Israeli peace activist and writer. He was born in Germany in 1923. His family fled the Nazis and moved to what was then Palestine. As a youth, he joined the Irgun Zionist paramilitary group, which he later quit to become a leading peace activist in Israel.
AMY GOODMAN: In 1950, he founded the news magazine HaOlam HaZehThis World. Fifteen years later, he was elected to the Knesset on a peace platform. In 1982, Uri Avnery made headlines when he crossed the lines during the Siege of Beirut to meet with Yasser Arafat. In 1993, he started the Gush Shalom peace movement. He turns 91 next month. He still writes aweekly column. Can you go back to 1982, Uri Avnery, to talk about that moment when you met with Yasser Arafat? How significant was that?
URI AVNERY: Well, to my mind, it was very significant. The situation was, in a way, similar to the present one. The PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organization, was considered the main enemy of Israel. It was located in South Lebanon, and the Israeli army started an invasion of Lebanon in order to destroy the PLO. It was a very cruel war, like the present one. Civilian towns and villages were shelled and bombarded. And West Beirut was surrounded by Israeli troops, like Gaza is now. And there was a debate in our political and military leadership whether to invade and conquer West Beirut. I was very much afraid of this. I thought that it would lead to a widespread slaughter, to a lot of casualties on all sides, and many, many civilians being killed. And I thought, as I think today, that in order to put an end to a war, you must talk with your enemy, look him in the eye, try to understand him, and come up with a solution.
So, during the battle of Beirut, I crossed the lines into the Palestinian territory. I met with Yasser Arafat, who was the leader of the PLO, and we had a long conversation about how to make peace. And then I went back to Israel. And we remained friends for the rest of his life. We met very often, abroad in Tunis and later when he came to Palestine, here in Palestine. I think the result of this meeting was that it helped to de-demonize the PLO. Yasser Arafat was demonized for years. He was considered a monster. When pictures of him and me appeared on Israeli television talking to each other, sitting on the same sofa, I think it—to some extent, it helped to change the picture of Arafat the monster into Arafat the enemy with whom we can make peace. And 12 years later, Israel indeed made peace with the PLO. It was a peace that was made between the Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, and the chief of the PLO, Yasser Arafat. Unfortunately, they did not do a complete job. Many things were left open, and very soon, after Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, assassinated by a Jewish assassin, we sank back into a war.
My friends and I have demanded that our government start talks with Hamas, eight years ago. We, ourselves, met with the Hamas leaders. I met with several Hamas leaders several times. I found them people with whom I don’t necessarily agree, but people with whom I can talk. I believe, even today, that we can come to an agreement with the Palestinian people, including Hamas. You cannot ignore Hamas. People have maybe—people abroad and in Israel, too, have completely distorted people what Hamas is. Hamas is not a militia. Hamas is not a military organization. Hamas is a Palestinian political party, which in the last Palestinian elections, supervised by ex-President Carter, Hamas had a majority. Majority of the Palestinian people, including the Gaza Strip, voted for Hamas. When a Palestinian government was set up by Hamas, it was destroyed by Israel and the United States and Europe. It was brought down. It was then that Hamas took over power in the Gaza Strip by force, but it took power after it won a big majority in free elections in the Gaza Strip. So it’s much more complicated than just a fight between Israel and a military or terrorist or whatever-you-want-to-call-it organization. You cannot wish Hamas away. You can do to Hamas whatever you want. You can kill all the 10,000 fighters of Hamas. But Hamas will remain, because Hamas is an ideology, and Hamas is a political party accepted by the Palestinian people. So, in the end, whatever we do, in the end, after all the killing and after all this terrible destruction, in the end, we’ll have to talk with Hamas.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Uri Avnery, do you feel that in the leadership of the Israeli government there are those who are determined never to allow a Palestinian state? Or do you think that there is enough of a leadership cadre willing to reach a fair and just peace with the Palestinians?
URI AVNERY: This government of Israel, which represents the extreme right in Israel, with some openly fascist elements in it, but supported by a majority of the Israeli people, does not want to give up the occupied territories of the West Bank and the indirectly occupied territories of Gaza. That’s the whole point. If we are ready to give up this territory and allow the Palestinians to set up their own nation and state of Palestine, then the problem is solved. There will be some discussions about details, about this part or that part, but basically the problem will be solved, and we shall have peace. But this government does not agree to give up the West Bank. It has put up there dozens of Israeli Jewish settlements. It is supporting these settlements. It’s going to put up more settlements. And if you put up settlements in the West Bank, you cannot have a Palestinian state.
The West Bank—one must realize, the West Bank and Gaza together, the Occupied Territories, altogether constitute 22 percent of the historic land of Palestine. I was a citizen of Palestine before 1948. And Palestine—of this country of Palestine, 22 percent are the Occupied Territories in which the Palestinians desire and are ready to set up their own nation and state of Palestine. The question is: Do we agree to live side by side with an independent, sovereign state of Palestine? Yes or no? If not, then every further discussion is superfluous. We shall have war, and again and again and again and again, until the end of time.
AMY GOODMAN: Uri Avnery, I want to thank you very much for being with us—I’m sorry we’ve come to the end of our show—longtime Israeli peace activist, writer, former member of the Israeli Knesset and founder of the Gush Shalom peace movement, crossed lines in 1982 in the Siege of Beirut to meet with Yasser Arafat.
This breaking news from BBC: U.S. aircraft launch airstrike against Islamic State artillery in Iraq

Verwarring in de discussie over Israël.....

09 augustus 2014 RSS

Bruno BraakhuisBruno  Braakhuisvoormalig Kamerlid voor GroenLinks

Waarom is het zo moeilijk om in de discussie over Israël de begrippen staat, volk en geloof te scheiden?

Dat de wereld moeite heeft met het aanspreken van Israël op zijn verantwoordelijkheden als staat, mag verbazend genoemd worden. Natuurlijk, er zijn gedegen historische aanleidingen voor, maar van verstandige en hoog opgeleide leiders mag toch verwacht worden dat ze historie en hysterie van elkaar kunnen onderscheiden. Om hen te helpen, zet ik een paar begrippen op een rijtje, die consistent worden verward.
Een staat is de binnen een afgebakend grondgebied werkzame, in hoge mate soevereine organisatie die gezag uitoefent over de op dat grondgebied wonende bevolking, die deze bevolking naar buiten toe vertegenwoordigt en die over de benodigde machtsmiddelen beschikt, zoals het geweldsmonopolie. De staat is samengesteld uit een aantal specifieke elementen die hem zijn voornaamste karakteristieken geven. Deze elementen zijn (volgens het internationale recht): bevolking, grondgebied, politieke en wettelijke organisatie.

Een volk is een groep mensen die al eeuwen samenwonen en dezelfde cultuur hebben.

Onder geloof/religie wordt gewoonlijk een van de vele vormen van zingeving, of het zoeken naar betekenisvolle verbindingen, verstaan, waarbij meestal een hogere macht, opperwezen of god centraal staat.
(Met dank aan Wikipedia)

Deze begrippen worden consistent verward, waardoor de discussie rond Israël verlamd is en zich vooral kenmerkt door ongemak, angst voor antisemiet te worden uitgemaakt, electorale belangen en blindheid.

De diaspora van het joodse volk begon al met de ondergang van het koninkrijk Juda in 586 voor Christus. Eigenlijk is er sinds die tijd geen sprake meer van een joods volk, maar van veelal geassimileerde burgers met het joodse geloof in talloze staten. In die zin onderscheidt bijvoorbeeld de joodse Nederlander zich niet van de katholieke, hervormde of islamitische Nederlander.

Er is geen joods volk binnen onze grenzen, net zomin als dat er geen katholiek volk is. Er kan dus ook geen geografische claim meer uitgaan van het joodse volk. Wel lijkt er zo’n claim uit te gaan van het joodse geloof (verkozen volk, beloofde land), maar als we geloof erkennen als een daarvoor rechtmatige basis ziet de wereldorde er heel anders uit. Het zionisme is daarom staatsrechtelijk niet houdbaar en zou door de democratische staat Israël van de hand moeten worden gewezen.

Maar kerk en staat zijn in Israël verweven. Waar Nederland de trias politica (Montesquieu) omarmd heeft en daarmee ook kerk en staat gescheiden heeft, aangevuld met een grondwet waarin de vrijheid van godsdienst en gelijkheid van burgers is opgenomen, is dat in Israël niet het geval. Israël heeft geen grondwet. Het grondwettelijk recht ligt daar vast in wetten en jurisprudentie.

Daarmee kunnen in Israël geloof, politiek en staat niet meer los van elkaar worden gezien en kunnen radicale en fundamentalistische groepen ongehinderd politieke invloed uitoefenen voor hun onrechtmatige doelen. Het heeft geleid tot een staat, die zich kenmerkt door een cultuur die vrijwel volledig gebaseerd is op het joodse geloof, met alles dat daar bij hoort (helden, rituelen, symbolen – Hofstede) en het stelselmatig rechteloos maken van wie zich daar onvoldoende naar voegt.

Samen met het gebruik van buitenproportioneel geweld tegenover hen die zich door deze staat onderdrukt voelen en daar (ook veelal te veroordelen) uiting aan geven, is dit ontoelaatbaar. Een land waarin rechtspraak en politieke leiding een geloof hebben als basis is in die zin tot op zekere hoogte vergelijkbaar met de islamitische sharia.

En dan is de vraag of we Israël mogen aanspreken, of we kritiek mogen hebben op een staat die lak heeft aan VN-resoluties, die consistent via een salamitactiek elke afspraak schendt en doorgaat met koloniseren op vreemd grondgebied, die burgers met een ander geloof discrimineert en rechteloos maakt, die wel zelf als volk wil worden gezien maar het Palestijnse volk daarentegen niet erkent (volgens de definitie zijn de Palestijnen juist wél een volk), die internationaal het joodse geloof als argument inzet om de staat Israël vrij te pleiten, die als straf voor een ontvoering van een soldaat een school met kinderen bombardeert en die zich dit alles op basis van het (overigens begrijpelijke) historisch bepaalde westerse schuldgevoel meent te kunnen veroorloven. Aan westerse leiders om hier antwoord op te geven. Ik denk er het mijne van.

Professor Ilan Pappé: Israel Has Chosen to be a "Racist Apartheid State" with U.S. Support



As the Palestinian death toll tops 1,000 in Gaza, we are joined from Haifa by Israeli professor and historian Ilan Pappé. "I think Israel in 2014 made a decision that it prefers to be a racist apartheid state and not a democracy," Pappé says. "It still hopes that the United States will license this decision and provide it with the immunity to continue, with the necessary implication of such a policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians wherever they are." A professor of history and the director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter, Pappé is the author of several books, including most recently, "The Idea of Israel: A History of Power and Knowledge."

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: As we continue our coverage of the crisis in Gaza, we go to Haifa, Israel, to speak with Ilan Pappé, a professor of history and the director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter in Britain. He’s the author of a number of books, including, most recently, The Idea of Israel: A History of Power and Knowledge, joining us byDemocracy Now! video stream from Haifa.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Professor Pappé. At this point, over a thousand Palestinians have been killed, as well, I believe the number is 45 Israeli soldiers, and three civilians have been killed in Israel. Can you talk about the latest negotiations over a ceasefire and what you think needs to happen?
ILAN PAPPÉ: It’s good to be on your show, Amy. There is no sign for a ceasefire on the ground itself. And there are sort of two competing initiatives still going on: The Egyptian-Israeli initiative that actually wants to dictate to the Hamas a return to the status quo and sort of marginalize and disregard everything that Hamas was fighting for, and there is a more serious effort that the secretary of state was trying to push forward, John Kerry, with the help of the Qataris and the Turks, to try and address at least some of the issues that are at the heart of this present wave of violence. But so far, none of the two has affected the reality on the ground, apart from a certain lull in the last few hours compared to the last 20 days.
AMY GOODMAN: There were protests in Tel Aviv. How many people came out at those protests, as well as Haifa this weekend? Were you there at the protest in Haifa, Professor Pappé?
ILAN PAPPÉ: Yes, yes, I was. Haifa, there were about 700 people. In Tel Aviv, there were 3,000. I should say that, of course, a large number of the protesters are Palestinian citizens of Israel. So the number of Israeli Jews who are courageous enough to come out and demonstrate is even smaller than these numbers indicate. And they were met by a very vicious reaction both from right-wing demonstrators and very harsh—and were harshly treated by the police.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think it’s most important for people to understand about the conflict?
ILAN PAPPÉ: I think the most important thing is the historical context. When you listen to mainstream media coverage of the situation in Gaza, you get the impression that it all starts with an unreasonable launching of rockets into Israel by the Hamas. And two very basic historical kind of backgrounds are being missed. The very immediate one goes back to June this year, when Israel decided, by force, to try and demolish the Hamas politically in the West Bank and foil the attempts of the unity government of Palestine to push forward an international campaign to bring Israel to justice on the basis of the agenda of human rights and civil rights.
And the deeper historical context is the fact that ever since 2005, the Gaza Strip is being—or people in the Gaza Strip are being incarcerated as criminals, and their only crime is that they are Palestinians in a geopolitical location that Israel doesn’t know how to deal with. And when they elected democratically someone who was vowed to struggle against this ghettoizing or this siege, Israel reacted with all its force. So, this sort of wider historical context, that would explain to people that it is a desperate attempt to get out of the situation that your previous interviewee was talking about, is at the heart of the issue, and therefore it is soluble. One can solve this situation by lifting the siege, by allowing the people of Gaza to be connected with their brothers and sisters in the West Bank, and by allowing them to be connected to the world and not to live under circumstances that no one else in the world seems to experience at this moment in time.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Pappé, over the weekend, BBC correspondent Jon Donnison reported on what was called an Israeli admission that Hamas was not responsible for the killing of the three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank in June. On Twitter, Donnison said Israeli police spokesperson Micky Rosenfeld told him the suspects who killed the three teenagers were a lone cell affiliated with Hamas but not operating under its leadership. What is the significance of this?
ILAN PAPPÉ: It’s very significant, because this was, of course, known to the Israelis the moment they heard about this abduction and the killing of the three young settlers. It was very clear that Israel was looking for a pretext to try and launch both a military operation in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip in order to try and bring back the situation in Palestine to what it was during the failed peace process, with a sort of good domicile, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in a way that they could forget about it and continue with the colonization of the West Bank without the need to change anything in their attitude or policies. And the depression in the West Bank, the frustration, the anger, especially in May 2014, of the killing of five young Palestinians by the Israeli army, burst out in this local action, this local initiative, that had nothing to do with the strategy of the Hamas, that was willing to try and give Abu Mazen leeway to create a unity government and to try the new initiative—going to the United Nations, going to international bodies, in order to make Israel accountable for more than 46 years of colonization and occupation. So it really highlights the connection between a pretext and a policy and a strategy which has wreaked such carnage in Gaza today.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Professor Pappé, you worked in Israel for years as a professor. You left Israel and now teach at the University of Exeter in Britain. You’ve returned to Haifa. Do you see a change in your country?
ILAN PAPPÉ: Yes, unfortunately, a change for the worse. I think the Israel is at a crossroad, but it has already made its decision which way it is going from this junction. It was in a junction where it had to decide finally whether it wants to be a democracy or to be a racist and apartheid state, given the realities on the ground. I think Israel, in 2014, made a decision that it prefers to be a racist apartheid state and not a democracy, and it still hopes that the United States would license this decision and provide it with the immunity to continue with the necessary implication of such a policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians, wherever they are.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think the U.S. should do?
ILAN PAPPÉ: Well, the U.S. should apply the basic definitions of democracy to Israel and recognize that it is giving, it’s providing an unconditional support for a regime that systematically abuses the human rights and the civil rights of anyone who is not a Jew between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. If America wants clearly to support such regimes—it had done it in the past—that’s OK. But if it feels that it wants to send a different message to the Middle East, then it really has a different agenda of human rights—
AMY GOODMAN: We have two seconds.
ILAN PAPPÉ: Yeah, human rights and civil rights in Palestine.

"A Hideous Atrocity": Noam Chomsky on Israel’s Assault on Gaza & U.S. Support for the Occupation


Hideous. Sadistic. Vicious. Murderous. That is how Noam Chomsky describes Israel’s 29-day offensive in Gaza that killed nearly 1,900 people and left almost 10,000 people injured. Chomsky has written extensively about the Israel/Palestine conflict for decades. After Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009, Chomsky co-authored the book "Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel’s War Against the Palestinians" with Israeli scholar Ilan Pappé. 
His other books on the Israel/Palestine conflict include "Peace in the Middle East?: Reflections on Justice and Nationhood" and "The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians." 
Chomsky is a world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author, Institute Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught for more than 50 years.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: To talk more about the crisis in Gaza, we go now to Boston, where we are joined by Noam Chomsky, world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author, Institute Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he’s taught for more than 50 years. He has written extensively about the Israel-Palestine conflict for decades.
AMY GOODMAN: Forty years ago this month, Noam Chomsky published Peace in the Middle East?: Reflections on Justice and Nationhood. His 1983 book, The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians, is known as one of the definitive works on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Professor Chomsky joins us from Boston.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Noam. Please first just comment, since we haven’t spoken to you throughout the Israeli assault on Gaza. Your comments on what has just taken place?
NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s a hideous atrocity, sadistic, vicious, murderous, totally without any credible pretext. It’s another one of the periodic Israeli exercises in what they delicately call "mowing the lawn." That means shooting fish in the pond, to make sure that the animals stay quiet in the cage that you’ve constructed for them, after which you go to a period of what’s called "ceasefire," which means that Hamas observes the ceasefire, as Israel concedes, while Israel continues to violate it. Then it’s broken by an Israeli escalation, Hamas reaction. Then you have period of "mowing the lawn." This one is, in many ways, more sadistic and vicious even than the earlier ones.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what of the pretext that Israel used to launch these attacks? Could you talk about that and to what degree you feel it had any validity?
NOAM CHOMSKY: As high Israeli officials concede, Hamas had observed the previous ceasefire for 19 months. The previous episode of "mowing the lawn" was in November 2012. There was a ceasefire. The ceasefire terms were that Hamas would not fire rockets—what they call rockets—and Israel would move to end the blockade and stop attacking what they call militants in Gaza. Hamas lived up to it. Israel concedes that.
In April of this year, an event took place which horrified the Israeli government: A unity agreement was formed between Gaza and the West Bank, between Hamas and Fatah. Israel has been desperately trying to prevent that for a long time. There’s a background we could talk about, but it’s important. Anyhow, the unity agreement came. Israel was furious. They got even more upset when the U.S. more or less endorsed it, which is a big blow to them. They launched a rampage in the West Bank.
What was used as a pretext was the brutal murder of three settler teenagers. There was a pretense that they were alive, though they knew they were dead. That allowed a huge—and, of course, they blamed it right away on Hamas. They have yet to produce a particle of evidence, and in fact their own highest leading authorities pointed out right away that the killers were probably from a kind of a rogue clan in Hebron, the Qawasmeh clan, which turns out apparently to be true. They’ve been a thorn in the sides of Hamas for years. They don’t follow their orders.
But anyway, that gave the opportunity for a rampage in the West Bank, arresting hundreds of people, re-arresting many who had been released, mostly targeted on Hamas. Killings increased. Finally, there was a Hamas response: the so-called rocket attacks. And that gave the opportunity for "mowing the lawn" again.
AMY GOODMAN: You said that Israel does this periodically, Noam Chomsky. Why do they do this periodically?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Because they want to maintain a certain situation. There’s a background. For over 20 years, Israel has been dedicated, with U.S. support, to separating Gaza from the West Bank. That’s in direct violation of the terms of the Oslo Accord 20 years ago, which declared that the West Bank and Gaza are a single territorial entity whose integrity must be preserved. But for rogue states, solemn agreements are just an invitation to do whatever you want. So Israel, with U.S. backing, has been committed to keeping them separate.
And there’s a good reason for that. Just look at the map. If Gaza is the only outlet to the outside world for any eventual Palestinian entity, whatever it might be, the West Bank—if separated from Gaza, the West Bank is essentially imprisoned—Israel on one side, the Jordanian dictatorship on the other. Furthermore, Israel is systematically driving Palestinians out of the Jordan Valley, sinking wells, building settlements. They first call them military zones, then put in settlements—the usual story. That would mean that whatever cantons are left for Palestinians in the West Bank, after Israel takes what it wants and integrates it into Israel, they would be completely imprisoned. Gaza would be an outlet to the outside world, so therefore keeping them separate from one another is a high goal of policy, U.S. and Israeli policy.
And the unity agreement threatened that. Threatened something else Israel has been claiming for years. One of its arguments for kind of evading negotiations is: How can they negotiate with the Palestinians when they’re divided? Well, OK, so if they’re not divided, you lose that argument. But the more significant one is simply the geostrategic one, which is what I described. So the unity government was a real threat, along with the tepid, but real, endorsement of it by the United States, and they immediately reacted.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Noam, what do you make of the—as you say, Israel seeks to maintain the status quo, while at the same time continuing to create a new reality on the ground of expanded settlements. What do you make of the continued refusal of one administration after another here in the United States, which officially is opposed to the settlement expansion, to refuse to call Israel to the table on this attempt to create its own reality on the ground?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, your phrase "officially opposed" is quite correct. But we can look at—you know, you have to distinguish the rhetoric of a government from its actions, and the rhetoric of political leaders from their actions. That should be obvious. So we can see how committed the U.S. is to this policy, easily. For example, in February 2011, the U.N. Security Council considered a resolution which called for—which called on Israel to terminate its expansion of settlements. Notice that the expansion of settlements is not really the issue. It’s the settlements. The settlements, the infrastructure development, all of this is in gross violation of international law. That’s been determined by the Security Council, the International Court of Justice. Practically every country in the world, outside of Israel, recognizes this. But this was a resolution calling for an end to expansion of settlements—official U.S. policy. What happened? Obama vetoed the resolution. That tells you something.
Furthermore, the official statement to Israel about the settlement expansion is accompanied by what in diplomatic language is called a wink—a quiet indication that we don’t really mean it. So, for example, Obama’s latest condemnation of the recent, as he puts it, violence on all sides was accompanied by sending more military aid to Israel. Well, they can understand that. And that’s been true all along. In fact, when Obama came into office, he made the usual statements against settlement expansion. And his administration was—spokespersons were asked in press conferences whether Obama would do anything about it, the way the first George Bush did something—mild sanctions—to block settlement expansions. And the answer was, "No, this is just symbolic." Well, that tells the Israeli government exactly what’s happening. And, in fact, if you look step by step, the military aid continues, the economic aid continues, the diplomatic protection continues, the ideological protection continues. By that, I mean framing the issues in ways that conform to Israeli demand. All of that continues, along with a kind of clucking of the tongue, saying, "Well, we really don’t like it, and it’s not helpful to peace." Any government can understand that.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who spoke to foreign journalists yesterday.
PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Israel accepted and Hamas rejected the Egyptian ceasefire proposal of July 15th. And I want you to know that at that time the conflict had claimed some 185 lives. Only on Monday night did Hamas finally agree to that very same proposal, which went into effect yesterday morning. That means that 90 percent, a full 90 percent, of the fatalities in this conflict could have been avoided had Hamas not rejected then the ceasefire that it accepts now. Hamas must be held accountable for the tragic loss of life.
AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, can you respond to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu?
NOAM CHOMSKY: [inaudible] narrow response and a broad response. The narrow response is that, of course, as Netanyahu knows, that ceasefire proposal was arranged between the Egyptian military dictatorship and Israel, both of them very hostile to Hamas. It was not even communicated to Hamas. They learned about it through social media, and they were angered by that, naturally. They said they won’t accept it on those terms. Now, that’s the narrow response.
The broad response is that 100 percent of the casualties and the destruction and the devastation and so on could have been avoided if Israel had lived up to the ceasefire agreement after the—from November 2012, instead of violating it constantly and then escalating the violation in the manner that I described, in order to block the unity government and to persist in their policy of—the policies of taking over what they want in the West Bank and keeping—separating it from Gaza, and keeping Gaza on what they’ve called a "diet," Dov Weissglas’s famous comment. 
The man who negotiated the so-called withdrawal in 2005 pointed out that the purpose of the withdrawal is to end the discussion of any political settlement and to block any possibility of a Palestinian state, and meanwhile the Gazans will be kept on a diet, meaning just enough calories allowed so they don’t all die—because that wouldn’t look good for Israel’s fading reputation—but nothing more than that. 
And with its vaunted technical capacity, Israel, Israeli experts calculated precisely how many calories would be needed to keep the Gazans on their diet, under siege, blocked from export, blocked from import. Fishermen can’t go out to fish. The naval vessels drive them back to shore. A large part, probably over a third and maybe more, of Gaza’s arable land is barred from entry to Palestinians. It’s called a "barrier." That’s the norm. 
That’s the diet. They want to keep them on that, meanwhile separated from the West Bank, and continue the ongoing project of taking over—I can describe the details, but it’s not obscure—taking over the parts of the West Bank that Israel intends—is integrating into Israel, and presumably will ultimately annex in some fashion, as long as the United States continues to support it and block international efforts to lead to a political settlement.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Noam, as this whole month has unfolded and these images of the carnage in Gaza have spread around the world, what’s your assessment of the impact on the already abysmal relationship that exists between the United States government and the Arab and Muslim world? I’m thinking especially of all the young Muslims and Arabs around the world who maybe had not been exposed to prior atrocities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, first of all, we have to distinguish between the Muslim and Arab populations and their governments—striking difference. The governments are mostly dictatorships. And when you read in the press that the Arabs support us on so-and-so, what is meant is the dictators support us, not the populations. The dictatorships are moderately supportive of what the U.S. and Israel are doing. That includes the military dictatorship in Egypt, a very brutal one; Saudi Arabian dictatorship. Saudi Arabia is the closest U.S. ally in the region, and it’s the most radical fundamentalist Islamic state in the world. 
It’s also spreading its Salafi-Wahhabi doctrines throughout the world, extremist fundamentalist doctrines. It’s been the leading ally of the United States for years, just as it was for Britain before it. They’ve both tended to prefer radical Islam to the danger of secular nationalism and democracy. And they are fairly supportive of—they don’t like—they hate Hamas. They have no interest in the Palestinians. They have to say things to kind of mollify their own populations, but again, rhetoric and action are different. So the dictatorships are not appalled by what’s happening. They probably are quietly cheering it.
The populations, of course, are quite different, but that’s always been true. So, for example, on the eve of the Tahrir Square demonstrations in Egypt, which overthrew the Mubarak dictatorship, there were international polls taken in the United States by the leading polling agencies, and they showed very clearly that I think about 80 percent of Egyptians regarded the main threats to them as being Israel and the United States. 
And, in fact, condemnation of the United States and its policies were so extreme that even though they don’t like Iran, a majority felt that the region might be safer if Iran had nuclear weapons. Well, if you look over the whole polling story over the years, it kind of varies around something like that. But that’s the populations. 
And, of course, the Muslim populations elsewhere don’t like it, either. But it’s not just the Muslim populations. So, for example, there was a demonstration in London recently, which probably had hundreds of thousands of people—it was quite a huge demonstration—protesting the Israeli atrocities in Gaza. And that’s happening elsewhere in the world, too. It’s worth remembering that—you go back a couple decades, Israel was one of the most admired countries in the world. 
Now it’s one of the most feared and despised countries in the world. Israeli propagandists like to say, well, this is just anti-Semitism. But to the extent that there’s an anti-Semitic element, which is slight, it’s because of Israeli actions. The reaction is to the policies. And as long as Israel persists in these policies, that’s what’s going to happen.
Actually, this has been pretty clear since the early 1970s. Actually, I’ve been writing about it since then, but it’s so obvious, that I don’t take any credit for that. In 1971, Israel made a fateful decision, the most fateful in its history, I think. President Sadat of Egypt offered Israel a full peace treaty, in return for withdrawal of Israel from the Egyptian Sinai. 
That was the Labor government, the so-called moderate Labor government at the time. They considered the offer and rejected it. They were planning to carry out extensive development programs in the Sinai, build a huge, big city on the Mediterranean, dozens of settlements, kibbutzim, others, big infrastructure, driving tens of thousands of Bedouins off the land, destroying the villages and so on. 
Those were the plans, beginning to implement them. And Israel made a decision to choose expansion over security. A treaty with Egypt would have meant security. That’s the only significant military force in the Arab world. And that’s been the policy ever since.
When you pursue a policy of repression and expansion over security, there are things that are going to happen. There will be moral degeneration within the country. There will be increasing opposition and anger and hostility among populations outside the country. You may continue to get support from dictatorships and from, you know, the U.S. administration, but you’re going to lose the populations. 
And that has a consequence. You could predict—in fact, I and others did predict back in the '70s—that, just to quote myself, "those who call themselves supporters of Israel are actually supporters of its moral degeneration, international isolation, and very possibly ultimate destruction." That's what’s—that’s the course that’s happening.
It’s not the only example in history. There are many analogies drawn to South Africa, most of them pretty dubious, in my mind. But there’s one analogy which I think is pretty realistic, which isn’t discussed very much. It should be. In 1958, the South African Nationalist government, which was imposing the harsh apartheid regime, recognized that they were becoming internationally isolated. 
We know from declassified documents that in 1958 the South African foreign minister called in the American ambassador. And we have the conversation. He essentially told him, "Look, we’re becoming a pariah state. We’re losing all the—everyone is voting against us in the United Nations. We’re becoming isolated. But it really doesn’t matter, because you’re the only voice that counts. And as long as you support us, doesn’t really matter what the world thinks." That wasn’t a bad prediction. If you look at what happened over the years, opposition to South African apartheid grew and developed. There was a U.N. arms embargo. Sanctions began. Boycotts began. It was so extreme by the 1980s that even the U.S. Congress was passing sanctions, which President Reagan had to veto. 
He was the last supporter of the apartheid regime. Congress actually reinstated the sanctions over his veto, and he then violated them. As late as 1988, Reagan, the last holdout, his administration declared the African National Congress, Mandela’s African National Congress, to be one of the more notorious terrorist groups in the world. So the U.S. had to keep supporting South Africa. It was supporting terrorist group UNITA in Angola. Finally, even the United States joined the rest of the world, and very quickly the apartheid regime collapsed.
Now that’s not fully analogous to the Israel case by any means. There were other reasons for the collapse of apartheid, two crucial reasons. One of them was that there was a settlement that was acceptable to South African and international business, simple settlement: keep the socioeconomic system and allow—put it metaphorically—allow blacks some black faces in the limousines. 
That was the settlement, and that’s pretty much what’s been implemented, not totally. There’s no comparable settlement in Israel-Palestine. But a crucial element, not discussed here, is Cuba. Cuba sent military forces and tens of thousands of technical workers, doctors and teachers and others, and they drove the South African aggressors out of Angola, and they compelled them to abandon illegally held Namibia. 
And more than that, as in fact Nelson Mandela pointed out as soon as he got out of prison, the Cuban soldiers, who incidentally were black soldiers, shattered the myth of invincibility of the white supermen. 
That had a very significant effect on both black Africa and the white South Africa. It indicated to the South African government and population that they’re not going to be able to impose their hope of a regional support system, at least quiet system, that would allow them to pursue their operations inside South Africa and their terrorist activities beyond. And that was a major factor in the liberation of black Africa.
AMY GOODMAN: Noam, we have to break, and we’re going to come back to this discussion. We’re talking to Noam Chomsky, world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author, Institute Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back with Professor Chomsky in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. Our guest is Professor Noam Chomsky. I want to turn to President Obama speaking Wednesday at a news conference in Washington, D.C.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Long term, there has to be a recognition that Gaza cannot sustain itself permanently closed off from the world and incapable of providing some opportunity, jobs, economic growth for the population that lives there, particularly given how dense that population is, how young that population is. We’re going to have to see a shift in opportunity for the people of Gaza. I have no sympathy for Hamas. I have great sympathy for ordinary people who are struggling within Gaza.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s President Obama yesterday. Noam Chomsky, can you respond?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, as always, for all states and all political leaderships, we have to distinguish rhetoric from action. Any political leader can produce lovely rhetoric, even Hitler, Stalin, whoever you want. What we ask is: What are they doing? So exactly what does Obama suggest or carry out as a means to achieve the goal of ending the U.S.-backed Israeli siege, blockade of Gaza, which is creating this situation? 
What has it done in the past? What does it propose to do in the future? There are things that the U.S. could do very easily. Again, don’t want to draw the South African analogy too closely, but it is indicative. And it’s not the only case. The same happened, as you remember, in the Indonesia-East Timor case. 
When the United States, Clinton, finally told the Indonesian generals, "The game’s over," they pulled out immediately. U.S. power is substantial. And in the case of Israel, it’s critical, because Israel relies on virtually unilateral U.S. support. There are plenty of things the U.S. can do to implement what Obama talked about. And the question is—and, in fact, when the U.S. gives orders, Israel obeys. 
That’s happened over and over again. That’s completely obvious why, given the power relationships. So things can be done. They were done by Bush two, by Clinton, by Reagan, and the U.S. could do them again. Then we’ll know whether those words were anything other than the usual pleasant rhetoric.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Talking about separating rhetoric from actions, Israel has always claimed that it no longer occupies Gaza. Democracy Now! recently spoke to Joshua Hantman, who’s a senior adviser to the Israeli ambassador to the United States and a former spokesperson for the Israeli Defense Ministry. And Hantman said, quote, "Israel actually left the Gaza Strip in 2005. We removed all of our settlements. We removed the IDF forces. We took out 10,000 Jews from their houses as a step for peace, because Israel wants peace and it extended its hand for peace." Your response?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, several points. First of all, the United Nations, every country in the world, even the United States, regards Israel as the occupying power in Gaza—for a very simple reason: They control everything there. They control the borders, the land, sea, air. They determine what goes into Gaza, what comes out. They determine how many calories Gazan children need to stay alive, but not to flourish. That’s occupation, under international law, and no one questions it, outside of Israel. Even the U.S. agrees, their usual backer. That puts—with that, we end the discussion of whether they’re an occupying power or not.
As for wanting peace, look back at that so-called withdrawal. Notice that it left Israel as the occupying power. By 2005, Israeli hawks, led by Ariel Sharon, pragmatic hawk, recognized that it just makes no sense for Israel to keep a few thousand settlers in devastated Gaza and devote a large part of the IDF, the Israeli military, to protecting them, and many expenses breaking up Gaza into separate parts and so on. Made no sense to do that. Made a lot more sense to take those settlers from their subsidized settlements in Gaza, where they were illegally residing, and send them off to subsidized settlements in the West Bank, in areas that Israel intends to keep—illegally, of course. That just made pragmatic sense.
And there was a very easy way to do it. They could have simply informed the settlers in Gaza that on August 1st the IDF is going to withdrawal, and at that point they would have climbed into the lorries that are provided to them and gone off to their illegal settlements in the West Bank and, incidentally, the Golan Heights. 
But it was decided to construct what’s sometimes called a "national trauma." So a trauma was constructed, a theater. It was just ridiculed by leading specialists in Israel, like the leading sociologist—Baruch Kimmerling just made fun of it. And trauma was created so you could have little boys, pictures of them pleading with the Israeli soldiers, "Don’t destroy my home!" and then background calls of "Never again." 
That means "Never again make us leave anything," referring to the West Bank primarily. And a staged national trauma. What made it particularly farcical was that it was a repetition of what even the Israeli press called "National Trauma ’82," when they staged a trauma when they had to withdraw from Yamit, the city they illegally built in the Sinai. But they kept the occupation. They moved on.
And I’ll repeat what Weissglas said. Recall, he was the negotiator with the United States, Sharon’s confidant. He said the purpose of the withdrawal is to end negotiations on a Palestinian state and Palestinian rights. This will end it. This will freeze it, with U.S. support. 
And then comes imposition of the diet on Gaza to keep them barely alive, but not flourishing, and the siege. Within weeks after the so-called withdrawal, Israel escalated the attacks on Gaza and imposed very harsh sanctions, backed by the United States. The reason was that a free election took place in Palestine, and it came out the wrong way. 
Well, Israel and the United States, of course, love democracy, but only if it comes out the way they want. So, the U.S. and Israel instantly imposed harsh sanctions. Israeli attacks, which really never ended, escalated. Europe, to its shame, went along. Then Israel and the United States immediately began planning for a military coup to overthrow the government. When Hamas pre-empted that coup, there was fury in both countries. The sanctions and military attacks increased. And then we’re on to what we discussed before: periodic episodes of "mowing the lawn."
AMY GOODMAN: We only—Noam, we only have a minute.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, at this point, a lot of the U.S. media is saying the U.S. had been sidelined, it’s now all about Egypt doing this negotiation. What needs to happen right now? The ceasefire will end in a matter of hours, if it isn’t extended. What kind of truce needs to be accomplished here?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, for Israel, with U.S. backing, the current situation is a kind of a win-win situation. If Hamas agrees to extend the ceasefire, Israel can continue with its regular policies, which I described before: taking over what they want in the West Bank, separating it from Gaza, keeping the diet and so on. 
If Hamas doesn’t accept the ceasefire, Netanyahu can make another speech like the one you—the cynical speech you quoted earlier. The only thing that can break this is if the U.S. changes its policies, as has happened in other cases. I mentioned two: South Africa, Timor. There’s others. And that’s decisive. If there’s going to be a change, it will crucially depend on a change in U.S. policy here. For 40 years, the United States has been almost unilaterally backing Israeli rejectionism, refusal to entertain the overwhelming international consensus on a two-state settlement.
AMY GOODMAN: Noam, we have to leave it there, but we’re going to continue our conversation post-show, and we’re going to post it online at democracynow.org. Noam Chomsky, world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

vrijdag 8 augustus 2014

America's Devil's Game with Extremist Islam

A Timeline of US-Cold War Politics and the Rise of Militant Islamism


America's Devil's Game with Extremist Islam



                It is often difficult to trace the history of the United States' involvement with—and responsibility for—the evolution of radical Islamism around the world. 
Many of the CIA's activities in support of Islamist groups were often covert, and a great deal of misinformation exists. Robert Dreyfuss' new book, 
Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, is an attempt at a comprehensive overview of this story, recounting how the CIA, guided by the belief that radical Islamist forces could act as a bulwark against communism, helped fuel the rise of political Islam and militant fundamentalism in the Middle East and Central Asia. 
Below is a timeline of major events in the U.S. government's 70-year flirtation with and support for the militant forces that would, in the late 1990s and on September 11, 2001, come back to haunt the United States.

 - 1933 – Saudi Arabia grants oil exploration rights to the United States, and the two countries enter into a profit-sharing ownership of the Arabian-American Oil Company, which discovers the first commercial oil well in Saudi Arabia in 1938.
 - Feb. 18, 1943 – President Franklin D. Roosevelt declares the defense of Saudi Arabia of vital interest to the United States and makes the country eligible for Lend-Lease assistance.
 - 1945 – The United States and Saudi Arabia sign an agreement that establishes an American military base in Dhahran, which houses American troops until April of 2003. The Saudis also give the United States permission to conduct a thorough survey of the Arabian Peninsula—which recommended establishing an air base.
 - Feb. 14, 1945 – Roosevelt meets with King Abdel Aziz ibn Saud, the first meeting of an American President with a Saudi monarch.
 - 1951 – An accord between the two countries allows the United States to establish a permanent military training mission in Saudi Arabia.
 - 1951 – The CIA sets up Radio Liberty to broadcast anti-communist programs around the world. In Central Asia, the station is used to incite local groups, many of them Islamic, against the Soviet Union.
 - 1952 – The Saudi-American oil company, Aramco, pays for the printing of religious propaganda in Riyadh.
 - 1952 – In Iran, the CIA offers money to Ayatollah Abol-Ghassem Kashani, who had formerly opposed foreign influences in Iran, to encourage Kashani to split from Mohammed Mossadeq's National Front. Kashani was the mentor of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the future leader of the Islamic Revolution, who in the meantime would become a leader of the Devotees of Islam, an Iranian terrorist group.
 - Aug. 19, 1953 – The CIA and the British intelligence agency MI6 direct a coup against Iran's democratically-elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadeq and restore the pro-Western Shah to power. Mossadeq's nationalization of Anglo-Persian Oil, along with his alliance with the Soviets, had threatened Western interests in Iran.
 - Sept. 1953 – President Dwight D. Eisenhower dines at the White House with Said Ramadan, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, the popular Islamist group which since the late 1940s has been notorious for its extensive ties to fanatics, assassins, and terrorists in the Middle East.
 - Oct. 26, 1954– A member of a secret wing of the Muslim Brotherhood attempts to assassinate Gamal Abdel Nasser, the leader of a 1952 military coup against King Farouk. The group is officially banned in Egypt, forcing it underground.
 - June 23, 1956 - Nasser officially becomes President of Egypt. Nasser's left-leaning ideology alarmed U.S. officials who worried that Egypt would be lost to Soviet control.
 - Jan. 1957 - The "Eisenhower Doctrine" is laid out in a speech to Congress. President Eisenhower declared that the United States would provide military and financial assistance in the Middle East to protect against Communist aggression in the region. Under the doctrine, Saudi Arabia became the primary beneficiary of American aid.
 - June, 1967 – The Six-Day War is fought between Israel and its Arab neighbors Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Israel's victory leads most Arab nations to close their American embassies, leaving Saudi Arabia as the Arab world's primary liaison with the United States.
 - 1970s – Alongside the traditional Islamic fundamentalist movement, a more radical strain of Islam begins to develop in the Middle East, including: the Islamic Community in Egypt, and later the Egyptian Islamic Jihad led by Ayman al-Zawahiri; militant Shiite fundamentalism in Iran; and Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia.
 - Oct. 1970 – In Egypt, Nasser dies and is succeeded by Anwar Sadat, who promises that sharia will be implemented as the law of the land. Political Islam begins to emerge in Egypt, and an Islamic banking system is created, both of which would become essential in assisting militant, radical Islamic movements.
 - May 1971 – Sadat consolidates his power, purging government of Nasserites and freeing Muslim Brotherhood prisoners.
 - 1972 – The CIA founds the Asia Foundation to fund leaders of the Afghan Islamist movement at Kabul University. Beneficiaries include Rabbani Sayyaf and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, two Afghans who would cultivate ties with Osama bin Laden. The two run a secret group that infiltrates the Afghan armed forces and will later lead jihad forces against the Soviet Union in the 1980s.
 - 1972 - A secret military cell is created within the Organization of Muslim Youth, a student group in Afghanistan. The organization requests covert aid from the CIA for its anti-communist activities, including the killing of four "leftists." Although the entreaty is denied, the CIA offers its sympathy to the OMY.
 - Jul. 17, 1973 – Afghanistan's Soviet-friendly prime minister, Sardar Daoud, overthrows the Afghan royalty, establishes a democratic republic, and becomes President. The United States quickly begins funding Afghan dissidents and supporting the radical Islamic Party against Daoud.
 - Oct. 1973 – Israel fights and eventually wins the Yom Kippur War against Egypt, Syria after a surprise attack by the latter two nations. In response to U.S. support for Israel, OPEC reduces oil production. Oil prices will eventually quadruple, enriching the Saudi Arabian government, which uses the profits to foster Wahhabism in the 1970s and 1980s.
 - Sept. 1973 - The CIA partners with Iranian and Pakistani intelligence—the latter of which is loosely associated with fundamentalist Islamic Afghan groups—to run raids in Afghanistan and stage a failed coup against President Sardar Daoud. The effort is repeated in December of 1973 and June 1974.
 - 1974 – In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood issues an official statement ordering members to support the economic reforms carried out by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, in partnership with the International Monetary Fund. Throughout the 1970s, at the behest of the United States, the IMF will require countries in the region to adopt a variety of pro-market reforms as a condition of receiving loans—reforms which will often help destabilize Middle Eastern politics and society.
 - 1975 - A State Department analysis identifies members of the Muslim Brotherhood as leaders of an insurgency against Afghan President Sardar Daoud. After the rebellion failed, Brotherhood leaders, including Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Sayyaf, flee to Pakistan and find support from ISI, the Pakistani Intelligence Service.
 - 1975-76 - Under pressure from the United States, Pakistan, and Iran, Daoud begins purging and assassinating leftists and communists from the Afghan government.
 - 1976 – The Faisal Islamic Bank of Egypt (FIBE) is established to fund activities of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the 1970s, the Islamic banking system, funded by Saudi Arabia and often aided by western banks and governments, will spread throughout Egypt, becoming the financial backbone for militant Islamist groups. In 2001, US Department of Treasury will designate several of these Muslim banks "terrorist financiers."
 - Nov. 19, 1977 – Egyptian President Anwar Sadat visits Jerusalem and begins negotiations with Israel that lead to the Camp David agreement between the two countries. Egypt also breaks its ties with the USSR, quickly becoming one of the United States' foremost allies by 1980.
 - 1978 – Israel backs the Islamic Association, a militant group led by Ahmed Yassin—later the spiritual leader of Hamas—as a bulwark against the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The United States turns a blind eye as Israel provides military training to terrorist groups.
 - 1978-79 - The United States becomes fully aware that it was backing the Muslim Brotherhood by supporting various anti-communist organizations in Afghanistan. This knowledge was recorded by many State Department and embassy memos, including one from CENTO that directly warned that the Muslim Brotherhood was a rebellious threat to new regimes.
 - Late-1978 – Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski presses his "arc of crisis" thesis, which argues that the United States can reassert its power in the Middle East by encouraging political Islam as a counter to Soviet and Arab nationalist movements.
 - Jan.-Feb. 1979 – Islamists, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, overthrow the Shah and install a theocratic dictatorship in Iran. The Iranian Revolution is seen as a threat to American interests, not least by depriving the United States of one of its staunchest allies in the Middle East, but also threatened the Soviet Union by disrupting the economic alliance between the two countries and provoking irredentist forces near the Soviet border.
 - Jul. 3, 1979 - President Carter issues the first secret directive that formally authorizes the CIA give direct aid to the Afghan muhjadeen, opponents of the pro-Soviet Afghan regime. The Soviet invasion invades Afghanistan in December.
 - Nov. 1979 – Ayatollah Khomeini coordinates the forced seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran, precipitating the Iranian hostage crisis.
 - Jan. 23, 1980 – The Carter Doctrine states that the United States will use military force in the Persian Gulf to protect its interests if necessary, although at this time it is mostly an empty threat, since the US lacks sufficient forces in the region.
 - Jan. 1980 – Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski visits Egypt to gather Arab support for the Afghan war. Within weeks Egyptian President Anwar Sadat mobilizes arms and recruits fighters from the Muslim Brotherhood, and allows the US to station its air force base in Egypt. U.S. Special Forces train Islamist militants in bomb making, sabotage, arson and guerilla warfare. Many of the Islamist Arab recruits, including Osama bin Laden, who were trained as fighters by Green Berets and Navy Seals for the Afghan War, would go on to form the backbone of Al-Qaeda.
 - Mar. 1980 – As a deterrent to the Soviet threat, Carter establishes RDF, a military force for rapid deployment into the Persian Gulf in a crisis. Reagan later expands RDF into Centcom, the first peacetime joint headquarters for military combat operations, which later serves as the American base of operations in the 1990 Persian Gulf War, the 2001 war in Afghanistan, and the 2003 Iraq war.
 - Oct. 6, 1981 - Egyptian President Sadat is assassinated by radical Muslim fundamentalists who view the Camp David peace accord with Israel as a betrayal of Islam.
 - 1984 – Osama bin Laden and Abdullah Assam—who was central to US recruit efforts for the Afghan War—together establish the Services Bureau (MAK), a nascent incarnation of Al-Qaeda in Pakistan that coordinated Islamist jihad-fighters to foreign wars. As American goals evolve from draining Soviet resources to winning the Afghan war, CIA funding to Afghan militants increases rapidly, which is matched, dollar for dollar, by funds from Saudi Arabia.
 - 1987 – Hamas is founded, growing out of radical elements of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. U.S. intelligence reports show that the Israeli secret service is giving covert support to Hamas—as a counterpoint to Palestinian nationalism—but the US turns a blind eye.
 - 1989 – The Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) is established in Algeria as a new political party, out of elements of the American-supported Islamist movement in the 1980s. FIS includes many Muslim Brotherhood members and Afghan fighters, among them Abdallad Anas, who joined the proto-Al Qaeda organization, MAK.
 - 1992 – In Algeria, FIS wins the parliamentary elections in a landslide but is prevented from taking power by the ruling FLN party, which uses the military to arrest FIS leaders, precipitating a FIS terrorist campaign. This culminates in the Algerian civil war (which lasts until 1999), and provokes the United States to review of its policy towards political Islam.
 - Feb. 26, 1993 - Following the bombing of the New York World Trade Center, Omar Abdul Rahman, a co-founder of the Faisal Islamic Bank of Egypt who helped the CIA recruit militants for the anti-communist crusade in the Afghanistan war, was convicted in 1995 involvement in conspiracy.
 - 1994-1998 – The US maintains a cooperative relationship with the Taliban, who are increasingly dependent on Osama bin Laden’s financial support.
 - 1996 – The Taliban provides refuge to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, after he is exiled from Sudan.
 - 1997 and 1999 – Members of the Taliban vacation in Nebraska, where they visit Thomas Gouttierre, a CIA-funded propagandist who produces children’s textbooks stocked with Islamic fundamentalist and jihadist rhetoric for supposed State Department educational programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
 - Aug. 7, 1998 – Islamic terrorist groups bomb the Kenyan and Tanzanian US embassies.
 - Oct. 12, 2000 – Islamic terrorist groups attacks the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen.
 - Sept. 11, 2001 – Al-Qaeda terrorists attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with suicide bombers.