Al-Arian writes: "Oftentimes Israel and its enablers in the political and
media arenas try to obfuscate basic facts about the nature and history of
the conflict. Despite these attempts, however, the conflict is neither
complicated nor has it existed for centuries."
Israeli tank. (photo: EPA)
Back to Basics: Clearing the Fog of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict
By Sami Al-Arian, CounterPunch
08 December 15
In his novel 1984 George Orwell introduced the lexicon of Big Brothers
Doublespeak in which War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is
strength. In todays Western political circles and mainstream media
coverage of Palestine/Israel and political Zionism, one may add a host of
other phrases to this Orwellian Newspeak. Expressions that would fittingly
describe this coverage might include racism is democracy, resistance is
terrorism, and occupation is bliss.
If individuals were to rely solely on Western media outlets as their source
of information regarding the increasingly volatile situation in the occupied
Palestinian territories, especially Jerusalem, they would not only be
perplexed by the portrayals of victims and oppressors, but also confused
about the history and nature of the conflict itself. For instance, in the
past few weeks, in their coverage of the latest Palestinian uprising, most
Western mainstream media outlets, such as the New York Times, CNN, FOX, and
BBC, virtually omit the words Israeli occupation, or illegal Israeli
settlements. Seldom if ever do they mention the fact that Jerusalem has
been under illegal Israeli control for the past 48 years, or that the latest
confrontations were set off as a result of Israeli attempts to change the
status quo and force a joint jurisdiction of the Islamic holy sites within
the walls of old Jerusalem.
Oftentimes Israel and its enablers in the political and media arenas try to
obfuscate basic facts about the nature and history of the conflict. Despite
these attempts, however, the conflict is neither complicated nor has it
existed for centuries. It is a century-old modern phenomenon that emerged as
a direct result of political Zionism. This movement, founded by secular
journalist Theodore Herzl in the late 19th century, has incessantly
attempted to transform Judaism from one of the worlds great religious
traditions into a nationalistic ethnic movement with the aim of transferring
Jews around the world to Palestine, while ethnically cleansing the
indigenous Palestinian population from the land of their ancestors. This is
the essence of the conflict, and thus all of Israels policies and actions
can only be understood by acknowledging this reality.
It might be understandable, if detestable, for Israel and its Zionist
defenders to circulate false characterizations of history and events to
advance their political agenda. But it is incomprehensible for those who
claim to advocate the rule of law, believe in the principle of
self-determination, and call for freedom and justice to fall for this
propaganda or to become its willing accomplices. In following much of the
media coverage or political analyses of the conflict, one is struck by the
lack of historical context, the deliberate disregard of empirical facts, and
the contempt for established legal constructs and precedents. Are the
Palestinian territories disputed or occupied? Do Palestinians have a legal
right, embedded in international law, to resist their occupiers, including
the use of armed struggle, or is every means of resistance considered
terrorism? Does Israel have any right to old Jerusalem and its historical
and religious environs? Is the protraction of the so-called cycle of
violence really coming proportionally from both sides of the conflict? Is
Israel a true democracy? Should political Zionism be treated as a legitimate
national liberation movement (from whom?) while ignoring its overwhelmingly
racist manifestations? Is Israel genuine about seeking a peaceful resolution
to the conflict? Can the U.S. really be an honest peace-broker between the
two sides as it has persistently promoted itself in the region? The factual
answers to these questions would undoubtedly clear the fog and lead
objective observers not only to a full understanding of the conflict, but
also to a deep appreciation of the policies and actions needed to bring it
to an end.
Occupation, Self-Determination, and International Law
There should be no disputing that the territories seized by Israel in June
1967, including east Jerusalem, are occupied. Dozens of UN resolutions have
passed since November 1967, including binding Security Council resolutions
calling on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories, which the
Zionist State has stubbornly refused to comply with. In fact, if there were
any disputed territories, they should be those Palestinian territories
that Israel took in 1948, through a campaign of terror, massacres, and
military conquests, which resulted in forcefully and illegally expelling
over 800,000 Palestinians from their homes, villages, and towns, in order to
make room for thousands of Jews coming from Europe and other parts of the
world. Consequently, UN Resolution 194 mandated that these Palestinian
refugees wishing to return to their homes
should be permitted to do so.
This resolution has now remained unfulfilled for 67 years. There is also no
dispute in international law that Israel has been a belligerent occupier
triggering the application of all the relevant Geneva Conventions as the
Palestinian people have been under occupation since their territory is
actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
Furthermore, the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people and
their right to resist their occupiers by all means are well established in
international law. In 1960, UN resolution 1514 adopted the Declaration on
the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. It stated
that, All peoples have the right to self-determination, and that, the
subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation
constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights and is contrary to the
Charter of the United Nations. Ten years later the UN adopted Resolution
2625 which called on its members to support colonized people or people under
occupation against their colonizers and occupiers. In fact, UN Resolution
3246 reaffirmed in 1974 the legitimacy of the peoples struggle for
liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all
available means, including armed struggle. Four years later UN Resolution
33/24 also strongly confirmed the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available
means, particularly armed struggle, and strongly condemned all
governments that did not recognize the right to self-determination to the
Palestinian people.
As for occupied Jerusalem, the UN Security Council adopted in 1980 two
binding resolutions (476 and 478) by a vote of 14-0 (the US abstained and
did not veto either resolution.) Both resolutions condemned Israels attempt
to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional
structure, (and) the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem. It also
reaffirmed the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab
territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and called
out Israel as the occupying power. It further considered any changes to
the city of Jerusalem as a violation of international law.
The Use of Violence, Resistance, and the Deceptive Peace Process
Living under brutal occupation for almost half a century without any
prospect for its end, the Palestinian people, particularly in Jerusalem,
have, since late September, embarked on new mass protests against the latest
Israeli incursions on their holy sites and revolted once again against the
ceaseless occupation. As a consequence, the Israeli army, aided by thousands
of armed settlers roaming the West Bank, have intensified their use of
violence, which resulted in over 100 deaths, 2200 injuries, and 4000 arrests
in less than two months. The Israeli army and the settlements-based armed
gangs, though forbidden under international law and the Geneva conventions,
have regularly employed various violent means in order to force Palestinian
exile or compel submission to the occupation. The Israeli harsh tactics
include: settler violence and provocation under full army protection,
targeting children, including kidnapping, killing, as well as arresting
children as young as 5 , burning infants alive, the constant use of
collective punishment and house demolitions, the use of excessive prison
sentences for any act of defiance including throwing rocks, storming revered
religious sites, and the deliberate targeting of journalists who dare to
challenge Israeli hegemony.
The Palestinian people, whether under occupation or under siege, in exile
and blocked by Israel from returning to their homes, or denied their right
to self-determination, have the legitimate right to resist the military
occupation and its manifestations such as the denial of their freedom and
human rights, the confiscation of their lands, or the building and expansion
of Israeli colonies on their lands. Although most Palestinians opt for the
use of nonviolent resistance as a prudent tactic against the brutality of
the occupation, international law does not, however, limit their resistance
only to the use of peaceful means. In essence, the right to legitimate armed
resistance, subject to international humanitarian law, is enshrined in
international law and cannot be denied to any people including the
Palestinians in their struggle to gain their freedom and exercise their
right to self-determination. Furthermore, international law does not confer
any right on the occupying power to use any force against their occupied
subjects, in order to maintain and sustain their occupation, including in
self-defense. In short, aggressors and land usurpers are by definition
denied the use of force to subjugate their victims. Consequently, as a
matter of principle embedded in international law and regardless of any
political viability, strikes against military targets including soldiers,
armed settlers, or other tools and institutions of the occupation are
legitimate and any action against them, non-violent or otherwise, cannot be
condemned or deemed terrorism.
Furthermore, the argument regarding the validity of using armed struggle
against oppression and denial of political rights by tyrannical and colonial
regimes is well established in its favor. Patriot Patrick Henry rallied his
countrymen prior to the American Revolution in 1775 in his famous call give
liberty or give me death. Civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr. even
rejected pacifism in the face of aggression. He only questioned its tactical
significance when he stated I contended that the debate over the question
of self-defense was unnecessary since few people suggested that Negroes
should not defend themselves as individuals when attacked. The question was
not whether one should use his gun when his home was attacked, but whether
it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized
demonstration. Mahatma Gandhi saw active resistance as more honorable than
pacifism when he said I would rather have India resort to arms in order to
defence her honour than that she would, in a cowardly manner, become or
remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour. Nelson Mandela reflected on
this debate when he asserted that he resorted to armed struggle only when
all other forms of resistance were no longer open, and demanded that the
Apartheid regime guarantee free political activity to blacks before he
would call on his compatriots to suspend armed struggle. Accordingly, the
debate over whether the use of armed resistance against Israeli occupation
advances the cause of justice for Palestinians is not a question of
legitimacy, but rather of sound political strategy in light of the skewed
balance of military power and massive public support from peoples around the
globe for their just struggle.
Yet, the reality of the conflict actually reveals that the Palestinian
people have overwhelmingly been at the receiving end of the use of ruthless
Israeli violence and aggression since 1948. With the exception of the 1973
war (initiated by Egypt and Syria to regain the lands they lost in the 1967
war) every Arab-Israeli war in the past seven decades (48, 56, 67, 78,
82, 02, etc.) was initiated by Israel and resulted in more uprooting and
misery to the Palestinians. Still, since 2008 Israel launched three brutal
wars against Gaza with devastating consequences. In the 2008/2009 war,
Israel killed 1417 Palestinians and lost 13 people including 9 soldiers. In
the 2012 war, Israel killed 167 Palestinians and lost 6 including 2
soldiers. And in the 2014 war, Israel killed 2104 Palestinians, including
539 children, with 475,000 people made homeless, 17,500 homes destroyed,
while 244 schools and scores of hospitals and mosques damaged. In that war
Israel lost 72 including 66 soldiers. In short, since late 2008 Israel
killed 3688 Palestinians in its three declared wars and lost 91 including 77
soldiers. Shamefully the deliberate targeting of Palestinian children has
been amply documented as over two thousand have been killed by Israel since
2000. This massive Israeli intentional use of violence against the
Palestinians, especially in Gaza (which has been under a crippling siege
since 2007) was investigated, determined to constitute war crimes, and
condemned by the UN in the Goldstone Report, as well as by other human
rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
The 1993 Oslo process gave rise to the promise of ending decades of Israeli
occupation. But the process was rigged from the start as many of its
participants have recently admitted. It was an Israeli ploy to halt the
first Palestinian uprising and give Israel the breathing room it needed to
aggressively and permanently colonize the West Bank including East
Jerusalem. It was an accord with a lopsided balance of power, as one side
held all the cards and gave no real concessions, and a much weaker side
stripped of all its bargaining chips. During this period the number of
settlements in the West Bank more than doubled and the number of settlers
increased by more than seven fold to over 600 thousand including in East
Jerusalem.
The world has none other than Benjamin Netanyahu to acknowledge that Israel
has no intention of withdrawing or ending its occupation. After serving his
first stint as a prime minister, Netanyahu (shown here in a leaked video)
while visiting a settlement in 2001, admitted to his true intention of
grabbing as much as 98 percent of Palestinian territories in the West Bank
and halting the fraudulent Oslo process. Believing that the camera was off,
he spoke candidly to a group of settlers about his strategic vision, plans,
and tactics.
On his vision he assured them that The settlements are here. They are
everywhere. He stated, I halted the fulfillment of the Oslo agreements.
Its better to give two percent than 100 percent. You gave two percent but
you stopped the withdrawal. He later added, I gave my own interpretation
to the agreements in such a way that will allow me to stop the race back
towards the 1967 borders. As for the tactics, Netanyahu freely confessed
his strategy of causing so much pain to the Palestinians that they would
submit to the occupation rather than resist. He said, The main thing is to
strike them not once but several times so painfully that the price they pay
will be unbearable causing them to fear that everything is about to
collapse. When he was challenged that such a strategy might cause the world
to consider Israel as the aggressor, he dismissively said, They can say
whatever they want. He also implied how he was not concerned about American
pressure. To the contrary he asserted that he could easily manipulate
Israels main benefactor when he stated America is something you can easily
maneuver and move in the right direction. I wasnt afraid to confront
Clinton. I wasnt afraid to go against the UN. Even though world leaders
consider Netanyahu a liar and they cant stand him as shown in this
exchange between former French president Nicolas Sarkozy and Barak Obama, no
Western leader has stood up to Israel, even though a British parliamentarian
stated that 70 percent of Europeans consider it a danger to worlds peace.
But the obstructionist posture and expansionist policies of Israeli leaders
are not restricted to the Israeli right. Former Labor leader Ehud Barak was
as much determined in 2000 at Camp David not to withdraw from the West Bank,
Jerusalem, or dismantle the settlements.
For decades the world waited for Israel to decide its destiny by choosing
two out of three defining elements: its Jewish character, its claim to
democracy, and the lands of so-called greater Israel. If it chose to
retain its Jewish majority and claim to be democratic, it had to withdraw
from the lands it occupied in 1967. If it insists on incorporating the lands
and have a democracy it would have to integrate its Arab populations while
forsaking its Jewish exceptionalism in a secular state. Yet sadly but true
to its Zionist nature, Israel chose to maintain its Jewish exclusiveness
over all of historical Palestine to transform itself into a manifestly
Apartheid state.
Political Zionism and the True Nature of the Israeli State
For over a century political Zionism has evoked intense passions and
emotions on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: its ardent
supporters as well as its critics and hapless victims. Zionists hail their
enterprise as a national liberation movement for the Jewish people while its
opponents condemn it as a racist ideology that practiced ethnic cleansing,
instituted racial and religious discrimination, and committed war crimes to
realize its goals.
On November 10, 1975 the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution
3379 that determined Zionism as a form of racism and racial
discrimination. However, it was revoked 16 years later under tremendous
pressure from the U.S. and other Western countries in the aftermath of the
first Gulf war in 1991. Oftentimes, the public is denied unfiltered
information about the true nature of political Zionism and its declared
state. And unfortunately the media conglomerates rarely cover that aspect of
the conflict, which contributes to the publics confusion and exasperation.
Since its creation in 1948, Israel has passed laws and implemented policies
that institutionalized discrimination against its Arab Palestinian minority.
In the aftermath of its 1967 invasion, it instituted a military occupation
regime that has denied basic human and civil rights to millions of
Palestinians whose population now exceeds the number of Israeli Jews in the
land within historical Palestine. In addition, in defiance of international
law, Israel has obstinately refused to allow the descendants of the
Palestinian people that it expelled in 1948 and 1967 to return to their
homes, while allowing millions of people of other nationalities the right to
become citizens of the Israeli state upon arrival simply because they are
Jewish.
Zionist leaders from Ben-Gurion to Netanyahu have always claimed that Israel
was a democracy similar to other Western liberal democracies. But perhaps
the best way to examine this claim and illustrate the nature of the modern
Zionist state is through a comparative analogy (a similar example could also
be found in Israeli historian Shlomo Sands book).
What if a Western country claiming to be a democracy, such as the U.S. or
the U.K., were officially to change its constitution and system to become
the state of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs)? Even though its
African, Hispanic, Asian, Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim citizens as well as
other minorities would still have the right to vote, hold political offices,
and enjoy some civil and social rights, they would have to submit to the new
nature and exclusive character of the WASP state. Moreover, with the
exception of the WASP class of citizens, no other citizen would be allowed
to buy or sell any land, and there would be permanent constitutional laws
that would forbid any WASP from selling any property to any members of other
ethnicities or religions in the country. Its Congress or parliament would
pass laws that would also forbid any WASP from marrying outside his or her
social class, and if any such illegal marriage were to take place, it
would not be recognized by the state. As for immigration, only WASPs from
around the world would be welcome. In fact, there would be no restrictions
on their category as any WASP worldwide could claim immediate citizenship
upon arrival in the country with full economic and social benefits granted
by the state, while all other ethnicities are denied. Furthermore, most of
the existing minorities in the country would be subjected to certain
security policies in order to allow room for the WASPs coming from
outside. So in many parts of the country, there would be settlements and
colonies constructed only for the new WASP settlers and consequently some of
the non-WASP populations would have to be restricted or relocated. In these
new settlements the state would designate WASP-only roads, WASP-only
schools, WASP-only health clinics, WASP-only shopping malls, WASP-only parks
or swimming pools. There would also be a two-tier health care system,
educational system, criminal justice system, and social welfare system. In
this dual system for example, if a WASP assaults or kills a non-WASP he
would receive a small fine or a light sentence that would not exceed few
years, while if a non-WASP murders a WASP, even accidentally, he would
receive a harsh or mandatory life sentence. In this system, where the police
is exclusively staffed by WASPs, the Supreme Court would routinely sanction
the use of torture against any non-WASP, subject to the judgment of the
security officers. Such a system would clearly be so manifestly racist,
patently criminal, and globally abhorred that no one would stand by it or
defend it. But could such a regime even exist or be accepted in todays
world? (I realize that some people may argue that many of these practices
had actually occurred in the past against certain segments of the population
in some Western societies. But no government today would dare to embrace
this model or defend its policies.)
Yet, because of the Zionist nature of the Israeli state, this absurd example
is actually a reality with varying degrees for the daily lives of the
Palestinian people, whether they are nominal citizens of the state, live
under occupation or under siege, or have been blocked for decades from
returning back to their homes, towns, and villages. Such a system would not
only be condemned but no decent human being or a country that respects the
rule of law would associate with it or tolerate it.
From its early days, prominent Jewish intellectuals have condemned the
racist nature of the Zionist state. Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt wrote
in 1948 condemning Zionist leaders of Israel who openly preached the
doctrine of the Fascist state. Israeli scientist and thinker Israel Shahak
considered Israel as a racist state in the full meaning of this term, where
the Palestinians are discriminated against, in the most permanent and legal
way and in the most important areas of life, only because of their origin.
Renowned American intellectual Noam Chomsky considers Israels actions in
Palestine as even much worse than Apartheid ever was in South Africa.
Israeli historian Ilan Pappé argues that The Zionist goal from the very
beginning was to have as much of Palestine as possible with as few
Palestinians in it as possible, while American historian Howard Zinn
thought that Zionism is a mistake. American academic and author Norman
Finkelstein has often spoken out against the racist nature of the Zionist
state and condemned its manipulation of the Nazi Holocaust to justify its
colonization of Palestine. British historian Tony Judt described Israel as
an anachronism because of its exclusive nature in comparison to its
non-Jewish citizens. Former UN Special Rapporteur for Occupied Palestine
Professor Richard Falk called Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories
a crime against humanity and compared Israels treatment of the
Palestinians to the Nazi treatment of the Jews and has said, I think the
Palestinians stand out as the most victimized people in the world. Very
recently, prominent American Jewish academics posed the question: Can we
continue to embrace a state that permanently denies basic rights to another
people? Their answer was an emphatic call for a complete boycott against
the Zionist state.
Furthermore, Israeli politicians and religious leaders regularly use racist
rhetoric to appeal to their constituents and articulate their policies. In
the last Israeli elections in March, Prime Minister Netanyahu tweeted to the
Israeli public, The right-wing government is in danger. Arab voters are
coming out in droves to the polls. Former foreign minister Avigdor
Lieberman advocated new ethnic cleansing through the transfer of
Palestinian citizens from the state. One prominent Rabbi considered killing
Palestinians a religious duty, while another declared that It is not only
desirable to do so, but it is a religious duty that you hold his head down
to the ground and hit him until his last breath. Former Sephardic Chief
Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, one of the most senior religious leaders in Israel
ruled that there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the
indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military
offensive on Gaza. Racism in Israel is so pervasive that a Jewish settler
stabbed another Jew, and another settler killed a fellow Jewish settler not
because the perpetrators were threatened, but because the victims looked
Arab. Israeli racism is so widespread among its population that noted
journalist Max Blumenthal, who investigated the Israeli societys attitudes
towards the Palestinians, was himself surprised to the extent to which
groups and figures, remarkably similar ideologically and psychologically to
the radical right in the US and to neo-fascist movements across Europe,
controlled the heart of Israeli society and the Israeli government.
In short, the ideology of political Zionism, as it has amply been
demonstrated within the state of Israel, with its exclusionary vision and
persistent policies of occupying the land and subjugating its people, has
proven without any doubt that it represents a relic of a bygone era that
utterly lacks civilized behavior or claims to a democratic system.
Therefore, any discussion, coverage, analysis, or debate of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict that sidesteps the nature and ideology of the
Israeli state is not only disingenuous and lacks credibility, but also
contributes to the deepening of the conflict, the continuous suffering of
its victims, and the illusion of finding a potential just and peaceful
outcome.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Israeli tank. (photo: EPA)
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/08/back-to-basics-clearing-the-fog-of-th
e-palestinian-israeli-conflict/http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/08/back-t
o-basics-clearing-the-fog-of-the-palestinian-israeli-conflict/
Back to Basics: Clearing the Fog of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict
By Sami Al-Arian, CounterPunch
08 December 15
n his novel 1984 George Orwell introduced the lexicon of Big Brothers
Doublespeak in which War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is
strength. In todays Western political circles and mainstream media
coverage of Palestine/Israel and political Zionism, one may add a host of
other phrases to this Orwellian Newspeak. Expressions that would fittingly
describe this coverage might include racism is democracy, resistance is
terrorism, and occupation is bliss.
If individuals were to rely solely on Western media outlets as their source
of information regarding the increasingly volatile situation in the occupied
Palestinian territories, especially Jerusalem, they would not only be
perplexed by the portrayals of victims and oppressors, but also confused
about the history and nature of the conflict itself. For instance, in the
past few weeks, in their coverage of the latest Palestinian uprising, most
Western mainstream media outlets, such as the New York Times, CNN, FOX, and
BBC, virtually omit the words Israeli occupation, or illegal Israeli
settlements. Seldom if ever do they mention the fact that Jerusalem has
been under illegal Israeli control for the past 48 years, or that the latest
confrontations were set off as a result of Israeli attempts to change the
status quo and force a joint jurisdiction of the Islamic holy sites within
the walls of old Jerusalem.
Oftentimes Israel and its enablers in the political and media arenas try to
obfuscate basic facts about the nature and history of the conflict. Despite
these attempts, however, the conflict is neither complicated nor has it
existed for centuries. It is a century-old modern phenomenon that emerged as
a direct result of political Zionism. This movement, founded by secular
journalist Theodore Herzl in the late 19th century, has incessantly
attempted to transform Judaism from one of the worlds great religious
traditions into a nationalistic ethnic movement with the aim of transferring
Jews around the world to Palestine, while ethnically cleansing the
indigenous Palestinian population from the land of their ancestors. This is
the essence of the conflict, and thus all of Israels policies and actions
can only be understood by acknowledging this reality.
It might be understandable, if detestable, for Israel and its Zionist
defenders to circulate false characterizations of history and events to
advance their political agenda. But it is incomprehensible for those who
claim to advocate the rule of law, believe in the principle of
self-determination, and call for freedom and justice to fall for this
propaganda or to become its willing accomplices. In following much of the
media coverage or political analyses of the conflict, one is struck by the
lack of historical context, the deliberate disregard of empirical facts, and
the contempt for established legal constructs and precedents. Are the
Palestinian territories disputed or occupied? Do Palestinians have a legal
right, embedded in international law, to resist their occupiers, including
the use of armed struggle, or is every means of resistance considered
terrorism? Does Israel have any right to old Jerusalem and its historical
and religious environs? Is the protraction of the so-called cycle of
violence really coming proportionally from both sides of the conflict? Is
Israel a true democracy? Should political Zionism be treated as a legitimate
national liberation movement (from whom?) while ignoring its overwhelmingly
racist manifestations? Is Israel genuine about seeking a peaceful resolution
to the conflict? Can the U.S. really be an honest peace-broker between the
two sides as it has persistently promoted itself in the region? The factual
answers to these questions would undoubtedly clear the fog and lead
objective observers not only to a full understanding of the conflict, but
also to a deep appreciation of the policies and actions needed to bring it
to an end.
Occupation, Self-Determination, and International Law
There should be no disputing that the territories seized by Israel in June
1967, including east Jerusalem, are occupied. Dozens of UN resolutions have
passed since November 1967, including binding Security Council resolutions
calling on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories, which the
Zionist State has stubbornly refused to comply with. In fact, if there were
any disputed territories, they should be those Palestinian territories
that Israel took in 1948, through a campaign of terror, massacres, and
military conquests, which resulted in forcefully and illegally expelling
over 800,000 Palestinians from their homes, villages, and towns, in order to
make room for thousands of Jews coming from Europe and other parts of the
world. Consequently, UN Resolution 194 mandated that these Palestinian
refugees wishing to return to their homes
should be permitted to do so.
This resolution has now remained unfulfilled for 67 years. There is also no
dispute in international law that Israel has been a belligerent occupier
triggering the application of all the relevant Geneva Conventions as the
Palestinian people have been under occupation since their territory is
actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
Furthermore, the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people and
their right to resist their occupiers by all means are well established in
international law. In 1960, UN resolution 1514 adopted the Declaration on
the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. It stated
that, All peoples have the right to self-determination, and that, the
subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation
constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights and is contrary to the
Charter of the United Nations. Ten years later the UN adopted Resolution
2625 which called on its members to support colonized people or people under
occupation against their colonizers and occupiers. In fact, UN Resolution
3246 reaffirmed in 1974 the legitimacy of the peoples struggle for
liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all
available means, including armed struggle. Four years later UN Resolution
33/24 also strongly confirmed the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available
means, particularly armed struggle, and strongly condemned all
governments that did not recognize the right to self-determination to the
Palestinian people.
As for occupied Jerusalem, the UN Security Council adopted in 1980 two
binding resolutions (476 and 478) by a vote of 14-0 (the US abstained and
did not veto either resolution.) Both resolutions condemned Israels attempt
to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional
structure, (and) the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem. It also
reaffirmed the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab
territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and called
out Israel as the occupying power. It further considered any changes to
the city of Jerusalem as a violation of international law.
The Use of Violence, Resistance, and the Deceptive Peace Process
Living under brutal occupation for almost half a century without any
prospect for its end, the Palestinian people, particularly in Jerusalem,
have, since late September, embarked on new mass protests against the latest
Israeli incursions on their holy sites and revolted once again against the
ceaseless occupation. As a consequence, the Israeli army, aided by thousands
of armed settlers roaming the West Bank, have intensified their use of
violence, which resulted in over 100 deaths, 2200 injuries, and 4000 arrests
in less than two months. The Israeli army and the settlements-based armed
gangs, though forbidden under international law and the Geneva conventions,
have regularly employed various violent means in order to force Palestinian
exile or compel submission to the occupation. The Israeli harsh tactics
include: settler violence and provocation under full army protection,
targeting children, including kidnapping, killing, as well as arresting
children as young as 5 , burning infants alive, the constant use of
collective punishment and house demolitions, the use of excessive prison
sentences for any act of defiance including throwing rocks, storming revered
religious sites, and the deliberate targeting of journalists who dare to
challenge Israeli hegemony.
The Palestinian people, whether under occupation or under siege, in exile
and blocked by Israel from returning to their homes, or denied their right
to self-determination, have the legitimate right to resist the military
occupation and its manifestations such as the denial of their freedom and
human rights, the confiscation of their lands, or the building and expansion
of Israeli colonies on their lands. Although most Palestinians opt for the
use of nonviolent resistance as a prudent tactic against the brutality of
the occupation, international law does not, however, limit their resistance
only to the use of peaceful means. In essence, the right to legitimate armed
resistance, subject to international humanitarian law, is enshrined in
international law and cannot be denied to any people including the
Palestinians in their struggle to gain their freedom and exercise their
right to self-determination. Furthermore, international law does not confer
any right on the occupying power to use any force against their occupied
subjects, in order to maintain and sustain their occupation, including in
self-defense. In short, aggressors and land usurpers are by definition
denied the use of force to subjugate their victims. Consequently, as a
matter of principle embedded in international law and regardless of any
political viability, strikes against military targets including soldiers,
armed settlers, or other tools and institutions of the occupation are
legitimate and any action against them, non-violent or otherwise, cannot be
condemned or deemed terrorism.
Furthermore, the argument regarding the validity of using armed struggle
against oppression and denial of political rights by tyrannical and colonial
regimes is well established in its favor. Patriot Patrick Henry rallied his
countrymen prior to the American Revolution in 1775 in his famous call give
liberty or give me death. Civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr. even
rejected pacifism in the face of aggression. He only questioned its tactical
significance when he stated I contended that the debate over the question
of self-defense was unnecessary since few people suggested that Negroes
should not defend themselves as individuals when attacked. The question was
not whether one should use his gun when his home was attacked, but whether
it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized
demonstration. Mahatma Gandhi saw active resistance as more honorable than
pacifism when he said I would rather have India resort to arms in order to
defence her honour than that she would, in a cowardly manner, become or
remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour. Nelson Mandela reflected on
this debate when he asserted that he resorted to armed struggle only when
all other forms of resistance were no longer open, and demanded that the
Apartheid regime guarantee free political activity to blacks before he
would call on his compatriots to suspend armed struggle. Accordingly, the
debate over whether the use of armed resistance against Israeli occupation
advances the cause of justice for Palestinians is not a question of
legitimacy, but rather of sound political strategy in light of the skewed
balance of military power and massive public support from peoples around the
globe for their just struggle.
Yet, the reality of the conflict actually reveals that the Palestinian
people have overwhelmingly been at the receiving end of the use of ruthless
Israeli violence and aggression since 1948. With the exception of the 1973
war (initiated by Egypt and Syria to regain the lands they lost in the 1967
war) every Arab-Israeli war in the past seven decades (48, 56, 67, 78,
82, 02, etc.) was initiated by Israel and resulted in more uprooting and
misery to the Palestinians. Still, since 2008 Israel launched three brutal
wars against Gaza with devastating consequences. In the 2008/2009 war,
Israel killed 1417 Palestinians and lost 13 people including 9 soldiers. In
the 2012 war, Israel killed 167 Palestinians and lost 6 including 2
soldiers. And in the 2014 war, Israel killed 2104 Palestinians, including
539 children, with 475,000 people made homeless, 17,500 homes destroyed,
while 244 schools and scores of hospitals and mosques damaged. In that war
Israel lost 72 including 66 soldiers. In short, since late 2008 Israel
killed 3688 Palestinians in its three declared wars and lost 91 including 77
soldiers. Shamefully the deliberate targeting of Palestinian children has
been amply documented as over two thousand have been killed by Israel since
2000. This massive Israeli intentional use of violence against the
Palestinians, especially in Gaza (which has been under a crippling siege
since 2007) was investigated, determined to constitute war crimes, and
condemned by the UN in the Goldstone Report, as well as by other human
rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
The 1993 Oslo process gave rise to the promise of ending decades of Israeli
occupation. But the process was rigged from the start as many of its
participants have recently admitted. It was an Israeli ploy to halt the
first Palestinian uprising and give Israel the breathing room it needed to
aggressively and permanently colonize the West Bank including East
Jerusalem. It was an accord with a lopsided balance of power, as one side
held all the cards and gave no real concessions, and a much weaker side
stripped of all its bargaining chips. During this period the number of
settlements in the West Bank more than doubled and the number of settlers
increased by more than seven fold to over 600 thousand including in East
Jerusalem.
The world has none other than Benjamin Netanyahu to acknowledge that Israel
has no intention of withdrawing or ending its occupation. After serving his
first stint as a prime minister, Netanyahu (shown here in a leaked video)
while visiting a settlement in 2001, admitted to his true intention of
grabbing as much as 98 percent of Palestinian territories in the West Bank
and halting the fraudulent Oslo process. Believing that the camera was off,
he spoke candidly to a group of settlers about his strategic vision, plans,
and tactics.
On his vision he assured them that The settlements are here. They are
everywhere. He stated, I halted the fulfillment of the Oslo agreements.
Its better to give two percent than 100 percent. You gave two percent but
you stopped the withdrawal. He later added, I gave my own interpretation
to the agreements in such a way that will allow me to stop the race back
towards the 1967 borders. As for the tactics, Netanyahu freely confessed
his strategy of causing so much pain to the Palestinians that they would
submit to the occupation rather than resist. He said, The main thing is to
strike them not once but several times so painfully that the price they pay
will be unbearable causing them to fear that everything is about to
collapse. When he was challenged that such a strategy might cause the world
to consider Israel as the aggressor, he dismissively said, They can say
whatever they want. He also implied how he was not concerned about American
pressure. To the contrary he asserted that he could easily manipulate
Israels main benefactor when he stated America is something you can easily
maneuver and move in the right direction. I wasnt afraid to confront
Clinton. I wasnt afraid to go against the UN. Even though world leaders
consider Netanyahu a liar and they cant stand him as shown in this
exchange between former French president Nicolas Sarkozy and Barak Obama, no
Western leader has stood up to Israel, even though a British parliamentarian
stated that 70 percent of Europeans consider it a danger to worlds peace.
But the obstructionist posture and expansionist policies of Israeli leaders
are not restricted to the Israeli right. Former Labor leader Ehud Barak was
as much determined in 2000 at Camp David not to withdraw from the West Bank,
Jerusalem, or dismantle the settlements.
For decades the world waited for Israel to decide its destiny by choosing
two out of three defining elements: its Jewish character, its claim to
democracy, and the lands of so-called greater Israel. If it chose to
retain its Jewish majority and claim to be democratic, it had to withdraw
from the lands it occupied in 1967. If it insists on incorporating the lands
and have a democracy it would have to integrate its Arab populations while
forsaking its Jewish exceptionalism in a secular state. Yet sadly but true
to its Zionist nature, Israel chose to maintain its Jewish exclusiveness
over all of historical Palestine to transform itself into a manifestly
Apartheid state.
Political Zionism and the True Nature of the Israeli State
For over a century political Zionism has evoked intense passions and
emotions on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: its ardent
supporters as well as its critics and hapless victims. Zionists hail their
enterprise as a national liberation movement for the Jewish people while its
opponents condemn it as a racist ideology that practiced ethnic cleansing,
instituted racial and religious discrimination, and committed war crimes to
realize its goals.
On November 10, 1975 the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution
3379 that determined Zionism as a form of racism and racial
discrimination. However, it was revoked 16 years later under tremendous
pressure from the U.S. and other Western countries in the aftermath of the
first Gulf war in 1991. Oftentimes, the public is denied unfiltered
information about the true nature of political Zionism and its declared
state. And unfortunately the media conglomerates rarely cover that aspect of
the conflict, which contributes to the publics confusion and exasperation.
Since its creation in 1948, Israel has passed laws and implemented policies
that institutionalized discrimination against its Arab Palestinian minority.
In the aftermath of its 1967 invasion, it instituted a military occupation
regime that has denied basic human and civil rights to millions of
Palestinians whose population now exceeds the number of Israeli Jews in the
land within historical Palestine. In addition, in defiance of international
law, Israel has obstinately refused to allow the descendants of the
Palestinian people that it expelled in 1948 and 1967 to return to their
homes, while allowing millions of people of other nationalities the right to
become citizens of the Israeli state upon arrival simply because they are
Jewish.
Zionist leaders from Ben-Gurion to Netanyahu have always claimed that Israel
was a democracy similar to other Western liberal democracies. But perhaps
the best way to examine this claim and illustrate the nature of the modern
Zionist state is through a comparative analogy (a similar example could also
be found in Israeli historian Shlomo Sands book).
What if a Western country claiming to be a democracy, such as the U.S. or
the U.K., were officially to change its constitution and system to become
the state of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs)? Even though its
African, Hispanic, Asian, Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim citizens as well as
other minorities would still have the right to vote, hold political offices,
and enjoy some civil and social rights, they would have to submit to the new
nature and exclusive character of the WASP state. Moreover, with the
exception of the WASP class of citizens, no other citizen would be allowed
to buy or sell any land, and there would be permanent constitutional laws
that would forbid any WASP from selling any property to any members of other
ethnicities or religions in the country. Its Congress or parliament would
pass laws that would also forbid any WASP from marrying outside his or her
social class, and if any such illegal marriage were to take place, it
would not be recognized by the state. As for immigration, only WASPs from
around the world would be welcome. In fact, there would be no restrictions
on their category as any WASP worldwide could claim immediate citizenship
upon arrival in the country with full economic and social benefits granted
by the state, while all other ethnicities are denied. Furthermore, most of
the existing minorities in the country would be subjected to certain
security policies in order to allow room for the WASPs coming from
outside. So in many parts of the country, there would be settlements and
colonies constructed only for the new WASP settlers and consequently some of
the non-WASP populations would have to be restricted or relocated. In these
new settlements the state would designate WASP-only roads, WASP-only
schools, WASP-only health clinics, WASP-only shopping malls, WASP-only parks
or swimming pools. There would also be a two-tier health care system,
educational system, criminal justice system, and social welfare system. In
this dual system for example, if a WASP assaults or kills a non-WASP he
would receive a small fine or a light sentence that would not exceed few
years, while if a non-WASP murders a WASP, even accidentally, he would
receive a harsh or mandatory life sentence. In this system, where the police
is exclusively staffed by WASPs, the Supreme Court would routinely sanction
the use of torture against any non-WASP, subject to the judgment of the
security officers. Such a system would clearly be so manifestly racist,
patently criminal, and globally abhorred that no one would stand by it or
defend it. But could such a regime even exist or be accepted in todays
world? (I realize that some people may argue that many of these practices
had actually occurred in the past against certain segments of the population
in some Western societies. But no government today would dare to embrace
this model or defend its policies.)
Yet, because of the Zionist nature of the Israeli state, this absurd example
is actually a reality with varying degrees for the daily lives of the
Palestinian people, whether they are nominal citizens of the state, live
under occupation or under siege, or have been blocked for decades from
returning back to their homes, towns, and villages. Such a system would not
only be condemned but no decent human being or a country that respects the
rule of law would associate with it or tolerate it.
From its early days, prominent Jewish intellectuals have condemned the
racist nature of the Zionist state. Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt wrote
in 1948 condemning Zionist leaders of Israel who openly preached the
doctrine of the Fascist state. Israeli scientist and thinker Israel Shahak
considered Israel as a racist state in the full meaning of this term, where
the Palestinians are discriminated against, in the most permanent and legal
way and in the most important areas of life, only because of their origin.
Renowned American intellectual Noam Chomsky considers Israels actions in
Palestine as even much worse than Apartheid ever was in South Africa.
Israeli historian Ilan Pappé argues that The Zionist goal from the very
beginning was to have as much of Palestine as possible with as few
Palestinians in it as possible, while American historian Howard Zinn
thought that Zionism is a mistake. American academic and author Norman
Finkelstein has often spoken out against the racist nature of the Zionist
state and condemned its manipulation of the Nazi Holocaust to justify its
colonization of Palestine. British historian Tony Judt described Israel as
an anachronism because of its exclusive nature in comparison to its
non-Jewish citizens. Former UN Special Rapporteur for Occupied Palestine
Professor Richard Falk called Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories
a crime against humanity and compared Israels treatment of the
Palestinians to the Nazi treatment of the Jews and has said, I think the
Palestinians stand out as the most victimized people in the world. Very
recently, prominent American Jewish academics posed the question: Can we
continue to embrace a state that permanently denies basic rights to another
people? Their answer was an emphatic call for a complete boycott against
the Zionist state.
Furthermore, Israeli politicians and religious leaders regularly use racist
rhetoric to appeal to their constituents and articulate their policies. In
the last Israeli elections in March, Prime Minister Netanyahu tweeted to the
Israeli public, The right-wing government is in danger. Arab voters are
coming out in droves to the polls. Former foreign minister Avigdor
Lieberman advocated new ethnic cleansing through the transfer of
Palestinian citizens from the state. One prominent Rabbi considered killing
Palestinians a religious duty, while another declared that It is not only
desirable to do so, but it is a religious duty that you hold his head down
to the ground and hit him until his last breath. Former Sephardic Chief
Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, one of the most senior religious leaders in Israel
ruled that there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the
indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military
offensive on Gaza. Racism in Israel is so pervasive that a Jewish settler
stabbed another Jew, and another settler killed a fellow Jewish settler not
because the perpetrators were threatened, but because the victims looked
Arab. Israeli racism is so widespread among its population that noted
journalist Max Blumenthal, who investigated the Israeli societys attitudes
towards the Palestinians, was himself surprised to the extent to which
groups and figures, remarkably similar ideologically and psychologically to
the radical right in the US and to neo-fascist movements across Europe,
controlled the heart of Israeli society and the Israeli government.
In short, the ideology of political Zionism, as it has amply been
demonstrated within the state of Israel, with its exclusionary vision and
persistent policies of occupying the land and subjugating its people, has
proven without any doubt that it represents a relic of a bygone era that
utterly lacks civilized behavior or claims to a democratic system.
Therefore, any discussion, coverage, analysis, or debate of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict that sidesteps the nature and ideology of the
Israeli state is not only disingenuous and lacks credibility, but also
contributes to the deepening of the conflict, the continuous suffering of
its victims, and the illusion of finding a potential just and peaceful
outcome.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
