Interview with Israeli historian Ilan Pappe
"This situation is not temporary, it is the future"
In interview with Emran Feroz, Israeli historian and Exeter University
professor Ilan Pappe criticises the unilateral policy favoured by the
Netanyahu government, which is committed to retaining control of historical
Palestine in its entirety and approves of the restoration of authoritarian
Arab regimes
A few days ago the Israeli government once again approved the building of
new settlements in the West Bank. Meanwhile, politicians in the European
Union and the United States still believe in a two-state solution. How
realistic is this at the moment?
Ilan Pappe: It′s not. The two-state solution has been an unrealistic
prospect since 2000, if not before. The reason are incontrovertible facts on
the ground, created by Israel. Large parts of the West Bank are already
colonised. It's physically impossible to build a state there. That's one
reason why it's not realistic.
The other reason is that even if for a short period, the two sides had
agreed to a two-state solution, it would have not ended the conflict,
because it's not a solution that tackles the main problems in Israel and
Palestine. And the main problem is that Palestinians and Israelis do not
enjoy equal status as the citizens of those lands between the river Jordan
and the Mediterranean.
Israeli apartheid and Zionist settler colonialism, not to mention the ethnic
cleansing conducted by Israel in the past are the real problem. You won't
solve them with a two-state solution. You can only solve them with a
political structure that stops such strategies and ideologies from
determining the relationship between Palestinians and Jews in historical
Palestine.
You often suggest a bi-national state as a solution. What would such a
solution look like under the current circumstances in Israel and Palestine
and what would life be like in such a state?
Pappe: I'm not sure if there will be a bi-national state. Whether we will
ever experience a one-state solution remains to be seen. I would prefer a
democratic state. I don't think that even a bi-national state would be the
best solution. Since nationalism remains very strong on both sides, however,
it would be a necessary step on the way to a democratic state. It's very
difficult to say what life in such a state would look like. What′s certain
is that we already live in a one-state solution that doesn′t deserve to
continue.
These days Israel controls all of historical Palestine. Palestinians live
under Israeli rules and under different degrees of oppression. Gaza, where
the people are strangulated in a siege, is probably the worst off. The
second worst sections are the so-called areas A and B in the West Bank,
where people are denied any freedom of movement, whether inside or outside.
It's the same in area C, where people are subjected to a policy of
dispossession. Yet even the Palestinians who live in Israel itself are
subjected to apartheid policies and dispossession. This is not the single
state we′re after. Neither is it two states.
We know what we don't want to see and this is very important. We know that
we don't want to see Palestinians losing more land. We don't want to see
them being discriminated against by law or by policy. We don't want to see
their houses being demolished. We don't want to see them in prison without
trial, expelled or killed.
If we begin with these rights and stop some of these violations, we could
begin to build a single state from below. You don't even have to call it a
one-state solution. You just have to call it fighting for Palestinian
rights. It′s a justified struggle for rights. Once these rights are
secured, including the right of Palestinian refugees to return, I think we
will have a good idea of how people can live co-exist on equal terms.
You mention words like "apartheid" and "settler colonialism". In Europe,
especially, we find it difficult use such vocabulary when talking about this
issue. Why do you refer Israel as a settler colonialist entity?
Pappe: Of course it's difficult to use these terms because they describe
something that Israel has endeavoured to conceal for so many years. But I
think more and more people understand that this is the reality on the
ground. You cannot call it a democracy and you cannot deny the origins of
Zionism. Using new and proper language is a struggle to get rid of the old
language. It's an intellectual struggle, but also an activist one. In this
area, at least, I think we are getting better results than in the past.
Settler colonialism was a movement of Europeans who left Europe for good
reason. Whether they were Jews or Christians, they had to leave. They felt
insecure or they felt at risk. They were not merely looking for a home, they
were looking for a homeland. And as we know from the instances that pre-date
Zionism and influenced it, the indigenous population was unfortunately the
main obstacle to the success of such movements. In the case of settler
colonialism in North America, Australia or New Zealand, the Europeans
eliminated the natives, they committed genocide. In the case of South
Africa, long before Zionism, they created apartheid and committed ethnic
cleansing. These means were more similar to the ones Zionism used to
colonise Palestine. In academic terms, calling Zionism a settler colonialist
movement is utterly tenable. Many parts of the world are based on settler
colonialist movements. Israel is just the only one which denies it.
As for apartheid, it's very clear from a lot of new studies that have been
published in the last ten years. Of course, there are differences between
Israel and South Africa, but there are also many similarities. You could
call it one of the many faces of apartheid. There is more than one
apartheid, but what they all have in common is denying equal rights.
In recent years,, we witnessed the Arabellion in countries like Egypt, Libya
or Syria. What is Israel's stance towards these uprisings?
Pappe: Initially I think Israel was very worried about the developments in
the Arab world, particularly when it looked as if democracy would take hold
in these countries. A democratic Arab world is the worst possible scenario
for Israel. Firstly, the people would demand that their governments take a
far more active role in supporting Palestine. Secondly, Israel′s unique
status within the Middle East, from which it also benefits, would be gone.
As things look now, the authoritarian regimes are currently becoming even
more extreme - take Egypt or Syria. That plays into Israel′s hands. It is
also benefiting from the "Islamic State" phenomenon, because it complies
perfectly with the narrative of Israel. IS is distracting everyone′s
attention away from Palestine. At the same time, it provides Israel with the
perfect image of Islam. Israel can thus continue reselling itself as the
only "sane culture" in the area, the "last bastion" of the West in the
Middle East.
Bearing all this in mind, the recent developments regarding Iran are also
significant. After the nuclear deal and the lifting of sanctions, it seems
that Europe and the United States are happy with their new relationship with
Iran. Is Israel happy with this new situation too? Netanyahu has often said
that Iran poses a bigger threat than IS.
Pappe: In this instance, I think we have to differentiate between the
Israeli government and average citizens. Most Israelis do not lose sleep at
night over Iran. The government has been trying to spread fear amongst its
citizens with this rhetoric, but it's one of the few times when it didn't
succeed. Maybe because the head of Mossad and some other high-ranking
individuals said that there was no danger from Iran. The military elite did
not agree with the political elite.
Basically, the government isn't happy with the deal because the situation
before Iran used to be a good distraction from Palestine. I think the rest
of Israeli society is quite happy about the deal.
At the moment, we see that many Sunni Arab states are totally failing and
becoming destabilised while Shia Iran is very stable. Do you think that Iran
will play a major role in future in solving the situation in Israel and
Palestine?
Pappe: Absolutely. Much depends on the Iranians. I don′t think we will see
much change as long as Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is in
power. Developments in Iran will become much more interesting after his
death. I think that, at the moment, Iran is just modifying its tone a bit,
not its policy. It could really play a very constructive role. In Syria and
Iraq, but also in Palestine. It's true that the Sunni Arab countries have
failed in many ways. And the whole re-emergence of the supposedly Sunni-Shia
conflict is once again something that plays into Israel′s hands. Any stable
political power that wants to stabilise the Middle East as a whole and wants
to help the Palestinians needs to put such issues behind it.
The Middle East is changing every day. One cannot say how the situation
there might be next week or next month. How does Israel handle this rapid
pace of change?
Pappe: At the moment, Israel has a very clearly right-wing political system.
The chances of any liberal or left-wing government coming to power in Israel
are very slim. We have to understand that the strategic opinions of the
current government are that of Israel as a whole. And that view is very
clear. It's the kind of view that says that the creation of a Greater
Israel, an ethnic state, is more important than having a democracy in
Israel. It's even more important than having a good relationship with the
rest of the world. They also are intent on getting rid of the Palestinians.
Israel also understands very well that in today's Middle East there are even
some Arab elites who will support this aim, as long as they get provided
what they need - lobbies, weapons or money. The real problem for Israel is
the fact that the world is not just made up of cynical politicians. There
are civil societies and movements like BDS (Boycott, Divestment and
Sanctions), there is the Internet and there is the electorate in the West.
None of them legitimise Israel's policy anymore. Israel has to face up to
these facts. It probabaly has the military and economic power to survive,
but it won′t have the necessary support anymore, even amongst the Jews in
the world.
So the political elite in Israel have to ask themselves if this is really
the kind of Israel they want. Unfortunately, at the moment it seems that it
is what they want. So it's up to the rest of the world to change the
situation. Because today's Israel is an apartheid state which will continue
violating Palestinian rights. This situation is not temporary, it is the
future. The United States and Europe have to ask themselves what they want,
especially because Israel clearer about its policies than ever before.
Interview conducted by Emran Feroz
(c) Qantara.de 2016
https://en.qantara.de/content/interview-with-israeli-historian-ilan-pappe-th
is-situation-is-not-temporary-it-is-the-future
