Mondoweiss
Israel’s bogus civil war
Israel/Palestine
Jonathan Cook on September 13, 2016 5 Comments
Decision at 50, the new peace group
Is Israel on the verge of civil war, as a growing number of Israeli
commentators suggest, with its Jewish population deeply riven over the future
of the occupation?
On one side is a new peace movement, Decision at 50, stuffed with former
political and security leaders. Ehud Barak, a previous prime minister who
appears to be seeking a political comeback, may yet emerge as its figurehead.
The group has demanded the government hold a referendum next year – the
half-centenary of Israel’s occupation, which began in 1967 – on whether it is
time to leave the territories. Its own polling shows a narrow majority ready to
concede a Palestinian state.
On the other is Benjamin Netanyahu, in power for seven years with the most
right-wing government in Israel’s history. On Friday he posted a video on
social media criticising those who want to end the occupation.
Observing that a Palestinian state would require removing hundreds of thousands
of Jewish settlers currently living – illegally – on Palestinian land,
Netanyahu concluded: “There’s a phrase for that. It’s called ethnic cleansing.”
Not only did the comparison upend international law, but Netanyahu infuriated
the Obama administration by implying that, in seeking to freeze settlement
growth, the US had supported such ethnic cleansing. A spokeswoman called the
comments “inappropriate and unhelpful” – Washington-speak for deceitful and
inflammatory.
But the Israeli prime minister is not the only one hoodwinking his audience.
Whatever its proponents imply, the Decision at 50 referendum is about neither
peace nor the Palestinians’ best interests. Its assumption is that yet again
the Israeli public should determine unilaterally the Palestinians’ fate.
Although the exact wording is yet to be decided, the referendum’s backers
appear concerned solely with the status of the West Bank.
An Israeli consensus believes Gaza has been free of occupation since the
settlers were pulled out in 2005, despite the fact that Israel still surrounds
most of the coastal strip with soldiers, patrols its air space with drones and
denies access to the sea.
The same unyielding, deluded Israeli consensus has declared East Jerusalem, the
expected capital of a Palestinian state, as instead part of Israel’s “eternal
capital”.
But the problem runs deeper still. When the new campaign proudly cites new
figures showing that 58 per cent support “two states for two nations”, it
glosses over what most Israelis think such statehood would entail for the
Palestinians.
A survey in June found 72 per cent do not believe the Palestinians live under
occupation, while 62 per cent told pollsters last year they think Palestinians
have no rights to a nation.
When Israelis talk in favour of a Palestinian state, it is chiefly to thwart a
far bigger danger – a single state shared with the “enemy”. The Decision at 50
poll shows 87 per cent of Israeli Jews dread a binational conclusion to the
conflict. Ami Ayalon, a former head of the Shin Bet intelligence service and a
leader of Decision at 50, echoed them, warning of an “approaching disaster”.
So what do Israelis think a Palestinian state should look like? Previous
surveys have been clear. It would not include Jerusalem or control its borders.
It would be territorially carved up to preserve the “settlement blocs”, which
would be annexed to Israel. And most certainly it would be “demilitarised” –
without an army or air force.
In other words, Palestinians would lack sovereignty. Such a state exists only
in the imagination of the Israeli public. A Palestinian state on these terms
would simply be an extension of the Gaza model to the West Bank.
Nonetheless, the idea of a civil war is gaining ground. Tamir Pardo, the
recently departed head of Israel’s spy agency Mossad, warned last month that
Israel was on the brink of tearing itself apart through “internal divisions”.
He rated this a bigger danger than any of the existential threats posited by Mr
Netanyahu, such as Iran’s supposed nuclear bomb.
But the truth is that there is very little ideologically separating most
Israeli Jews. All but a tiny minority wish to see the Palestinians continue as
a subjugated people. For the great majority, a Palestinian state means nothing
more than a makeover of the occupation, penning up the Palestinians in slightly
more humane conditions.
After many years in power, the right is growing in confidence. It sees no price
has been paid, either at home or abroad, for endlessly tightening the screws on
the Palestinians.
Israeli moderates have had to confront the painful reality that their country
is not quite the enlightened outpost in the Middle East they had imagined. They
may raise their voices in protest now but, if the polls are right, most will
eventually submit to the right’s realisation of its vision of a Greater Israel.
Those who cannot stomach such an outcome will have to stop equivocating and
choose a side. They can leave, as some are already doing, or stay and fight –
not for a bogus referendum that solves nothing, but to demand dignity and
freedom for the Palestinian people.
A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.
•
•
•
•
• About
• Advertise
• Comments Policy
• Site Status
• Archives
• 100 Recent Comments
• Register
• Log in
• Donate
Advertising
•
http://mondoweiss.net/wp-content/plugins/oiopub-direct/modules/tracker/go.php?id=28http://mondoweiss.net/wp-content/plugins/oiopub-direct/modules/tracker/go.php?id=28
Mondoweiss
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
Search for:
• http://mondoweiss.net/
• Israel/Palestine
• Middle East
• US Politics
• Activism
• Features
Israel’s bogus civil war
Israel/Palestine
Jonathan Cook on September 13, 2016 5 Comments
• Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
• Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
• Adjust Font Size
Decision at 50, the new peace group
Is Israel on the verge of civil war, as a growing number of Israeli
commentators suggest, with its Jewish population deeply riven over the future
of the occupation?
On one side is a new peace movement, Decision at 50, stuffed with former
political and security leaders. Ehud Barak, a previous prime minister who
appears to be seeking a political comeback, may yet emerge as its figurehead.
The group has demanded the government hold a referendum next year – the
half-centenary of Israel’s occupation, which began in 1967 – on whether it is
time to leave the territories. Its own polling shows a narrow majority ready to
concede a Palestinian state.
On the other is Benjamin Netanyahu, in power for seven years with the most
right-wing government in Israel’s history. On Friday he posted a video on
social media criticising those who want to end the occupation.
Observing that a Palestinian state would require removing hundreds of thousands
of Jewish settlers currently living – illegally – on Palestinian land,
Netanyahu concluded: “There’s a phrase for that. It’s called ethnic cleansing.”
Not only did the comparison upend international law, but Netanyahu infuriated
the Obama administration by implying that, in seeking to freeze settlement
growth, the US had supported such ethnic cleansing. A spokeswoman called the
comments “inappropriate and unhelpful” – Washington-speak for deceitful and
inflammatory.
But the Israeli prime minister is not the only one hoodwinking his audience.
Whatever its proponents imply, the Decision at 50 referendum is about neither
peace nor the Palestinians’ best interests. Its assumption is that yet again
the Israeli public should determine unilaterally the Palestinians’ fate.
Although the exact wording is yet to be decided, the referendum’s backers
appear concerned solely with the status of the West Bank.
An Israeli consensus believes Gaza has been free of occupation since the
settlers were pulled out in 2005, despite the fact that Israel still surrounds
most of the coastal strip with soldiers, patrols its air space with drones and
denies access to the sea.
The same unyielding, deluded Israeli consensus has declared East Jerusalem, the
expected capital of a Palestinian state, as instead part of Israel’s “eternal
capital”.
But the problem runs deeper still. When the new campaign proudly cites new
figures showing that 58 per cent support “two states for two nations”, it
glosses over what most Israelis think such statehood would entail for the
Palestinians.
A survey in June found 72 per cent do not believe the Palestinians live under
occupation, while 62 per cent told pollsters last year they think Palestinians
have no rights to a nation.
When Israelis talk in favour of a Palestinian state, it is chiefly to thwart a
far bigger danger – a single state shared with the “enemy”. The Decision at 50
poll shows 87 per cent of Israeli Jews dread a binational conclusion to the
conflict. Ami Ayalon, a former head of the Shin Bet intelligence service and a
leader of Decision at 50, echoed them, warning of an “approaching disaster”.
So what do Israelis think a Palestinian state should look like? Previous
surveys have been clear. It would not include Jerusalem or control its borders.
It would be territorially carved up to preserve the “settlement blocs”, which
would be annexed to Israel. And most certainly it would be “demilitarised” –
without an army or air force.
In other words, Palestinians would lack sovereignty. Such a state exists only
in the imagination of the Israeli public. A Palestinian state on these terms
would simply be an extension of the Gaza model to the West Bank.
Nonetheless, the idea of a civil war is gaining ground. Tamir Pardo, the
recently departed head of Israel’s spy agency Mossad, warned last month that
Israel was on the brink of tearing itself apart through “internal divisions”.
He rated this a bigger danger than any of the existential threats posited by Mr
Netanyahu, such as Iran’s supposed nuclear bomb.
But the truth is that there is very little ideologically separating most
Israeli Jews. All but a tiny minority wish to see the Palestinians continue as
a subjugated people. For the great majority, a Palestinian state means nothing
more than a makeover of the occupation, penning up the Palestinians in slightly
more humane conditions.
After many years in power, the right is growing in confidence. It sees no price
has been paid, either at home or abroad, for endlessly tightening the screws on
the Palestinians.
Israeli moderates have had to confront the painful reality that their country
is not quite the enlightened outpost in the Middle East they had imagined. They
may raise their voices in protest now but, if the polls are right, most will
eventually submit to the right’s realisation of its vision of a Greater Israel.
Those who cannot stomach such an outcome will have to stop equivocating and
choose a side. They can leave, as some are already doing, or stay and fight –
not for a bogus referendum that solves nothing, but to demand dignity and
freedom for the Palestinian people.
A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.
