TRANSCRIPT OF NOAM
CHOMSKY'S LECTURE
"THE CURRENT
CRISES IN THE MIDDLE EAST:
WHAT CAN
WE DO?"
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY
December 14, 2000
Transcription by Angie
D'Urso, Feb 2, 2001.
from: http://www.media.mit.edu/~nitin/mideast/chomsky.html
MIT must be relaxing
its standards if this
many people can show up
right on the eve of finals.
Well, just how dangerous
is the crisis in the Middle
East? There is a UN Special
Envoy, a Norwegian, Roed-Larson.
A couple of days ago,
he warned that Israels
blockade of the Palestinian
areas is leading to enormous
suffering and could rapidly
detonate a regional war.
Notice that he referred
to the blockade. He didnt
refer to the killings,
and the other atrocities.
And hes right about
that. The blockade is
the crucial tactic. There
can be a blockade which
is very effective because
of the way the so-called
peace process
has evolved under U.S.
direction, meaning hundreds
of isolated Palestinian
enclaves, some of them
tiny, which can be blocked
off and strangled by the
Israeli occupying forces.
Thats the basic
structure of whats
called here the peace
process. So, there can
be an extremely effective
blockade. And a blockade
is a sensible tactic for
the United States and
Israel, and its
always together. Remember
that anything that Israel
does, it does by U.S.
authorization, and usually
subsidy and support.
The blockade is a tactic
to fine-tune the atrocities
so that they dont
become too visible, visible
enough to force Washington
or the West (which means
Washington essentially)
to make some kind of response.
There have been mistakes
in the past and the United
States and Israel have
certainly learned from
them. So in 1996 for example,
when Shimon Peres launched
yet another attack on
Lebanon, killing large
numbers of people and
driving hundreds/thousands
out of their home, it
was fine and the U.S.
was able to support it
and Clinton did support
it, up until one mistake,
when they bombed a UN
Camp in Qana, killing
over a hundred people
who were refugees in the
camp. Clinton at first
justified it, but as the
international reaction
came in, he had to back
off, and Israel was forced,
under U.S. orders in effect,
to call off the operation
and withdraw. Thats
the kind of mistake you
want to avoid. So, for
those of you going into
the diplomatic service,
you cant allow that
kind of mistake to happen.
You want low level atrocities,
fine-tuned, so that an
international response
is unnecessary. [Laughter]
The same thing happened
more recently, just a
year ago, last September,
when the U.S.-backed slaughter
in East Timor, which had
been going on nicely for
about 25 years, finally
got out of hand to such
a degree that Clinton
was compelled, after the
Country was virtually
destroyed, to essentially
tell the Indonesian generals
that the game is over,
and they instantly withdrew.
So that, you want to avoid.
In this particular case,
there is a clear effort
to keep killings, which
is what hits the front
pages, at roughly the
level of Kosovo before
the NATO bombing. In fact,
thats about the
level of killings right
now, so that the story
will sort of fade into
the background.
Now, of course, the Kosovo
story was quite different.
At that time, the propaganda
needs were the opposite.
The killings were under
fairly similar circumstances
and the level of Serbian
response was approximately
like Israels response
in the occupied territories.
(Then, in fact, there
were attacks from right
across the border, so
it would be as if Hizbollah
was carrying out attacks
in the Galili, or something
like that). That time,
the propaganda needs were
different, so therefore,
it was described passionately
as genocide. A well designed
propaganda system can
make those distinctions.
So in that case it was
genocide, and in this
case its unnoticeable
and justified reprisal.
The general idea, and
I think you can expect
this to continue for awhile,
is for the tactics to
be restricted to: assassination;
lots and lots of people
wounded (severely - many
of them will die later,
but that doesnt
enter into consciousness);
starvation (according
to the UN, there are about
600,000 people facing
starvation, but again
that is below the level);
and curfews (24 hour curfews,
like in Hebron, for weeks
at a time, while a couple
of hundred Israeli settlers
strut around freely, but
the rest of the population,
tens of thousands of people,
are locked in their homes,
allowed out a couple of
hours a week).
The isolation in the
hundreds of enclaves,
and so on, is so that
suffering can be kept
below the level that might
elicit a Western response.
And the assumption, which
is pretty plausible, is
that there is a limit
to what people can endure,
and ultimately they will
give up.
Well, there is, however,
a problem in the Arab
world, which is more sensitive
to these massive atrocities,
and it could explode,
and thats what Roed-Larson
is warning about. The
governance in the Arab
world is extremely fragile,
especially in the crucial
oil producing region.
Any popular unrest might
threaten the very fragile
rule of the U.S. clients,
which the U.S. would be
unwilling to accept. And
it might, equally unacceptably,
induce the rulers of the
oil monarchies to move
to improve relations (particularly
with Iran, which, in fact,
theyve already been
doing), which would undermine
the whole framework for
U.S. domination of the
worlds major energy
reserves.
Back in 1994, Clintons
National Security Advisor,
Anthony Lake, described
what he called a paradigm
for the post cold war
era, and for the Middle
East. The paradigm was
whats called dual
containment, so
it contains Iraq and Iran,
but as he pointed out,
dual containment relies
crucially on the Oslo
process, the process that
brings about relative
peace between Israel and
the Arabs. Unless that
can be sustained, the
dual containment cant
be sustained, and the
whole U.S. current policy
for controlling the region
will be in serious danger.
Thats happened already.
Just two years ago in
December 1998, the U.S.
and Britain bombed Iraq
with outright and very
explicit contempt for
world opinion, including
the UN Security Council.
Remember that the bombing
was timed just at the
moment when the Security
Council was having an
emergency session to consider
the problems of inspection
in Iraq, and as they began,
they got the announcement
that the U.S. and Britain
had pre-empted it by bombing.
That, and the events before
it, lead to a very negative
reaction in the Arab World,
and elsewhere for that
matter, and did lead to
very visible steps, particularly
by the Saudi ruling monarchy,
but also others, towards
accommodation to Iran,
and indication of some
degree of acceptance of
an Iranian position that
has been around for awhile,
that there should be a
strategic alliance in
the region thats
independent of Western
(meaning primarily U.S.)
power. That is something
that the U.S. is highly
unlikely to accept and
could lead to very dangerous
consequences.
Furthermore, on top of
this, the countries in
the region, Iran and Syria
in particular, are testing
missiles, which might
be able to reach Israel.
The United States and
Israel are working not
only on missiles, but
also on an anti-missile
system, the Arrow anti-missile
system. When armaments
are at that level, tensions
can easily break out suddenly
and unpredictably and
lead to a war with advanced
weapons, which can get
out of hand pretty quickly.
Well, how dangerous is
that? Turn to another
expert, General Lee Butler,
recently retired. He was
head of the Strategic
Command at the highest
nuclear agency under Clinton,
STRATCOM. He wrote a couple
of years ago that its
dangerous in the extreme
that in the cauldron of
animosities that we call
the Middle East, one nation
has armed itself, ostensibly
with stockpiles of nuclear
weapons in the hundreds,
and that inspires other
nations to do so as well,
and also to develop other
weapons of mass destruction
as a deterrent, which
is highly combustible
and can lead to very dangerous
outcomes. All of this
is still more dangerous
when the sponsor of that
one nation is regarded
generally in the world
as a rogue state, which
is unpredictable and out
of control, irrational
and vindictive, and insists
on portraying itself in
that fashion. In fact,
the Strategic Command
under Clinton has, in
its highest level pronouncement,
advised that the United
States should maintain
a national persona, as
they call it, of being
irrational and vindictive
and out of control so
that the rest of the world
will be frightened. And
they are. And the U.S.
should also rely on nuclear
weapons as the core of
its strategy, including
the right of first use
against non-nuclear states,
including those that have
signed the Non-Proliferation
treaty. Those proposals
have been built into presidential
directives, Clinton-era
presidential directives,
that dont make much
noise around here, but
it is understood in the
world, which is naturally
impelled to respond by
developing weapons of
mass destruction of its
own in self defense. But
these are prospects that
are indeed recognized
by U.S. intelligence and
high level U.S. analysts.
About two years ago, Harvard
professor Samuel Huntington
wrote an article in a
very prestigious journal,
Foreign Affairs, in which
he pointed out that for
much of the world, he
indicated most of the
world, the United States
is considered a dangerous
rogue state, and the main
threat to their national
existence. And its
not surprising, if you
look at what happens in
the world from outside
the framework of the U.S.
indoctrination system.
Thats very plausible
even from documents, and
certainly from actions,
and much of the world
does see it that way,
and that adds to the severe
dangers of the situation.
Well, the recent history
of the Middle East provides
quite a few further warnings.
Ill just mention
one example, which is
very crucial in the present
context right now - thats
1967, in the June 1967
war when Israel destroyed
the Arab armies, the armies
of the Arab states, Egypt
most importantly, and
it conquered the currently
occupied territories.
That set the stage for
whats still going
on right now. At that
time, the Soviet Union
was still around, and
the conflict there became
serious enough so that
it almost led to a war
a nuclear war,
which would have been
the end of the story.
Then Defense Secretary
Robert McNamara later
observed, in his words,
we damned near had
war. At the end
of the June war there
were hot line communications,
apparently President Kosygin
warned that if you want
to have war, you can have
it. There were naval confrontations
between the Russian and
the U.S. fleets in the
Eastern Mediterranean.
There was also another
case. There was an Israeli
attack on a U.S. spy ship,
USS Liberty, which killed
about 35 sailors and crewman
and practically sank the
ship. The Liberty didnt
know who was attacking
it. The attackers were
disguised. Before they
were disabled, they got
messages back to the 6th
Fleet Headquarters in
Naples, who also didnt
know who was attacking
it. They sent out Phantoms,
which were nuclear-armed,
because they didnt
have any that werent
nuclear-armed, to respond
to whoever was attacking
it, and they didnt
know who they were supposed
to bomb Russia,
Egypt, you know, anybody.
Apparently the planes
were called back directly
from the Pentagon sort
of at the last moment.
But that event alone could
have lead to a nuclear
war.
All of this was understood
to be extremely hazardous.
Most of this probably
had to do with Israels
plans to conquer the Golan
Heights, which they did
after the ceasefire. And
they didnt want
the United States to know
about it in advance because
the U.S. would have stopped
them, and probably thats
what lies behind most
of this. Documents arent
out, so we can only speculate,
and they will probably
never come out. Anyhow,
the situation was ominous
enough so that the great
powers on all sides figured
that they better put a
stop to it, and they very
quickly met at the Security
Council and accepted a
resolution, UN 242, the
famous UN 242 from November
1967, which laid out a
framework for a diplomatic
settlement.
And its worth paying
close attention to what
UN 242 was and is. Its
different now from what
it was then. The information
about this is public technically,
but barely known and often
distorted, so just pay
attention to what it is.
You can easily check it
if you like.
UN 242 called for - the
basic idea was full peace
in return for a full withdrawal.
So, Israel would withdraw
from the territories that
it just conquered, and
in return, the Arab states
would agree to a full
peace with it. There was
kind of a minor footnote,
that the withdrawal could
involve minor and mutual
adjustments. So, for example,
regarding some line or
curve, they could straighten
it out, that sort of thing.
But that was the policy,
and that was U.S. policy
- it was under U.S. initiative.
So, full peace in return
for full withdrawal. Notice
that this very crucially,
and its very crucial
now, that UN 242 was completely
rejectionist.
I use the term rejectionist
now in a slightly non-standard
sense, in a non-racist
sense. It is usually used
in a completely racist
sense. So the rejectionists
are those who deny Israels
right to national self-determination.
But, of course, there
are two national groups
contesting, and I am using
the term rejectionist
in a neutral sense, hence
non-standard, to refer
to a denial of the rights
of either of the two contestants,
including denials of Palestinian
rights. That terminology
is never used in the United
States, and cant
be used, because if it
is used, it will turn
out that the United States
is the leader of the rejectionist
camp, and we cant
have that. So therefore
the term is always used
in a racist sense. So,
you will understand that
Im switching from
normal usage now.
UN 242 was completely
rejectionist. It offered
nothing to the Palestinians.
There was no reference
to them, except the phrase
that there was a refugee
problem that somehow had
to be dealt with. Thats
it. Apart from that, it
was to be an agreement
among the states. The
states were to reach full
peace treaties in the
context of complete Israeli
withdrawal from the territories.
Thats UN 242.
Well, without proceeding,
for the local people in
the region, the Israelis
and the Palestinians,
the crisis is obviously
extremely grave. It could
lead to a regional war
that could easily escalate
to a global war with weapons
of mass destruction with
consequences that are
unimaginable, and that
could happen at almost
any time.
Secondly, the U.S. role
is highly significant.
Thats always true
throughout the world just
because of U.S. power,
but its particularly
true in the Middle East,
which has been recognized
in high level planning
for 50 years (and goes
back beyond that, but
explicitly for 50 years)
as a core element in U.S.
global planning. Just
to quote documents from
50 years ago, declassified
documents, the Middle
East was described as
the strategically
most important region
of the world, a
stupendous source of strategic
power, the
richest economic prize
in the world, and,
you know, on and on in
the same vein. The U.S.
is not going to give that
up. And the reason is
very simple. Thats
the worlds major
energy reserves, and not
only are they valuable
to have because of the
enormous profit that comes
from them, but control
over them gives a kind
of veto power over the
actions of others for
obvious reasons, which
were recognized right
away at the time. So,
thats a core issue.
Its been the prime
concern of U.S. military
and strategic planning
for half a century. The
gulf region, the region
of major energy reserves,
has always been the target
of the major U.S. intervention
forces, with a base system
that extends over a good
part of the world, from
the Pacific to the Azores,
with consequences for
all of those regions because
they are backup bases
for the intervention forces
targeting the gulf region,
also including the Indian
Ocean.
And this is a big issue
right now, in England
at least, and much of
the world, but not in
the United States. The
inhabitants of an Indian
Ocean island, the Diego
Garcia, that were kicked
out and unceremoniously
dumped on another island,
Mauritius, some years
ago, and those who managed
to survive it, have been
fighting through the British
Courts (this was a British
dependency) to try to
gain the right to return
to their homes. They finally
won a couple of months
ago in the High Court
in England and were granted
the right to return, except
that the U.S. wont
relinquish the Island,
where it has a major military
base thats used
for the Middle East targeted
forces. Just a couple
of days ago, they asked
for indemnity of about
6 billion dollars, and
the U.S. is refusing,
of course. Madeline Albright
commented on it. She said
its just an issue
between Britain and Mauritius.
We dont have anything
to do with it, even though
we hold the Island and
refuse to allow them to
return, and refuse to
pay indemnities. I think
youll search pretty
far to find some discussion
of this in the U.S. press,
but thats part of
the base system for targeting
the Middle East.
Well, for years, there
was a kind of a public
pretext for all of this.
The public pretext was
that we had to defend
ourselves against the
Russians. That was the
pretext for everything,
and the pretext for this
in particular. There is
a pretty rich internal
record, bequest by documents,
which tells quite a different
story, however. The story
it tells is that the Russians
were, at most, a marginal
factor, often no factor.
But, fortunately there
is no need to debate the
matter anymore because
it has been conceded publicly.
It was conceded, in fact,
immediately after the
fall of the Berlin Wall,
which sort of got rid
of the pretext. You cant
appeal to the Russian
threat anymore.
A couple of weeks after
the fall of the Berlin
Wall, the Bush Administration
submitted its annual message
to Congress, calling for
a huge military budget,
and it was a very interesting
document. Unfortunately
it wasnt reported,
but it was very important
obviously - the first
call for a huge military
budget after the fall
of the Berlin Wall, when
you cant appeal
to the Russians anymore.
So, therefore, its
revealing and tells you
whats really going
on. As expected, the Russian
threat was gone. We dont
need a huge Pentagon budget
because of the Russians
who arent around
anymore, but we still
need it. In fact, it turned
out to be exactly as it
was in the past, and we
needed it for reasons
which are now frankly
expressed. We needed it
because of what they called
the technological sophistication
of Third World countries,
which is a way of saying
they pose a danger of
becoming independent.
And, we need it because
we have to maintain whats
called the defense industrial
base, which is what pays
our salaries among other
things. The defense industrial
base is just a term for
hi-tech industry, which
has to be funded by the
public, which has to bear
the costs and risks of
development. MIT is one
of the funnels for that.
That has to be maintained.
We have to keep the source
of the dynamic sectors
of the economy, which
are substantially in the
public sectors, so we
have to maintain the defense
industrial base. And we
also have to keep the
intervention forces that
weve always had
still targeting the Middle
East, the gulf region.
Then it adds (where the
threat to our interests
that involve possible
military action could
not be laid at the Kremlins
door contrary to
half a century, forty
years, of lies), sorry,
folks, weve been
lying to you, but we still
need them there because
of the technological sophistication
of Third World powers,
that is, the threat that
they may become independent.
Notice that the threat
to our interests could
also not be laid at Iraqs
door at that time because
Saddam Hussein was still
a nice guy. He had only
been gassing Kurds, and
torturing dissidents,
and that sort of thing.
But he was considered
obedient, so he was a
friend and ally. This
is early 1990. It changed
a few months later.
So, we dont have
to debate the question
of the war with the Russians.
Its now conceded
that that was not a significant
threat, could not be laid
at the Kremlins
door, and the threat,
in fact, is what it is
all over the world, and
has been right through
the cold war, the threat
of whats called
radical nationalism
or independent nationalism.
It doesnt make much
of a difference where
it is in the political
spectrum. But, if its
independent, its
a danger and you have
to undermine it as a way
of threatening whats
called stability, that
is, the subordination
of the world to the dominant
interests that the U.S.
represents.
Actually U.S. relations
with Israel developed
in that context. The 1967
war was a major step forward,
when Israel showed its
power and ability to deal
with Third World radical
nationalists, who were,
at that time, threatening,
particularly Nasser. Nasser
was engaged in a kind
of proxy war with Saudi
Arabia, which is the most
important country, thats
where all the oil is,
and the Yemen. And Israel
put an end to that by
smashing Nassers
armies and won a lot of
points for that, and U.S.
relations with Israel
really became solidified
at that point. But it
had been recognized 10
years earlier and the
U.S. intelligence had
noted that what they called
the logical corollary
to opposition to radical
Arab nationalism is support
for Israel as a reliable
base for U.S. power in
the region. And Israel
is reliable because its
under threat, and therefore
it needs U.S. support,
which has another logical
corollary, that for the
U.S. interests,
its a good idea
for Israel to be under
threat. That essentially
continues, and a good
deal of the relationship
is based on the way that
context developed. If
there was time, I could
talk about it, but Ill
skip it.
Anyhow, we can thankfully
put the pretext aside
at this point, and just
look at the reasons which
are now on the table -
its the threat of
independent nationalism,
and in the case of the
Gulf region, thats
particularly important
because thats the
worlds major energy
reserves.
Well, the final consideration,
on to the topic, is that
the U.S. role is not the
only one, of course. Its
one factor in a complicated
mixture, but it is a decisive
factor, and crucially,
its the one factor
thats under our
control. We can directly
influence it. So, we can
bewail the terrible actions
of other people, but we
can do something about
our own actions. Thats
a rather critical difference,
in personal life and in
international affairs.
And its illuminating
to observe how much attention
is given to the crimes
of others, which most
of the time we cant
do anything about, and
compare it with the amount
of attention that is given
to our own crimes, which
we can do a great deal
about. Thats an
instructive comparison,
and if you take the trouble
to work it out, you learn
a lot about the intellectual
culture in which we live
and to which were
expected to contribute.
For that reason alone,
and its far from
the only one, we ought
to be discussing primarily
the U.S. role. And furthermore,
that role is little understood.
Its often just suppressed,
which is another reason
to focus on it.
Well, let me illustrate
the things that are happening
right at this moment.
The Intifada, the current
uprising, began on September
29th, that was the day
after General Ariel Sharon
appeared at the Haram
al Sharif with a lot of
troops. That event alone
was provocative, but it
probably would have gone
by without any reaction.
What happened the next
day, however, was different.
The next day is the Friday,
the day of prayers, and
there was a huge military
presence, mostly border
guards who were kind of
like the paramilitaries,
the ones you farm out
atrocities to, and they
were there in force, and
as people came out of
the Mosques, it was obviously
extremely provocative.
Some rock throwing took
place. They shot into
the crowds, killed four
or more people, wounded
over a hundred. And after
that, it just took off.
This is incidentally Barak,
not Sharon. Its
easy to blame Sharon,
and theres plenty
to blame on him for fifty
years of atrocities but
this happened to be Baraks
planning.
Let me just consider
one aspect of what has
gone on since, mainly
the use of helicopter
gunships. On October 1st,
right after this, Israel
military helicopters,
meaning U.S. helicopters
with Israeli pilots, killed
two Palestinians in Gaza.
On October 2nd, the next
day, they killed 10 Palestinians,
wounded 35 others in Gaza
at Netzarim, which if
you follow this closely,
youll notice is
the scene of many of the
major atrocities, including
the famous photo of the
12 year old boy who was
killed. Whats Netzarim?
Well, the fact is, Netzarim
is just an excuse to split
the Gaza Strip in two.
Theres a small settlement
south of Gaza, the only
purpose of which is to
require a big military
outpost to protect it,
and the military outpost
then requires a road,
a huge road, which cuts
the Gaza Strip in two,
so that separates Gaza
City, the main population
concentration, from the
Southern part of the strip,
and Egypt, and insures
that in any outcome, Gaza
will be imprisoned inside
Israel in effect. There
are other breaks down
farther South, but Netzarim
is the main one, and that
is where a lot of the
atrocities have been.
So this October 2nd killing
of 10 and wounding of
35 at Netzarim by helicopters
is just one of these many
incidents.
On October 3rd, the next
day, the Defense Correspondent
of Ha'aretz, which is
the major serious Hebrew
newspaper, reported the
largest purchase of military
helicopters in a decade
that means U.S.
military helicopters.
These were Blackhawks,
and spare parts for Apaches.
Apaches are the main attack
helicopters. These had
been delivered a few weeks
earlier. They were getting
spare parts, also jet
fuel.
The next day, October
4th, Janes Defence
Weekly, which is the major
military journal in the
world, the British military
journal, reported that
the Clinton administration
had further approved a
new sale of attack helicopters,
Apache attack helicopters,
because they had decided
that upgrading the ones
that they had just sent
would not be sufficient,
so they really had to
send new, more advanced
ones. The same day the
Boston Globe reported
that Apache attack helicopters
were attacking apartment
complexes with rockets,
again in Netzarim. The
international press agencies
at that time quoted Pentagon
officials, as saying,
and Im quoting a
Pentagon official, U.S.
weapon sales do not carry
a stipulation that the
weapons cannot be used
against civilians. We
cannot second guess an
Israeli commander who
calls in helicopter gunships.
Okay, so, the story so
far - U.S. helicopter
gunships are being used
to attack civilians, but
they arent advanced
enough, and Israel doesnt
have enough of them, so
therefore, the Clinton
administration had to
move in with the biggest
purchase in a decade.
Purchase means American
taxpayers pay for it in
some indirect fashion.
And then it had the next
day to extend it further,
sending them more advanced
Apache helicopters, and
theres no stipulation
going along with them
that they cant be
used against civilians.
Well, that carries us
up to October 4th.Then
come more and more attacks
on civilians, and Ill
skip them.
The first reference in
the U.S. press to any
of this is on October
12th. There was an opinion
piece in the Raleigh North
Carolina newspaper, which
said they thought this
was kind of a bad idea.
Thats also the last
reference to it in the
U.S. press, meaning the
only reference. Its
not that editors dont
know about this. Of course
they know about it. In
fact, it has been explicitly
brought to the attention
of editors of leading
newspapers, as if they
didnt know already.
And its not that
its unimportant,
because it is obviously
very important. Its
just the kind of news
thats not fit to
print. And thats
very typical, not only
in this part of the world,
but everywhere. Its
extremely important that
the public be kept in
the dark about whats
being done, because if
they know about it, theyre
not going to like it.
And if they dont
like it, they might do
something about it. So,
theres a grave responsibility
on the media, and on intellectuals
generally, the educational
system and so on, to ensure
that people are kept in
the dark about things
that its better
for them not to know,
like this for example.
And the task is carried
out with very impressive
dedication. This is not
an untypical example.
On October 19th, Amnesty
International published
a report condemning the
United States for providing
new military helicopters
to Israel. They were also
reporting the atrocities.
That was not reported
in the United States.
It was elsewhere.
On November 10th, Amnesty
International published
a much broader condemnation
of the excessive use of
force and terror, and
so on, that was barely
mentioned. So it continues.
Well, lets turn
to the question what can
we do? The answer is we
have choices. We can do
a lot. So, for example,
we can continue to provide
helicopter gunships and
other military support
to ensure that Israel
is able to attack civilians,
maintain a blockade, starve
them to death, and so
on. And we can provide
the funding that allows
Israel to continue to
integrate the occupied
territories within Israel
proper as it has been
doing, settlements, infrastructure,
etc. It doesnt matter
which government is in
office. It goes on under
Barak about the same way
it did under Netanyahu.
And its anticipated
to go on next year. The
budget provisions have
already been made for
next year. So we can continue
with that if wed
like. Or, we can act to
stop their participation
in these activities, which
is pretty straightforward.
It doesnt require
bombing or sanctions.
It just means stop participating
in atrocities, the easiest
thing to do. Thats
a choice. And, in fact,
we may even go further
and call them off, as
is pretty easily done
when a country has the
power that the United
States has. I gave a couple
of examples.
Well, if we decide on
the latter choice, which
is always open here and
elsewhere, theres
a prerequisite. The prerequisite
is that we know whats
going on. So you cant
make that choice, say
to stop providing military
helicopters (and you know
the helicopters are just
an illustration of a much
bigger picture) unless
you know about it. Again,
the grave responsibility
of the intellectual world,
the media, journals, universities,
and others, is to prevent
people from knowing. That
takes effort. Its
not easy. As in this case,
it takes some dedication
to suppress the facts
and make sure that the
population doesnt
know whats being
done in their name, because
if they do, they arent
going to like it, and
theyll respond.
Then you get into trouble.
Well, the very same applies
to the diplomatic record.
Let me turn to that. Lets
begin with the current
phase of diplomacy, what
started in September 1993,
thats the famous
Oslo process. In September
1993, there was a meeting
on the White House lawn,
very august, with the
Boston Globe having a
headline describing it
as a day of awe.
The Israelis and the Palestinians
agreed, under Clintons
supervision, to whats
called a Declaration of
Principles. There were
at that time a number
of issues, and its
crucial to understand
how the Declaration of
Principles dealt with
them.
Okay, so one issue, was
territory - whats
going to happen with the
occupied territories,
how they are going to
be assigned thats
issue number one.
Number two, is the issue
of national rights. Now
that issue only arises
for Palestinians. There
is no question in the
case of Israel, thats
just not in question and
hasnt been in question
at all. The only question
is what about the rights
of the Palestinians?
The third question is
what about the right to
resist? And do the Palestinians,
or the Lebanese for that
matter, have the right
to resist military occupation.
Thats the third
question.
The fourth question,
which is kind of a counterpart
to that, is whether the
occupying power (does
Israel, which means the
U.S. here) have the right
to attack in the occupied
territories and in Lebanon?
Those are the four main
questions.
There were answers in
the Declaration of Principles.
With regard to territory,
the Declaration of Principles
stated that the permanent
settlement would be on
the basis of UN 242, but
that raises a question.
What does UN 242 mean?
Here, we have to go to
the earlier diplomatic
record. Ill return
to it in a moment.
The second, with regard
to national rights, again,
is settled in terms of
UN 242. And anyone who
is paying attention in
September 1993 could see
exactly where this was
going. The Declaration
of Principles states that
the permanent settlement,
long term outcome, you
know, the end of the road,
will be based upon UN
242 alone. Now for 20
years, the issue in international
diplomacy had been the
rejectionism of UN 242.
Remember, UN 242 says
nothing about the Palestinians.
For 20 years there have
been a series of efforts
by the whole world to
supplement UN 242 to include
Palestinian rights alongside
the rights of Israel,
which were never in question.
That was the issue from
the mid-70s right
up until Oslo, and the
U.S. won flat out on that
one. Palestinian rights
are not to be considered.
Its just UN 242,
no Palestinian rights.
They are not mentioned
and thats the permanent
settlement. So, territories,
its UN 242, which
means what the U.S. decides
(Ill come back to
that), national rights
U.S. wins flat
out, the rest of the world
capitulates. What about
the right to resist?
Well, Arafat agreed at
the signing of the Declaration
of Principles to abandon
any right to resist, and
its taken for granted
that in Lebanon the population
also has no right to resist.
Its called terrorism
if they resist. Why did
Arafat have to state this?
He actually said it over
and over again. You know,
he made solemn pronouncements
to that effect over and
over, but the purpose
here was just pure humiliation.
You have to make sure
you humiliate the lower
breeds to make sure that
they dont get too
big for their britches.
George Schultz, Secretary
of State, who is considered
something of a dove, put
it pretty plainly. He
said its true that
Arafat has said unc, unc,
unc, and he said oh, oh,
oh, but he hasnt
said uncle, uncle, uncle
in a sufficiently submissive
tone, and we ought to
make sure that he does,
over and over again. Thats
the way you treat the
lower breeds. So, once
again, Arafat had to say
uncle, loudly and submissively,
and thank you Massa, and
sign a statement saying,
you know, once again,
we reject the right to
resist. Same in Lebanon,
it isnt even a question.
What about the fourth
question, the right to
attack? A counterpart
is Israels right
to attack. Well, theyve
retained that right, and
Israel continues to use
it repeatedly with U.S.
support before and after.
Notice that over this
period there is virtually
no defensive pretext,
contrary to what you read
in U.S. commentary. That
goes way back. But, contrary
to propaganda, almost
the entire series of U.S./Israeli
attacks, certainly in
the occupied territories,
but in Lebanon as well,
were not for any defensive
purpose. They were initiated.
That includes the 1982
invasion, and thats
no small matter. I mean,
its not considered
a big deal here, but during
the 22 years that Israel
illegally occupied Southern
Lebanon in violation of
Security Council orders
(but with U.S. authorization),
they killed about maybe
45,000 or 50,000 Lebanese
and Palestinians, not
a trivial number. This
included many very brutal
attacks going on after
the Oslo accords as well,
in 1983, 1986, and so
on.
Incidentally, you might
again want to compare
this with Serbia and Kosovo.
The comparison in this
case has to be kind of
like a thought experiment,
because it never happened.
But, imagine if Serbia
had been bombing Albania
to the extent that Israel
was bombing Lebanon, that
would be an analogy. It
didnt happen, but
you can just imagine what
the reaction would have
been. It tells you again
something about our values
and of the need to maintain
discipline on these issues,
so that people dont
think it through.
Well, the PLO accepted
all this, just abjectly.
Israel in return and the
Declaration of Principles
committed itself to absolutely
nothing. You should take
a look back at what happened
on the White House lawn,
on the day of awe.
Prime Minister Rabin made
a very terse comment,
a couple of lines, in
which, after Arafat agreed
to all of this stuff,
he said that Israel would
now recognize the PLO
as the representative
of the Palestinians
period. Nothing about
national rights. Nothing.
We just recognize you
as the representative
of the Palestinians, and
his Foreign Minister,
Shimon Peres, considered
a dove, explained why
right away in Israel,
in Hebrew. He said, well,
yeah, we can recognize
them now because theyve
capitulated, so there
is no problem in recognizing
them. They can now become
a kind of junior partner
in controlling the Palestinian
population, which follows
a traditional colonial
pattern.
Israel and the United
States had made a rather
serious error in the occupied
territories. Its
not a good idea to try
to control a subject population
with your own troops.
The way it is usually
done is, you farm it out
to the natives. Thats
the way the British ran
India for a couple of
hundred years. India was
mostly controlled by Indian
troops, often taken from
other regions, you know
like the Gurkhas and so
on. Thats the way
the United States runs
Central America, with
mercenary forces, which
are called armies, if
you can keep them under
control. Thats the
way South Africa ran the
Black areas. Most of the
atrocities are carried
out by Black mercenaries,
and in the Bantustans,
it was entirely Blacks.
Thats the standard
colonial pattern and it
makes a lot of sense.
If you have your own troops
out there, it causes all
kinds of problems. You
know, first of all they
suffer injuries, and these
are people who dont
like to feel good about
killing people, and their
parents get upset and
so on and so forth, but
if you have mercenaries
or paramilitaries, you
dont have those
problems. So, Israel and
the United States were
going to turn to the standard
colonial pattern and have
the Palestinian forces,
who in fact mostly came
from Tunis, control the
local population
control them economically
and politically, as well
as militarily. That was
the idea, a sensible reversion
to standard colonial practice.
Well, lets move
a little back to the earlier
diplomatic record, which
helps put all of this
in context. So, what about
the right to resist? The
right to resist military
occupation in the territories,
and in Lebanon? That actually
has been discussed in
the international community,
though you wouldnt
know it here. In December
1987, which was right
at the peak of all of
the furor about international
terrorism, you know, the
plague of the modern world,
and so on and so forth,
the UN General Assembly
considered and passed
a resolution condemning
terrorism very strongly,
you know, international
terrorism is the worst
crime there is, and had
all of the right wording
in it and so on and so
forth. The resolution
was passed 153 to 2, which
is actually pretty normal.
The two were the usual
ones, the United States
and Israel. One country
only abstained, Honduras,
for unknown reasons, so
it was essentially unanimous
except for the United
States and Israel. Now,
why would the United States
and Israel reject, and
that means veto since
its a U.S. vote
against, a resolution
denouncing terrorism?
Well, the reason is because
it contained one paragraph
which said that nothing
in this resolution prejudices
the right of people to
struggle against racist
and colonialist regimes
and foreign military occupation
and to gain the support
of others for their struggle
for freedom under these
conditions. Well that,
the U.S. wont accept
of course. For example,
that would have given
the A.N.C. in South Africa
the right to resist the
South African regime,
which is unacceptable.
It would have given the
Lebanese the right to
resist Israeli military
occupation and attacks
which cant be accepted,
and it would have extended
to the occupied territories
as well. So, therefore,
the U.S. and Israel rejected
it, and in fact, as usual,
it is vetoed from history.
It was never reported
here, it was never mentioned,
it might as well not exist
unless you read this in
the literature. Its
there, I mean if you go
to the UNs dusty
records you can find it.
But thats the right
to resist, which was blocked
by the United States in
1987 and is out of history.
What about the right
to attack? Well, that
exists by U.S. fiat, as
I mentioned during the
22 years of Israeli occupation
of Southern Lebanon. With
U.S. authorization, they
killed tens of thousands
of people, probably 40,000
to 50,000, and there are
plenty of atrocities,
terrorist iron fist operations
in 1985 for example. But,
its not only there.
The right extends much
further. So 1985 and 1986
are interesting years.
That was the peak of the
hysteria about international
terrorism, you know, the
top story and so on and
so forth. And, in fact,
there was plenty of international
terrorism in those years.
For example, in 1985 Israel
bombed Tunis, killing
75 people, Tunisians and
Palestinians, no pretext.
The United States publicly
backed it, although Schultz,
then Secretary of State,
backed off when the Security
Council condemned it unanimously
as an act of armed aggression,
namely a war crime, with
the U.S. abstaining. The
U.S. was directly involved.
The 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean
sort of pulled back so
that the Israeli planes
would be able to refuel
with the 6th Fleet pretending
not to notice them, and
the United States did
not warn Tunisia, an ally,
that this bombing attack
was coming. So thats
a major act of terrorism
outside the local area
of the Middle East, and
there are many others.
In fact, the main act
of terrorism in that year,
sort of garden variety
terrorism, was a car bombing
in Beirut which killed
80 people and wounded
about 200, set off by
the C.I.A., British Intelligence,
and Saudi Intelligence,
in an effort to kill a
Muslim cleric who they
missed, but they got a
lot of their people. It
was a car bombing right
outside a mosque, timed
to go off right when everybody
would be coming out, so
you get maximum killing
of civilians. Thats
there, but also not in
the annals of terrorism,
anymore than the bombing
of Tunis, or for example,
the U.S. bombing of Libya
the next year, which is
another act of armed aggression,
but considered okay.
I should say that Arab
opinion in the Middle
East, and here too, is
very misled about all
this in my opinion, pretty
clearly in fact. It very
consistently, if you read
it now or in the past,
claims that the United
States overlooks Israeli
terrorism because of the
Jewish influence or Jewish
lobby, or something like
that. And this is simply
untrue. Its missing
the fact that a much more
general principle applies
to this case and to many
others. The principle
is that the United States
has the right of terrorism
and that right is inherited
by its clients, and it
doesnt matter who
they are. So, Israel happens
to be a U.S. client, so
it inherits the right
of terror.
And you can see this
very easily in other parts
of the world. Just to
give one illustration
from a different part
of the world at the same
time, 1987, the State
Department conceded what
anyone paying attention
knew, that the U.S. terrorist
forces attacking Nicaragua
were being directed, commanded,
and trained to attack
what were called soft
targets, meaning defenseless
civilian targets, like
agricultural cooperatives
and health centers and
so on. And they were able
to do this because the
U.S. had total control
of the air, and surveillance,
and was able to communicate
the position of the Nicaraguan
army forces to the local
terrorist forces attacking
from Honduras, that they
could go somewhere else,
and so on. That was all
conceded publicly, but
nobody paid much attention
except those who are interested
in these things. But the
human rights groups did
protest. Americas Watch
protested against this,
and said this was really
awful.
And there was a response,
an interesting response
that you should read,
by Michael Kinsley, who
was a kind of representative
of the dovish left in
mainstream commentary,
and still is. He had an
article in which he pointed
out, speaking from the
dovish left, that its
perfectly true that these
terrorist attacks against
undefended targets, in
his words, caused
vast civilian suffering
but they may nevertheless
be sensible and legitimate,
and the way we decide
this is by carrying out
cost benefit analysis,
namely, and Im quoting
all through this, we have
to measure the amount
of blood and misery that
we will be pouring in
and compare it with the
outcome, you know, democracy
in our sense, meaning
ruled by the business
world with the population
crushed. And if the cost
benefit analysis comes
out okay, then its
right to pour in blood
and misery and cause vast
suffering. In short, aggression
and terror have to meet
a pragmatic criterion,
and we are the ones who
decide whether its
met, not anybody else,
and U.S. clients inherit
that right and
it doesnt have to
be Israel. It can be anybody
else. So, it can be Arabs
for example. Saddam Hussein
is a striking case. In
1988 remember, Saddam
Hussein was still a loyal
friend and ally, and thats
when he committed his
worst crimes, thats
the gassing of the Kurds,
and so on. The U.S. thought
that was okay and they
continued to support him.
They downplayed it, and
provided him with military
equipment, sent agricultural
assistance which he badly
needed. The Kurds were
in an agricultural region,
so Iraq was short of food,
so the Bush Administration
moved in and that continued.
In fact, Iraq, an Arab
state, was allowed to
do something that up until
then only Israel had been
allowed to do, mainly
attack a U.S. ship and
kill sailors. Iraq was
permitted to attack the
USS Stark, the destroyer,
and kill 37 crewmen with
missiles, and didnt
even get a tap on the
wrist. That means youre
really privileged if you
are allowed to do that.
Up until then, the only
country that had been
allowed to do that was
Israel in 1967 in the
case of the USS Liberty.
And remember, this is
an Arab state. That was
important. Again, nobody
pays much attention here,
but in the region people
paid attention. In particular,
Iran paid attention. This
was part of what convinced
Iran to capitulate to
Iraq as the U.S. wanted.
The other major event
that convinced Iran that
the U.S. was really serious
was the shooting down
of an Iranian airliner.
Killing 290 people by
an American warship in
Iranian airspace, it wasnt
even a problem. Again
its kind of fluffed
off here, not very important,
but for the Iranians,
that was important, and
they understood from these
acts that the U.S. was
going to go to any lengths
to ensure that Saddam
Hussein won, so they capitulated,
not a small point in the
politics of the region.
Here, people dont
want to think about it,
but elsewhere in the world
they do.
So, I think the thing
to be recognized is, contrary
to a lot of the Arab commentary
abroad and here, Washington
really is an equal opportunity
employer. That is, it
adheres pretty well to
a policy of non-discrimination
in advocacy of terror
and war crimes, and so
on. Other issues are involved,
not, you know, who you
are.
Well, lets go a
couple of steps back further,
to 242. Remember that
UN 242, the basic document
and the permanent settlement
according to the current
process, was strictly
rejectionist, nothing
for the Palestinians.
It was taken really seriously.
There was a threat of
war at the time, nuclear
war. It called for full
peace in return for full
withdrawal. There was
a deadlock. Israel refused
full withdrawal, the Arab
states refused full peace.
That deadlock was broken
in 1971, when President
Sadat of Egypt, who had
just come into office,
offered to accept the
official U.S. position.
So, he said, yeah, hell
accept full peace with
Israel in return for partial
withdrawal, didnt
even go as far as 242,
namely withdrawal from
Egyptian territory. So,
if Israel would withdraw
from the Sinai, Sadat
would agree to full peace.
Didnt say anything
about the Palestinians,
nothing about the West
Bank. Israel recognized
that officially in response
as a genuine peace offer.
Rabin in his memoirs later
called it a famous
milestone on the path
to peace.
Internally in Israel
it was understood that
they could have peace
at this point, general
peace. One of the leading
Labor Party officials,
a retired general, Haim
Bar-Lev, wrote in a Labor
Party journal at the time,
thats okay, with
this offer we can have
full peace. The conflicts
over, if we decide its
over, but I think we should
refuse, because if we
hold out, we can get more.
This would require us
to withdraw from the Sinai,
and I dont think
we have to. So therefore,
we should hold out and
abandon peace, and thats
what Israel did. Its response
was that it would not
withdraw to the pre-June
borders.
Well, the U.S. was then
in a dilemma. Should it
continue with its official
policy, the policy which
in fact it had initiated,
UN 242, or should it abandon
it, and that means siding
with Sadat-Egypt against
Israel, or should it abandon
its policy and side with
Israel against Egypt,
but that means rescinding
UN 242 in effect? And
there was an internal
conflict. The State Department
was in favor of keeping
to this policy. Kissinger,
National Security Advisor,
wanted what he called
stalemate, meaning no
diplomacy, no negotiations,
just force. And in the
internal conflict, Kissinger
won out. The U.S. effectively
rescinded UN 242, which
no longer exists and people
should understand that.
UN 242 now means what
the United States says
it means, as do other
things, thats the
meaning of power. It means
withdrawal, insofar as
the U.S. and Israel determine,
and thats what its
meant ever since. So when
Palestinians or Arab states
now complain that Israel
isnt living up to
242, they are just choosing
to ignore the historical
record and blindness is
not a helpful position
if you are in world affairs.
You might as well have
your eyes open. UN 242
since February 1971 does
not exist. It exists only
in the Kissingerian sense.
Now, here you have to
be a little nuanced, because
officially the U.S. continues
to endorse UN 242 in its
original sense. So you
can find statements by
Jimmy Carter and Ronald
Reagan, or you know speechwriters,
and George Bush, saying
yeah, we insist on 242
in its original sense.
You cant find statements
by Clinton. Clinton, I
think, is the first president
not even having given
lip service to it. But
the fact is that the lip
service is pure hypocrisy,
because while they are
adhering to it for public
purposes, they are also
providing Israel with
the wherewithal, the funds,
the military support,
the diplomatic support,
to violate it, namely
to act to integrate the
occupied territories within
Israel, so the endorsement
of it is hypocritical
and you should compliment
Clinton on having the
honesty simply to withdraw
it, in effect.
Well, that brings us
up to February 1971. The
United States has also
blocked all other UN resolutions,
except for one, UN resolution
194, December 11, 1948,
which called for the right
of return of refugees,
or a compensation. That
was technically endorsed
by the United States,
like they voted for it
at the UN every year,
but pure hypocrisy. And
again Clinton overcame
the hypocrisy. He withdrew
support for it. So the
last vote was unanimous
with Israel and the United
States opposed, and the
Clinton Administration
also declared all other
related UN resolutions
null and void. It will
now only be the Oslo process,
so thats honesty
again.
Sadat in 1971 made it
very clear, and continued
for several years, to
make it clear that if
the United States refused
to accept a negotiated
settlement, he would be
forced to go to war. Nobody
took him seriously. A
lot of racism here, it
was assumed that Arabs
didnt know which
end of the gun to hold
and that sort of thing.
Finally war came in 1973,
and it turned out to be
a very close thing, and
it scared everyone. There
was another near nuclear
confrontation and Israel
was in deep trouble for
awhile. And it was understood
that Egypt cant
just be written off. Theyre
not just a basket case.
So, Kissinger moved to
the natural fall back
position, namely exclude
Egypt from the conflict.
Its the only Arab
deterrent, so we cant
just ignore it, so exclude
it from the conflict,
then you get shuttle diplomacy.
In 1977, comes Sadats
famous trip to Jerusalem,
where he was hailed as
a kind of a saint for
being the first Arab leader
to be willing to talk
to Israel. In fact, in
Jerusalem, if you look
at his speech, it was
less forthcoming than
his offer in February
1971. In February 1971,
he offered full peace,
with nothing about the
Palestinians. In his trip
to Jerusalem, he insisted
on rights for the Palestinians.
But thats allowed
to enter history. February
1971 is out of history.
I mean you cant
even find it in the scholarly
literature. But, the trip
to Jerusalem is in history
because at that time the
U.S. was compelled to
accept the offer, whereas
in February of 1971 it
was able to reject the
offer. So one is out of
history, the other is
in history. Sadat is a
secular saint because
of his trip in 1977, not
because of his more forthcoming
offer in February 1971.
Well, that goes on to
Camp David in 1978 and
1979, under Carter, and
its considered a
grand moment of the peace
process. Israel did agree
to withdraw from Sinai
as Egypt had offered seven
years earlier, and the
U.S. at this point had
no choice but to agree.
The result, however, was
understood very clearly
in Israel. One leading
Israeli military strategic
analyst, Avner Yaniv,
pointed out right away
that the Camp David settlement
eliminates the only Arab
deterrent and therefore
allows Israel to continue
at will to integrate the
occupied territories into
Israel and to attack its
northern neighbor, to
attack Lebanon, with massive
U.S. support in both cases.
The Carter Administration
rapidly increased support
to more than half of the
total U.S. aid overseas,
to make sure that these
ends could be achieved.
Well, while all this
was going on, there was
another current. The international
consensus on the issue
had shifted. In 1967,
there was nothing for
the Palestinians, no Palestinian
rights. By the early 70s
that was changing. By
the mid-70s there
was an extremely broad
international consensus,
including just about everybody,
calling for Palestinian
national rights, alongside
of Israel. It included
the Russians, it included
Europe, it included Asia,
Latin America, virtually
everyone.
That came to a head in
January 1976, another
very important event,
crucial for understanding
whats happening
now, but out of history,
because it tells the wrong
story. You can find it,
but you know, its
out of history, again
even out of scholarship.
In January 1976, the United
Nations Security Council
considered a resolution
calling for a two state
settlement. It included
all the wording of UN
242, so everything about
Israels rights and
so on, but it added national
rights for the Palestinians
in the territories that
had been occupied, from
which Israel was to withdraw
according to the original
understanding of 242.
Well, what happened to
that? Well that resolution
was actually brought by
what are called the confrontation
states, Syria, Egypt,
and Jordan. It was strongly
supported by the PLO,
though they may have forgotten
that. In fact, I suspect
they have. But in fact
according to Israels
UN representative, Chaim
Herzog (later President),
the resolution was actually
prepared by the PLO. I
dont think thats
likely, but thats
what Israel perceives
at least. Anyhow, it was
certainly supported by
them, and by the confrontation
states, and indeed, by
virtually the entire world.
Maybe Khaddafi didnt
support it, I dont
remember, but essentially
the whole world supported
it.
And Israel and the United
States had to react. Israel
reacted in a typical way,
by bombing Lebanon. It
bombed Lebanon, killing
50 people in some village
that was chosen at random.
That was reported here,
but considered insignificant.
It was retaliation against
the United Nations, in
effect. The United States
reacted in a simpler way,
namely by vetoing the
resolution, so it was
vetoed by Carter, and
that means vetoed from
history. Remember, its
very common for the U.S.
to veto Security Council
resolutions. In fact,
its the champion
of the world by a long
shot. But they disappeared
from history as well.
Carter did the same thing
in 1980, same resolution.
But, meanwhile, the international
consensus persisted.
Here you can begin to
understand the significance
of the fact that the Declaration
of Principles in September
of 1993 referred to UN
242 and nothing else.
Because by then, there
is a whole raft of resolutions
vetoed by the U.S. at
the Security Council,
but passed at the General
Assembly, calling for
Palestinian national rights,
and they were not to be
part of the permanent
settlement under the U.S.
version of the peace process.
The General Assembly had
votes year after year,
I wont run through
the details, but their
wording varied a little
bit, but they were more
or less the same, you
know, kind of a two state
settlement, national rights
for both groups. The votes
were 150 to 2, or something
like that. Occasionally
the U.S. would pick up
another vote, from El
Salvador, or somebody,
but that was year by year,
essentially never reported.
They will, in fact, probably
never report it.
The last vote was December
1990, 144 to 2, and the
date is important. Shortly
after that, a couple of
weeks after, the United
States and Britain bombed
Iraq. Saddam, remember,
had shifted from loyal
friend and ally to reincarnation
of Hitler, not because
of any crimes, the crimes
were fine, but because
he had disobeyed orders,
or maybe misunderstood
orders, and thats
not permitted, so thats
a standard transition,
and therefore, you had
to get rid of the beast
of Baghdad, and you know,
its obvious where
the power was, so that
worked. During the bombing,
George Bush announced,
probably the coming of
the New World Order. He
defined it very simply.
What we say goes, said
it sort of clearly, certainly
with regard to the Middle
East. The rest of the
world understood that.
Everybody backed off.
Europe disappeared, the
Third World was in disarray,
Russia was gone.
At this point, the U.S.
could simply ram through
its own extreme rejectionist
position, and it did.
The Madrid conference
took place a few months
later, and then you go
straight on to Oslo. Then
come successive agreements
and the integration of
the territories continues
right through the Oslo
period. The various agreements
- its late so I
wont run through
them, authorize this,
the U.S. funds it, it
protects it diplomatically,
which brings us up to
Camp David and the year
2000.
Regarding the public
discussion about Baraks
remarkable offers and,
you know, forthcoming
this and that, and willing
to give away everything
- there is absolutely
no basis for any of that.
There was a focus on
Jerusalem, and for good
reasons. Jerusalem is
probably the easiest of
all of the problems to
solve, and for Clinton
and Barak it made good
sense to focus on Jerusalem
because then you would
divert attention away
from whats important,
namely whats going
on in the occupied territories,
the settlement, the infrastructure
development, the enclaves,
and so on. For Arafat
it also made good sense
to focus on Jerusalem
because he is desperately
eager to get support from
the Arab states, and the
Arab states dont
give a damn what happens
to the Palestinians. Their
populations may, but certainly
not the leaders. On the
other hand, they will
find it difficult to abandon
control over the religious
sites, because if they
do that, their populations
will blow up. So, by focusing
on the religious sites,
its kind of a negotiating
ploy for Arafat, so they
all focused on that, neglecting
the crucial problem, whats
gone on elsewhere.
I have a couple of Israeli
maps with me. These are
final status maps, you
know, what its supposed
to look like in the long
term. And what it looks
like in the long term,
briefly, is whats
called Jerusalem extends
all the way to the Jordan
river, so that splits
the West Bank in two,
with a substantial city,
Maale Adumim in
the middle and extension
all the way. There is
another break in the North
right through Samaria,
includes towns that are
settled there. Israel
keeps the Jordan river.
Jericho is isolated. You
end up with four Palestinian
camptowns, separated from
one another, separated
from Jerusalem, but theres
some hint that in the
long term, some meaningless
connection will be established
between them, but they
are essentially completely
controlled and surrounded.
Whats called Jerusalem
extends north of Ramallah,
and south of Bethlehem.
If you look at the map,
thats the area which
splits the northern and
central and southern settlement
areas. Its kind
of modeled on South Africas
policies in the early
60s. The population
concentrations should
be under local administration,
but everything else is
taken over by the dominant
power, the resources,
the useable land, and
so on. And there is massive
infrastructure developments
that sort of lie behind
this.
The U.S. is paying for
all of it, of course.
Thats the marvelous
offer that was given.
And apart from whats
talked about, what actually
counts, of course, is
whats happening
on the ground. And whats
happening on the ground
has been implementing
this. Finally you cant
spend half a day driving
through the West Bank
without seeing it. Its
a little harder to drive
through Gaza, because
its usually closed
off, but essentially the
same thing is happening
there.
And the situation is
extremely serious. Right
through the occupation
from 1967 to 1993, Israel
was making sure, and again,
when I say Israel, I mean
the United States, was
making sure that there
would be no development
in the occupied territories.
So, right after 1993,
when Israeli journalists
who had covered the territories
were finally able to go
to Jordan, they were shocked
by what they saw and they
wrote about it in the
Hebrew press. Jordan is
a poor country, and Israel
is a rich country. Before
the 1967 war, the populations
in Jordan and the Palestinian
populations were pretty
comparable, in fact, there
was more development in
the West Bank. By 1993,
it was totally different.
In the poorer country
Jordan, there were agricultural
development, universities,
schools, roads, health
services, all sorts of
things. In the West Bank
there was essentially
nothing. The people could
survive by remittances
from abroad, or by doing
dirty work in Israel,
but no development was
allowed, and that was
very shocking to Israeli
reporters, and it is also
backed up in the statistics.
The most important work
on this topic, if you
want to learn about, is
by Sara Roy, a researcher
at Harvard who has spent
an awful lot of time in
the Gaza Strip. Just to
give you a couple of her
figures, current ones,
in 1993 electric power
usage in the West Bank
and Gaza was two thirds
that of Egypt, half that
of Jordan and those
are poorer countries,
remember. Israel is a
rich country. Sanitation
and housing in the West
Bank and Gaza was about
25 percent for Palestinians,
50 percent in Egypt, and
100 percent in Jordan,
and the figures run through
that way. GDP, per capita,
and consumption per capita
declined and then it got
worse. After 1993, its
been the worst. So GDP,
per capita, and consumption
per capita have dropped,
according to her, about
15 percent in the West
Bank and Gaza since 1993
- thats even with
large foreign assistance
pouring in, from Europe,
mostly.
Its gotten worse
in other respects. Up
until 1993, the U.S. and
Israel permitted humanitarian
aid to come into the territories.
UN humanitarian aid was
permitted into the West
Bank and Gaza. In 1993,
that was restricted. This
is part of the peace process.
After Oslo, heavy customs
duties were imposed, lots
of other restrictions
were imposed, you know
various kinds of harassment.
Now, its blocked.
Right now, humanitarian
aid is blocked. The UN
is protesting, but it
doesnt matter. If
the UN protests the blocking
of humanitarian aid, and
it doesnt register
here, it doesnt
matter. And it doesnt
register here because
its not reported.
So, they can say, yeah
the Israelis are stopping
humanitarian aid from
coming in, and people
are starving, and so on,
but what does it matter
as long as people in the
United States dont
know about it. They can
know in the Middle East,
they can know in Europe,
but it makes no difference.
These are our choices
again.
For the Palestinians
themselves, they are under
a dual repression, very
much like the Bantustans
again, the repression
of Israel and the United
States, and then the repression
of the local mercenaries
who do the work for the
foreigner, and enrich
themselves. Its
again a standard, colonial
pattern. Anyone who has
ever taken a look at the
Third World sees it.
As for the goals of Oslo,
they were stated very
nice and neatly by one
of the leading Israeli
doves, who is now the
Minister of Security in
the Barak government,
and a temporary foreign
minister, known as an
academic dove, Shlomo
Ben-Ami. In an academic
book, 1998, so before
he got into the government,
he described the goals
of Oslo as to impose what
he called a permanent
neo-colonialist dependency
in the West Bank and Gaza.
And thats pretty
much accurate, thats
what the U.S. has been
aiming for through the
peace process - period.
As for the population,
its kind of hard
to improve on a description
by Moshe Dayan about 30
years ago. He was in the
Labor Party, and among
the Labor Party leaders,
he was one of those most
noted for his sympathetic
attitude towards Palestinians,
and also his realism.
And he described what
Israeli policy ought to
be, U.S. policy as well.
He said the Palestinians
should live like dogs
and whoever wishes may
leave, and well
see where this leads.
Reasonable policy, and
thats U.S. policy
as well, and it will continue
that way as long as we
agree to permit it.
Updated: Feb 8, 2001
Link
to the original site
|