The betrayal of Gaza

The US is vocal about its commitment to peace in Israel and the Palestinian territories — but its ac

By Noam Chomsky Published 08 November 2010

That the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange. For many of the world's conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement. In this case, not only is it possible, but there is near-universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognised (pre-June 1967) borders - with "minor and mutual modifications", to adopt official US terminology before Washington departed from the international community in the mid-1970s.

The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (which call for the full normalisation of relations), the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (including Iran) and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas). A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the UN Security Council in January 1976 and backed by the major Arab states. Israel refused to attend. The United States vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980. The record at the General Assembly since is similar.

But there was one important and revealing break in US-Israeli rejectionism. After the failed Camp David agreements in 2000, President Clinton recognised that the terms he and Israel had proposed were unacceptable to any Palestinians. That December, he proposed his "parameters": imprecise but more forthcoming. He then stated that both sides had accepted the parameters, while expressing reservations.

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met in Taba, Egypt, in January 2001 to resolve the differences and were making progress. At their final press conference, they reported that, with more time, they could probably have reached full agreement. Israel called off the negotiations prematurely, however, and official progress was then terminated, though informal discussions at a high level continued, leading to the Geneva Accord, rejected by Israel and ignored by the US. Much has happened since but a settlement along those lines is still not out of reach, if Washington is once again willing to accept it. Unfortunately, there is little sign of that.

The US and Israel have been acting in tandem to extend and deepen the occupation. Take the situation in Gaza. After its formal withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Israel never relinquished its total control over the territory, often described as "the world's largest prison".

In January 2006, Palestine had an election that was recognised as free and fair by international observers. Palestinians, however, voted "the wrong way", electing Hamas. Instantly, the US and Israel intensified their assault against Gazans as punishment for this misdeed. The facts and the reasoning were not concealed; rather, they were published alongside reverential commentary on Washington's dedication to democracy. The US-backed Israeli assault against the Gazans has only intensified since, in the form of savage violence and economic strangulation. After Israel's 2008-2009 assault, Gaza has become a virtually unliveable place.

It cannot be stressed too often that Israel had no credible pretext for its attack on Gaza, with full US support and illegally using US weapons. Popular opinion asserts the contrary, claiming that Israel was acting in self-defence. That is utterly unsustainable, in light of Israel's flat rejection of peaceful means that were readily available, as Israel and its US partner in crime knew very well.

Truth by omission

In his Cairo address to the Muslim world on 4 June 2009, Barack Obama echoed George W Bush's "vision" of two states, without saying what he meant by the phrase "Palestinian state". His intentions were clarified not only by his crucial omissions, but also by his one explicit criticism of Israel: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."

That is, Israel should live up to Phase I of the 2003 "road map", rejected by Israel with tacit US support. The operative words are "legitimacy" and "continued". By omission, Obama indicates that he accepts Bush's vision: the vast existing settlement and infrastructure projects are "legitimate". Always even-handed, Obama also had an admonition for the Arab states: they "must recognise that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning but not the end of their responsibilities". Plainly, however, it cannot be a meaningful "beginning" if Obama continues to reject its core principle: the implementation of the international consensus. To do so, however, is evidently not Washington's "responsibility" in his vision.

On democracy, Obama said that "we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election" - as in January 2006, when Washington picked the outcome with a vengeance, turning at once to the severe punishment of the Palestinians because it did not like the results of a peaceful election. This happened with Obama's apparent approval, judging by his words before and actions since taking office. There should be little difficulty in understanding why those whose eyes are not closed tight shut by rigid doctrine dismiss Obama's yearning for democracy as a joke in bad taste.

Extracted from "Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel's War Against the Palestinians" by Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappé (Hamish Hamilton, £14.99.

To buy the book at a special offer price of £11.99, call 08700 707 717, quoting "NS/Gaza" and the ISBN 978-0-241-14506-7

117 comments

Mon, 2010-11-08 21:06 — writeon1

One would think that Chomsky was expressing some outrageous, rabiate, opinions, to read some of the close to hysterical comments expressed here.

As I come from a simlar ethnic background to Chomsky, I have a tendency to feel and agree with a lot of his analysis. He seems a paragon of moderation to me.

Unfortunately I think the time has probably passed for what he terms a "solution" to the conflict, though some miracle could happen, if it's possible it should happen soon, before it's too late.

I fear the time for a two state solution has bled into the sand. It's over. The alternative is pretty terrible though. A vicious, ultra-Zionist, apartheid state, stretching from the sea to the Jordan, and more ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian minority before their population reaches parity with the Israelis, which will happen in few decades, and will put paid to the Zionist fantasy of a Greater Israel as an exclusively "Jewish" state for ever.

It was always nuts to think that one could invade Palestine, expell its people, and create a Jewish state by military force in the heart of the Middle East, and that this state could remain stable given the demographics of the region and the existance of the Palestinian people, who refuse to simply disappear, or allow their culture to be wiped off the map, to coin a phrase.

But what kind of state will Israel be if it attempts to rule over a growing and subjugated Palestinian minority for ever? But of course this cannot happen, because the Palestinians are soon going to be the majority. How will the Zionists deal with these people? Do they have some secret, final solution, to the Palestinian question, which can only be achieved through more civil war?

The only real chance for "peace" in the area is for Israel to pull back and be satisfied with a country inside the 1967 borders, but who really believes the millitant Zionists, with their crazy dreams of a Greater Israel are ready to do that? Every new and expanded settlement is a nail in the coffin of that solution. What's tragic is that the alternatives are so awful.

Zionism has created a mirror-image of itself in Hamas and Hezbollah. A dedicated, competent, and ideologically pure, "Spartan" militia, inspired by Zionist methods and successes. There's true historic irony here.

So what will the new state of Palestine/Israel look like, the one-state "solution."? Well, when the millions of Palestinians return to their homes, it'll obviously have a large Palestinian majority, one cannot deny the demographics of the region for ever. And this is going to be a real challenge for Zionism and Israel, because if peace existed in the new state, in time, the two peoples will "merge" into one another through mutual assimilation and a new people will eventually emerge, hopefully leaving in peace and prosperity with one another.

Wed, 2010-11-10 12:26 — Robin Hood (not verified)

Hasbara-Hans is using Hamas as a straw man against critics of Israel. Just as it's creator Israel intended it to be. It's the very same reason they sponsored Abu Nidal, and the reason behind all the false flags they've done. He either has a very poor grasp of logic, or is deliberately being deceptive and low-down.

Since he keeps droning on about Hamas, WHICH I DO NOT SUPPORT, here is a question for him: Gaza is under siege and being attacked almost daily, so why does anyone think that they can currently mount and fund elections, never mind want to? Historically, elections have either been delayed or cancelled at times of war. Just more one rule for us, and one rule for them BS.

More shades of the Warsaw Ghetto:
"Policy of Deliberate Reduction"
http://www.gisha.org/index.php?intLanguage=2&intItemId=1904&intSiteSN=113

Wed, 2010-11-17 13:52 — dfdfflin

====== http://www.tinyurl.com/23wkoeq ====

Wed, 2010-11-10 12:57 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

@Writeon you have wrote:

1. 'I haven't really a clue what "Zionism" is anymore, or for that matter what "Jewish" is either. "

2. 'Zionism in its extremists form, is there any other? is a terribly dangerous form of nationalist, ethnic, mythology.'

Does this strike you as being contradictory?

You say what it you think it is and then you say you don't know what it is. Make up your bloody mind.

And 'nationalist ethnic mythology' .. what exactly are you are talking about? In what way is Zionism this? Why is it this? You are so vague. That's what I'm getting at: you're imprecise so it is impossible to know what you are actually saying.

Another example, you say:

'Two simple, easy, questions. Clear and direct. Have a go, please?'

In your text there are 11 questions. Eleven, count them. There are eleven question marks, that makes eleven questions not two. Imprecise.

And please stop trying to avoid people's questions by playing a return question (take a look at the number of questions you have it your texts). Or you try to play the 'premise' card.

I have no idea about the different accords or details of the peace processes nor do I know much about the present or future demographics of Israel. I'm quite ignorant about the situation. I freely admit this unlike other people (you for instance).

But I do know when people are avoiding answering questions (you for instance) or talking garbage (you for instance) or taking a position because they have a set political position and it is expected that they follow everyone else with the same political stance ('Oh I'm left wing so Zionists are bad and Hamas is OK . cos that what everyone else is saying). To me you seem like another leftwing airhead.

Mon, 2010-11-08 22:01 — Hans Castorp (not verified)

As usual, writeon characterises other comments as hysterical, just because they disagree, and rise above the uniformly drab, sententious tone of his own contributions.

His other daft tactic is to characterise polemicists as moderate. I don;t think describing Obama as view on democracy a "joke in bad taste" - or, as Pilger sees him, a "glossy Uncle Tom" - as particularly moderate. But that depends on how far out the side of the verkrappt left you hang.

"Zionism has created a mirror-image of itself in Hamas and Hezbollah." This is, in strong field, the stupidest sinle thing I have read about Israel/Palestine in some time. These organisations are proxies of Iran. What on earth are you talkingn about?

What drivel the one state solution is, and so completely ignorant of history. Will the Palestinians also be happy to have all the Jews return that were expelled forcibly in 1947 and 1948? To suggest so would be a "joke in bad taste".

I note, writeon, that you do not deal with Chomsky's euphemising of Hamas, who are no fans of "mutual assimilation".
But then, you are comfortable with slurring Israel with the crummy old trick that is the Nazi comparison - "Do they have some secret, final solution, to the Palestinian question" - a method you share with Hamas, who also use routinely throughout their charter.

Speculating on a final solution - how tasteless! Or moderate, depending on your point of view.

Tue, 2010-11-09 16:59 — Zole (not verified)

At the very top of this thread, I predicted the Neo-Con brigade would indulge in a propaganda-frenzy.

And so - with almost depressing inevitability - it has come to pass.

Let's take a look at some of Chomsky's core arguments and then compare them with the counter-arguments and associated evidence deployed by Castorp, Luddite and their chums:

(1) (A) Chomsky: For the past quarter century, the international community has held to a consensus on how to resolve the Israel/Palestine conflict: a two-state settlement based on full Israeli withdrawal to its pre-June 1967, internationally-recognised borders.

This consensus includes the Arab States, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (including Iran), and the relevant non-state actors (PA / Hamas and so on). Based on UN 242 and other resolutions, this settlement, first proposed in 1976, was backed by the major Arab States and the PLO, opposed by Israel and vetoed (twice - 1976/1980) by the US. Since then, the Arab League has regularly proposed Arab and Saudi Peace Plans on terms even more favourable to Israel - always rejected outright by the latter.

The nations of the World in the UN General Assembly continue to vote overwhelmingly year after year for this Internationally-agreed settlement, always rejected outright by Israel with the tacit support of the US.

(B) Counter-argument from Castorp, Luddite and chums: None.

(2) (A) Chomsky: The one important break in Us/Israeli rejectionism was Taba 2001. Two sides close to agreement but Israel prematurely terminates official negotiations (they were unilaterally suspended by Barak, who subsequently repudiated the legacy of Taba, as did incoming PM Sharon).

(B) Counter-argument from Castorp, Luddite and chums: None.

(3) (A) Chomsky: After Taba, informal discussions continued, leading to the Geneva Accord - rejected by Israel and ignored by the US.

(B) Counter-argument from Castorp, Luddite and chums: HC "...rubbish. It was slated by Sharon...though approved by other Israeli politicians and - with qualifications - greeted warmly by the Bush Administration. To read Chomsky, here, you would think the accord died in 2003 when it did nothing of the sort."

(D) My response: The Israeli Government remains on record as strongly opposing the Geneva Accord. When Chomsky talks about "Israel" in this connection he is, of course, (as Hans well knows !), talking about the Israeli Government. Sharon wasn't some bit-player, it was HIS government at the time, for christsakes !!! Bush did the usual diplomatic mumbling at first - with strong reservations - but, of course, the Accords play no role whatsoever in US plans. Indeed, Bush came to outrage the world by fully accepting the settlements - in direct opposition to the very heart of the Accords.

I could go on, but I just aint got time at the moment.

Suffice to say, Castorp's feeble response to Chomsky's incisive demonstration of more than a third of a century of Us/Israeli rejectionism seems to consist of:

(1) Hamas should have had another election by now.
(2) You're all Jew-Haters !!! because you won't tell me whether you "like" Hamas or not !!!
(3) You're all part of the "verkrappt" Left !!!
(4) Despite all the evidence to the contrary - and a consensus among leading historians to the contrary - there was, in fact, no Israeli Ethnic-Cleansing of Palestinians, but rather just "massive movements of people" (Any sort of people in particular ? Well, Hans is a little vague on this, and probably believes that it's all just best forgotten).
(5) The problem is not the Racist-Zionist attitudes of Jewish Israeli political and military elites, no it's simply all the fault of Russians pretending to be Jews and the 1 % threshold for Parliament.

Mon, 2010-11-08 22:19 — avzssxfv

Then came 1948 and the great partition. The United Nations proposed the creation of two states in the region – one Jewish, one Arab. The Jews accepted it gratefully. The Arabs rejected it with a vengeance and declared war.

It's a great big lie that the Israelis displaced anyone – one of a series of lies and myths that have the world on the verge of committing yet another great injustice to the Jews.

That's true. In the Six-Day War, Israel captured Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. But they didn't capture these territories from Yasser Arafat. They captured them from Jordan's King Hussein. I can't help but wonder why all these Palestinians suddenly discovered their national identity after Israel won the war.

The truth is that Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. The first time the name was used was in 70 A.D. when the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smashed the Temple and declared the land of Israel would be no more. From then on, the Romans promised, it would be known as Palestine. The name was derived from the Philistines, a Goliathian people conquered by the Jews centuries earlier. It was a way for the Romans to add insult to injury. They also tried to change the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, but that had even less staying power.

Mon, 2010-11-08 22:20 — Mrs Nobody

Thank you NS for printing Chomsky's clear eyed view of the world in the Middle East.

As others have said above there are far too few truth seekers in print but many of us are alive and kicking in the silent majority.

Mon, 2010-11-15 15:22 — Zole (not verified)

"You seem to have a lot of sympathy for people who apologise for terrorist thugs who use local civilian populations as human shields."

More Bullshit from Hasbara-Hans - unless, of course, he's actually referring to Israel, the only terrorist thugs in the region to methodically use human shields again and again and again (read the UN and leading Human Rights organisations' reports, Hasbara-Hans, rather than simply mindlessly regurgitating the latest Israeli Government spin).

Finkelstein is a superb, forensic scholar who has done more than almost anyone to demolish the black Israeli propaganda that you so diligently promote, Hasbara-Hans. You're really not fit to lick the guy's boots.

Mon, 2010-11-08 22:22 — Marcella (not verified)

Hans Castrop,
At the core of zionism is the idea of "transfer" either voluntary or forced from the desired territory. This has been espoused by Ben Gurion in 1948, Moshe Dayan in 1967 and currently by Lieberman.

What is so shocking is that a great many Israel's now believe in this policy.