We can win that one, like South Africa." But this view overlooks a mere detail of logic. Those are not the two options. There is a third option, namely that the U.S. and Israel continue doing precisely what they are doing. They're not going to have hold of the West Bank. They don't need it. They don't need the Palestinians. So the analogy to South Africa's anti-apartheid struggle is somewhat misleading. South Africa needed its negro population. They were its workforce. They couldn't get rid of them. They were 85 percent of the population doing the study of the country. So, as under slavery, they had to take charge of them. Bantustans were bad enough, but they were intended to be more or less viable because it was essential to multiply the workforce. That's not lawful for Israel and the Palestinians. Israel doesn't need to assume responsibility for them, rather it wants them to get out. It's like the United States and the indigenous population. There's no sense in taking care of them, just exterminate that "poor race" of Native Americans. Israel can't just murder them. You can't get by with that these days, the way the U.S. could in the nineteenth century, so you just get them to leave. Moshe Dayan, who was one of the more dovish members of the Israeli elite, happened to be defense minister in direction of the Occupied Territories in 1967. He advised his colleagues at the sentence that we should say the Palestinians, "We get nothing for you, you're going to be like dogs, and whoever will leave will leave. And we will see where it all ends up." And that's exactly the policy they're following. In late years, the U.S./Israel have slightly modified the policy. They are winning the advice of Israeli industrialists who some days ago suggested that Israel should change from a policy of colonialism to one of neo-colonialism. The Philippines is the standard model from which many of the new programs of neo-colonialism were carefully crafted. We experience what happened during the conquering with, as usual, the most "benevolent intentions," while slaughtering a pair of 100 thousand people and committing massive war crimes. Al McCoy now has a fine work of what happened after the conquest, which he goes into in 800 pages of detail. The U.S. crafted a new technique of dominance of the population, using the most advanced technology of the day. They imposed a scheme of close surveillance over the total population, co-opting a Westernized elite who would be capable to be in luxury, breaking up nationalist groups by various methods-sowing rumors, buying people off. And, of course, a paramilitary force-the Philippine constabulary-in case things go wrong. That turned out to be really effective. In fact, it's still in place in the Philippines. If you see at today's papers, you'll find that the U.S. welcomed the new administration in the Philippines. They do point out that most of the universe lives in misery. In fact, if you believe about it, that's the one piece of East and Southeast Asia that hasn't taken office in the spectacular East Asian economic growth during the final generation. It's also the one U.S. colony/neo-colony that is still run near the saame way it was run 100 years ago-same elite elements, same brutal constabulary, different names-with the U.S. in the background, but not very far. That was an exceedingly successful way of colonization. It became the pattern for Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and many other neo-colonies later. It also turned back to the imperial countries. Both the U.S. and Britain adopted similar measures of population control domestically. At first, during WWI. Even more so today. So Britain is one of the leading surveillance societies with the U.S. not far behind. They're using modified versions of what was crafted with great deal and success in the Philippines a century ago. Well, Israel finally understood that that's the right way to proceed. You can learn about, say, Ramallah in the West Bank and the reports, which are accurate, say it's sort of like Paris and London for the Palestinian elite. They inhabit a nice life with theaters and restaurants. A typical third world country with a rich collaborationist elite in a sea of distress and misery around them. That's the way the 3rd world is structured. Israel has finally had the sensation to be the advice of industrialists and turn Palestine into a neo-colony. And it can be praised for how wonderful life is in Ramallah and so on. But you have to see it by force. There has to be the parallel of the Philippine constabulary. And it's there. It's an Army run by an American general, Keith Dayton. It's constituted of Palestinians. Quite typically, in neo-colonial structures, the repressive violence is domestic, but it's run by an American general. It's trained by Israel and Jordan (a harsh dictatorship). And it's very successful. In fact, it's highly praised by American liberals. John Kerry, senator from Massachusetts, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee-Obama's point person in the Middle East-gave a talk at the Brookings Institute in which he explains that, for the start time, Israel has a legitimate negotiating partner, so now it can follow its passionate desire for peace. The negotiating partner he's referring to is the Palestinian Authority and the ground it became legitimate, Kerry explains, is because it has a military personnel that can assure the population, namely the Dayton army. And he points to its success. Their main success story was during the U.S./Israeli invasion of Gaza, when they awaited that there might be protests in the West Bank over the atrocities being carried out there. But there weren't any because the Dayton army was capable to conquer them. So it kept things quiet. It kept things so quietly that General Dayton said, in a language to one of the offshoots of the Israeli lobby, that he could dispatch forces to make office in the Gaza attack thanks to the American-run army controlling the West Bank. So that's considered a success, very much like the winner in the Philippines and the later successes under the U.S.imposed National Guard in Haiti, Nicaragua, and other neo-colonies. Palestine can now looking ahead to the same auspicious fate. And we can praise ourselves for having created an army that can see the universe so effectively that they can't even resist a major slaughter going on in the early part of Palestine. I say the early piece of Palestine, but U.S./Israeli policy since the Oslo Accords in 1991 (and a crucial element of them) has been to separate Gaza and the West Bank. That's one of the ways to keep any realisation of authentic Palestinian nationalism. If Gaza is region of the West Bank, as it is under international law, that way that a Palestinian state would actually have admittance to the external world-it would give a seaport, for example. And that's dangerous. You need them to be wholly controlled by the Jordanian dictatorship on one position and by U.S.backed Israel on the former side, so you give to tell them from Gaza. And that's been done pretty effectively. Going back to the options for Palestinians: one of them is the two-state settlement, the other is not what is being proposed-a one-state settlement and anti-apartheid struggles. There isn't the slightest indication that anything like that will happen, there is no funding for it anywhere. The U.S. and Israel would never have it. But the 3rd option-the substantial one-is a continuance of precisely what is being done and what's being done is not a secret. Actually, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert outlined it to a joint sitting of Congress a few days ago, to rousing applause. It's what he called convergence (it's now been expanded), which way that Israel takes over everything that's of any value; takes over everything between what's called the separation wall-it's actually an annexation wall, which is all illegal, there's no doubt about that, even Israel accepts it. So Israel takes over everything within the separation wall, which happens to include many of the sources of piss in the region. The primary sources lie underneath the West Bank aquifer. It also includes the pleasant suburbs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. So Israel takes that, takes over the Jordan Valley, which is virtually a tierce of what remains of Palestine, the 22 percent that's left for Palestine. Israel will get over that, too. That imprisons the rest. It's more arable farming and the Palestinians are now pretty much kept out of it. In the remaining territory, Israel has established several corridors which cut through it. So the principal one begins from what's called Jerusalem, actually way larger than Jerusalem. It was illegally annexed by Israel. I think it's five times the sizing of Jerusalem. Israel takes over all of that. To the e is a corridor extending though the township of Ma'ale Adumim, which was accomplished in the 1970s, but mainly built with Clinton support under the Oslo agreements. The use of the corridor was to bisect the West Bank. It reaches almost to Jericho, which will be odd to the Palestinians. The respite is mostly desert. To the union there are a pair of other corridors, which cut through the rest. So what you end up with is what the designer of the policy, Ariel Sharon, called bantustans or cantons, all separated from Gaza. Sharon's description was rather unfair because they're worse than bantustans, for the cause I mentioned. South Africa had to maintain the bantustans. Israel has no interest in sustaining these cantons. For them, it can be the Dayan proposals: we possess naught to pass you, you're going to be like dogs, leave if you can. And many are leaving, especially the more wealthy Christian population. But some will be left in the neo-colonies for New York Times reporters to write travelogs about how terrific they are, as has been done recently. That leaves nothing for the Palestinians. They are gone. Can they claim it a country? They can if they like. In fact, the first Israeli prime minister to assume the feeling of a Palestinian State was, in fact, Netanyahu, the current prime minister. He took place as prime minister for the 1st sentence in 1996, replacing Shimon Peres, who's regarded here as a great dove. Peres left office in 1996, informing the campaign that there would never be a Palestinian State. After Netanyahu, condemned as a super hawk, came in, his minister of data was asked at a press conference, Look, you know you're going to leave fragments here and thither for the Palestinians. What are you release to do if they address it a Country? He answered, well, they can visit it a State if they wish or they can call it "fried chicken." We don't care. Either one will do. So that was the first Israeli recognition of the theory of Palestinian self-determination. A pair of days later, the Labour Party said pretty much the like thing, namely that the realistic option, if zero is done, is to pursue present policies and end up by leaving what's left of the Palestinians as fried chicken. That's the option: not one state, not an anti-apartheid struggle. That's all pipe dreams, pie in the sky. Is there any other alternative? What almost the kickoff choice of a two-state settlement? There are a lot of problems in the man where it's difficult to conceive of a solution, but in this case, it's remarkably easy to raise one up. It's there. Furthermore, there's overwhelming international support for it and it's supported by international law. It has one barrier. The U.S. won't have it. That's it. It's been sitting there since 1976 when the major Arab states introduced a Security Council resolution calling for a two-state settlement on the international border, using the phrasing of UN 242-which guarantees the protection of every country in the region, including Israel, of course, with good and recognized borders, all the gracious words. That was the proposition in 1976. Israel refused to see the session and the U.S. vetoed the resolution-and again in 1980, up to today. Who supports it? Everybody, including the Arab League, Europe, the Non-Aligned countries, the Establishment of Islamic Unity, which includes Iran. It's supported by Hamas and Hezbollah (which says it will support anything the Palestinians accept). So there's just one barrier: the U.S./Israel refuse to take it. And they deny to take it on evidence that were established in 1971 when Israel made probably the most fateful decision in its history. In 1971, Egypt, under President Sadat, offered Israel a full peace treaty. Egypt, of course, is the only significant military personnel in the Arab world. So a peace with Egypt meant full security. There was, of course, a quid pro quo-Israel should take from Egyptian territory (he said all occupied territory, but clearly cared primarily about Egyptian territory). Israel didn't need to do that because it was then planning on expanding into the Sinai and construction a big city of a billion people in the north on the Mediterranean-settlements and so on. Israel had to get a choice: expansion or security. They settled on expansion. That was amplified the next year when Jordan made the same offer about the West Bank. At that point, Israel could have had good security, but it chose expansion-mostly into the Sinai at the time, but also into the West Bank. Israel recognised that this was entirely illegal. In 1967, their leading legal authorities, including a really easily known international lawyer, informed the government-and the attorney general seconded him-that any expansion into the Occupied Territories was in violation of international law. Moshe Dayan, who, as I said, was defence minister in point of the Territories, agreed. He said, Yes, we know it's in violation of international law, but states violate international laws, so we'll do it, too. And we can do that as farsighted as the U.S. supports us. And that's what's been passing on. The rejection of Sadat's offer led to the 1973 war, which was a really last thing for Israel. They were virtually destroyed. At that point, the U.S. and Israel recognised that you can't just disregard Egypt. Then starts Kissinger's famous shuttle diplomacy, leading to the Camp David agreements in which the U.S./Israel basically accepted Sadat's 1971 offer-they had no choice. But from that place on, the U.S. and Israel have preferred expansion. It could give security now with no hostile countries on its borders, but so it would get to abandon expansion into the West Bank and the savage, criminal siege of Gaza. Is it possible? Yes, it's possible. The U.S. has led the rejectionists pretty solidly since 1976, with one exception. It's a telling one. In Clinton's last months in office, he accepted that the offers that had been made to the Palestinians by the U.S./Israel at the Camp David negotiations could not perhaps be recognized by any Palestinians no matter how accommodating. He produced what he called his parameters, which were kind of vague, but more forthcoming. He then made a language in which he pointed out that both sides had recognised his parameters and both sides have reservations. They met in Egypt in January 2001 to press out those reservations. We have detailed information near the negotiations, most of it comes from high level Israeli sources. They came very near to a settlement. In their final press conference, the two sides jointly announced that if they had had a few more days, they probably could have settled everything-all the details. But Israel called off the negotiations prematurely. That's been the end of that. A lot has happened since then, but that one issue is pretty instructive. It indicates that if a U.S. president was willing to support a political settlement, it could likely be reached. Will that happen? So far there isn't the slightest indication of it. Obama's at least as extreme as George W. Bush, maybe more so. But there are some fissures developing and they are worth watching. One thing is that the American population, including the American Jewish population, especially younger Jews, are simply not willing to confirm what's going on any longer. It's too inconsistent with standard liberal values. You see it in the polls and early indications. The Christian Zionists, who are a vast group, support it no matter what. Those who make a store of U.S. settler colonialism, for them it's formula so they bear it. But elite sectors and the American Jewish community are first to back off. That's one development. Another one is that, apparently for the start time, there's a significant part in the Pentagon and intelligence. Up until now, they've been strongly supportive of Israel. They see it as a really valuable ally. The U.S. high-tech industry has been highly supportive of Israel. The Rampart Street Journal, among major newspapers, is the one that's most pro-Israel, in favour of Israeli expansion. But all of this is first to weaken. There are striking indications of it. You've likely seen a comment by David Petraeus-sometimes called Lord Petraeus, the great genius who's now the point of the Central Command. He made some comments months ago about how the U.S. now has armies in the field in several countries in the region-Afghanistan, Iraq, and maybe next in Iran-and it's dangerous for those forces in the subject if U.S./Israeli intransigence creates problems among the population that could endanger U.S. forces in the region. He was told to close up and he promptly withdrew his statements. But others have been repeating them. One of the major Mideast U.S. intelligence officials, Bruce Riedel, who ran Obama's Afghanistan policy review, he repeated pretty much the same statement. It got to the place that Mark Indyk, who was Clinton's ambassador to Israel and has roots in the Israeli lobby, wrote an op-ed in the Times warning Israel not to get the U.S. for granted as its policy could shift. The mind of Mossad in Israel, Meir Dagan, warned the politics that they were treading on thin ice. If they pushed too far, they might lose U.S. support. And there's some story which is worth paying attention to, particularly regarding the many comparisons drawn between Israel and South Africa. Most of them I don't think amount to much, like the apartheid/bantustan comparison which I don't think works for the reasons mentioned earlier. But there is one comparison, which isn't discussed that is worth attention. Around 1960, the white nationalists in South Africa were first to realize that they were becoming a pariah state and losing global support. They were being voted down in the UN by a big majority of the other colonies and so on, even losing some European support. The foreign minister of South Africa called in the U.S. ambassador to discourse it and he said, Yes, we're becoming a pariah state. They're voting against us in the United Nations. But you and I both know there's just one vote in the UN-yours. As long as you keep us, we'll bear up against the world. And that's what happened If you appear at the next years, anti-apartheid sentiment increased. By 1980 or so, even U.S. corporations were pulling out of South Africa in resistance to apartheid. A few days later, Congress passed sanctions and the Reagan administration had to evade Congressional sanctions as good as popular and global opinion in place to keep supporting South Africa-as so they did right through the 1980s. The guise was the war on terror. In 1988, the Reagan administration stated that the African National Congress, Mandela's ANC, was one of the more notorious terrorist organizations in the world. So we had to continue supporting white South Africa as percentage of the noted war on terror-which Reagan declared, not Bush. In fact, just a twelvemonth ago, Mandela was taken off the terrorist list and can record the U.S. without special dispensation. So that continued right through the 1980s. South Africa looked completely impregnable. It had broken the ANC on the ground. The man hated it, but it looked like there was no real opposition, and that it was in a permanent position of victory. Then, around 1990, the U.S. shifted its policy. Mandela was let out of Robben Island and began to be groomed to return over. Within a span of years, apartheid was gone. The South African foreign minister was correct: as farsighted as the Godfather supports us, it doesn't matter what the public thinks. But, of course, the Godfather can alter his mind. And that happened and you go to the post-apartheid era-not beautiful, but a big victory. It's not the just time. None of these things are ever discussed. They can't be discussed because what follows from them is that the U.S. rules the existence and rules it by force. You can't take that, though it's true. Another example, which is quite instructive, is Indonesia. In 1975, Indonesia invaded the former Portuguese territory of East Timor with strong U.S.later French and British-support. It carried out some of the worst crimes of the later twentieth century, virtual genocide-wiping out maybe a quarter of the population. This went on right through 1999, through all the posturing about Serbia and Kosovo and so on, with the Indonesian military declaring it was never going to leave, we don't care what the public thinks, it's our soil and we're passing to prevent it-with U.S. support. In mid-September 1999, Clinton uttered a quiet phrase. He informed the Indonesian military that the game was concluded and the Indonesian military immediately withdrew. The U.S. could get done that 25 years earlier. Incidentally, Clinton's actions now go into account as "humanitarian intervention." Why did Clinton shift position? For one thing, there was a lot of international opposition at the time. There was likewise a domestic solidarity movement, which had some effect. But probably the major effect was the far right Catholics, who constitute a substantial sector of might in the U.S. including some leading figures in the Reagan administration. East Timor was a Catholic settlement and they turned against the invasion. Under those pressures, Clinton changed his judgment and a day later, the Indonesian military left. No more control. It could find in Israel. The Mossad director could be correct. The U.S. could change its policy with enough force and insist on joining the public in accepting the international consensus on a two-state settlement. Israel will accept no choice. It will get to succeed U.S. orders, just as Indonesia did, just as white South Africa did. That's how power systems work. Could that happen? Well, we don't know. We do experience the capability to influence that consequence, maybe get it about. That's kind of an optimistic conclusion in a way.Noam Chomsky is Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus) at MIT and writer of tons of books and articles, mainly focussed on U.S. foreign policy, as good as linguistics.
No comments:
Post a Comment