>From: "mart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:49:34 -0800 > Subject: FW: Al-Aqsa Intifada By Noam Chomsky > From: "Simin Farkhondeh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > October 25, 2000 > Al-Aqsa Intifada > By Noam Chomsky > > After three weeks of virtual war in the Israeli occupied territories, >Prime > > Minister Ehud Barak announced a new plan to determine the final status of > the > > region. During these weeks, over 100 Palestinians were killed, including >30 > > children, often by "excessive use of lethal force in circumstances in >which > > neither the lives of the security forces nor others were in imminent >danger, > > resulting in unlawful killings," Amnesty International concluded in a > > detailed report that was scarcely mentioned in the US. The ratio of > > Palestinian to Israeli dead was then about 15-1, reflecting the resources >of > > force available. > > > Barak's plan was not given in detail, but the outlines are familiar: they > > conform to the "final status map" presented by the US-Israel as the basis > for > > the Camp David negotiations that collapsed in July. This plan, extending > > US-Israeli rejectionist proposals of earlier years, called for >cantonization > > of the territories that Israel had conquered in 1967, with mechanisms to > > ensure that usable land and resources (primarily water) remain largely in > > Israeli hands while the population is administered by a corrupt and brutal > > Palestinian authority (PA), playing the role traditionally assigned to > > indigenous collaborators under the several varieties of imperial rule: the > > Black leadership of South Africa's Bantustans, to mention only the most > > obvious analogue. In the West Bank, a northern canton is to include Nablus > > and other Palestinian cities, a central canton is based in Ramallah, and a > > southern canton in Bethlehem; Jericho is to remain isolated. Palestinians > > would be effectively cut off from Jerusalem, the center of Palestinian >life. > > Similar arrangements are likely in Gaza, with Israel keeping the southern > > coastal region and a small settlement at Netzarim (the site of many of the > > recent atrocities), which is hardly more than an excuse for a large >military > > presence and roads splitting the Strip below Gaza City. These proposals > > formalize the vast settlement and construction programs that Israel has >been > > conducting, thanks to munificent US aid, with increasing energy since the >US > > was able to implement its version of the "peace process" after the Gulf >war. > > > For more on the negotiations and their background, see my July 25 > commentary; > > and for further background, the commentary by Alex and Stephen Shalom, >Oct. > > 10. > > > The goal of the negotiations was to secure official PA adherence to this > > project. Two months after they collapsed, the current phase of violence > > began. Tensions, always high, were raised when the Barak government > > authorized a visit by Ariel Sharon with 1000 police to the Muslim >religious > > sites (Al-Aqsa) on a Thursday (Sept. 28). Sharon is the very symbol of > > Israeli state terror and aggression, with a rich record of atrocities >going > > back to 1953. Sharon's announced purposal was to demonstrate "Jewish > > sovereignty" over the al-Aqsa compound, but as the veteran correspondent > > Graham Usher points out, the "al-Aqsa intifada," as Palestinians call it, > was > > not initiated by Sharon's visit; rather, by the massive and intimidating > > police and military presence that Barak introduced the following day, the > day > > of prayers. Predictably, that led to clashes as thousands of people >streamed > > out of the mosque, leaving 7 Palestinians dead and 200 wounded. Whatever > > Barak's purposal, there could hardly have been a more efficient way to set > the > > stage for the shocking atrocities of the following weeks. > > > The same can be said about the failed negotiations, which focused on > > Jerusalem, a condition observed strictly by US commentary. Possibly >Israeli > > sociologist Baruch Kimmerling was exaggerating when he wrote that a >solution > > to this problem "could have been reached in five minutes," but he is right > to > > say that "by any diplomatic logic [it] should have been the easiest issue >to > > solve (Ha'aretz, Oct. 4). It is understandable that Clinton-Barak should > want > > to suppress what they are doing in the occupied territories, which is far > > more important. Why did Arafat agree? Perhaps because he recognizes that >the > > leadership of the Arab states regard the Palestinians as a nuisance, and > have > > little problem with the Bantustan-style settlement, but cannot overlook > > administration of the religious sites, fearing the reaction of their own > > populations. Nothing could be better calculated to set off a confrontation > > with religious overtones, the most ominous kind, as centuries of >experience > > reveal. > > > The primary innovation of Barak's new plan is that the US-Israeli demands > are > > to be imposed by direct force instead of coercive diplomacy, and in a > harsher > > form, to punish the victims who refused to concede politely. The outlines > are > > in basic accord with policies established informally in 1968 (the Allon > > Plan), and variants that have been proposed since by both political > groupings > > (the Sharon Plan, the Labor government plans, and others). It is important > to > > recall that the policies have not only been proposed, but implemented, >with > > the support of the US. That support has been decisive since 1971, when > > Washington abandoned the basic diplomatic framework that it had initiated > (UN > > Security Council Resolution 242), then pursued its unilateral rejection of > > Palestinian rights in the years that followed, culminating in the "Oslo > > process." Since all of this has been effectively vetoed from history in >the > > US, it takes a little work to discover the essential facts. They are not > > controversial, only evaded. > > > As noted, Barak's plan is a particularly harsh version of familiar > US-Israeli > > rejectionism. It calls for terminating electricity, water, > > telecommunications, and other services that are doled out in meager >rations > > to the Palestinian population, who are now under virtual siege. It should >be > > recalled that independent development was ruthlessly barred by the >military > > regime from 1967, leaving the people in destitution and dependency, a > process > > that has worsened considerably during the US-run "Oslo process." One >reason > > is the "closures" regularly instituted, most brutally by the more dovish > > Labor-based governments. As discussed by another outstanding journalist, > > Amira Hass, this policy was initiated by the Rabin government "years >before > > Hamas had planned suicide attacks, [and] has been perfected over the >years, > > especially since the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority." > An > > efficient mechanism of strangulation and control, closure has been > > accompanied by the importation of an essential commodity to replace the > cheap > > and exploited Palestinian labor on which much of the economy relies: > hundreds > > of thousands of illegal immigrants from around the world, many of them > > victims of the "neoliberal reforms" of the recent years of >"globalization." > > Surviving in misery and without rights, they are regularly described as a > > virtual slave labor force in the Israeli press. The current Barak proposal > is > > to extend this program, reducing still further the prospects even for mere > > survival for the Palestinians. > > > A major barrier to the program is the opposition of the Israeli business > > community, which relies on a captive Palestinian market for some $2.5 > billion > > in annual exports, and has "forged links with Palestinian security > officials" > > and Arafat's "economic adviser, enabling them to carve out monopolies with > > official PA consent" (Financial Times, Oct. 22; also NYT, same day). They > > have also hoped to set up industrial zones in the territories, >transferring > > pollution and exploiting a cheap labor force in maquiladora-style > > installations owned by Israeli enterprises and the Palestinian elite, who > are > > enriching themselves in the time-honored fashion. > > > Barak's new proposals appear to be more of a warning than a plan, though > they > > are a natural extension of what has come before. Insofar as they are > > implemented, they would extend the project of "invisible transfer" that >has > > been underway for many years, and that makes more sense than outright > "ethnic > > cleansing" (as we call the process when carried out by official enemies). > > People compelled to abandon hope and offered no opportunities for >meaningful > > existence will drift elsewhere, if they have any chance to do so. The >plans, > > which have roots in traditional goals of the Zionist movement from its > > origins (across the ideological spectrum), were articulated in internal > > discussion by Israeli government Arabists in 1948 while outright ethnic > > cleansing was underway: their expectation was that the refugees "would be > > crushed" and "die," while "most of them would turn into human dust and the > > waste of society, and join the most impoverished classes in the Arab > > countries." Current plans, whether imposed by coercive diplomacy or >outright > > force, have similar goals. They are not unrealistic if they can rely on >the > > world-dominant power and its intellectual classes. > > > The current situation is described accurately by Amira Hass, in Israel's > most > > prestigious daily (Ha'aretz, Oct. 18). Seven years after the Declaration >of > > Principles in September 1993 -- which foretold this outcome for anyone who > > chose to see -- "Israel has security and administrative control" of most >of > > the West Bank and 20% of the Gaza Strip. It has been able "to double the > > number of settlers in 10 years, to enlarge the settlements, to continue >its > > discriminatory policy of cutting back water quotas for three million > > Palestinians, to prevent Palestinian development in most of the area of >the > > West Bank, and to seal an entire nation into restricted areas, imprisoned >in > > a network of bypass roads meant for Jews only. During these days of strict > > internal restriction of movement in the West Bank, one can see how >carefully > > each road was planned: So that 200,000 Jews have freedom of movement, >about > > three million Palestinians are locked into their Bantustans until they > submit > > to Israeli demands. The bloodbath that has been going on for three weeks >is > > the natural outcome of seven years of lying and deception, just as the >first > > Intifada was the natural outcome of direct Israeli occupation." > > > The settlement and construction programs continue, with US support, >whoever > > may be in office. On August 18, Ha'aretz noted that two governments -- >Rabin > > and Barak -- had declared that settlement was "frozen," in accord with the > > dovish image preferred in the US and by much of the Israeli left. They >made > > use of the "freezing" to intensify settlement, including economic > inducements > > for the secular population, automatic grants for ultra-religious settlers, > > and other devices, which can be carried out with little protest while "the > > lesser of two evils" happens to be making the decisions, a pattern hardly > > unfamiliar elsewhere. "There is freezing and there is reality," the report > > observes caustically. The reality is that settlement in the occupied > > territories has grown over four times as fast as in Israeli population > > centers, continuing -- perhaps accelerating -- under Barak. Settlement > brings > > with it large infrastructure projects designed to integrate much of the > > region within Israel, while leaving Palestinians isolated, apart from > > "Palestinian roads" that are travelled at one's peril. > > > Another journalist with an outstanding record, Danny Rubinstein, points >out > > that "readers of the Palestinian papers get the impression (and rightly >so) > > that activity in the settlements never stops. Israel is constantly >building, > > expanding and reinforcing the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and >Gaza. > > Israel is always grabbing homes and lands in areas beyond the 1967 lines - > > and of course, this is all at the expense of the Palestinians, in order to > > limit them, push them into a corner and then out. In other words, the goal > is > > to eventually dispossess them of their homeland and their capital, > Jerusalem" > > (Ha'aretz, October 23). > > > Readers of the Israeli press, Rubinstein continues, are largely shielded > from > > the unwelcome facts, though not entirely so. In the US, it is far more > > important for the population to be kept in ignorance, for obvious reasons: > > the economic and military programs rely crucially on US support, which is > > domestically unpopular and would be far more so if its purposes were >known. > > > To illustrate, on October 3, after a week of bitter fighting and killing, > the > > defense correspondent of Ha'aretz reported "the largest purchase of >military > > helicopters by the Israeli Air Force in a decade," an agreement with the >US > > to provide Israel with 35 Blackhawk military helicopters and spare parts >at > a > > cost of $525 million, along with jet fuel, following the purchase shortly > > before of patrol aircraft and Apache attack helicopters. These are "the > > newest and most advanced multi-mission attack helicopters in the US > > inventory," the Jerusalem Post adds. It would be unfair to say that those > > providing the gifts cannot discover the fact. In a database search, David > > Peterson found that they were reported in the Raleigh (North Carolina) > press. > > The sale of military helicopters was condemned by Amnesty International > (Oct. > > 19), because these "US-supplied helicopters have been used to violate the > > human rights of Palestinians and Arab Israelis during the recent conflict >in > > the region." Surely that was anticipated, barring advanced cretinism. > > > Israel has been condemned internationally (the US abstaining) for >"excessive > > use of force," in a "disproportionate reaction" to Palestinian violence. > That > > includes even rare condemnations by the ICRC, specifically, for attacks on > at > > least 18 Red Cross ambulances (NYT, Oct 4). Israel's response is that it >is > > being unfairly singled out for criticism. The response is entirely >accurate. > > Israel is employing official US doctrine, known here as "the Powell > > doctrine," though it is of far more ancient vintage, tracing back >centuries: > > Use massive force in response to any perceived threat. Official Israeli > > doctrine allows "the full use of weapons against anyone who endangers >lives > > and especially at anyone who shoots at our forces or at Israelis" (Israeli > > military legal adviser Daniel Reisner, FT, Oct. 6). Full use of force by a > > modern army includes tanks, helicopter gunships, sharpshooters aiming at > > civilians (often children), etc. US weapons sales "do not carry a > stipulation > > that the weapons can't be used against civilians," a Pentagon official >said; > > he "acknowleged however that anti-tank missiles and attack helicopters are > > not traditionally considered tools for crowd control" -- except by those > > powerful enough to get away with it, under the protective wings of the > > reigning superpower. "We cannot second-guess an Israeli commander who >calls > > in a Cobra (helicopter) gunship because his troops are under attack," > another > > US official said (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, October 3). Accordingly, such > > killing machines must be provided in an unceasing flow. > > > It is not surprising that a US client state should adopt standard US > military > > doctrine, which has left a toll too awesome to record, including very >recent > > years. The US and Israel are, of course, not alone in adopting this > doctrine, > > and it is sometimes even condemned: namely, when adopted by enemies >targeted > > for destruction. A recent example is the response of Serbia when its > > territory (as the US insists it is) was attacked by Albanian-based > > guerrillas, killing Serb police and civilians and abducting civilians > > (including Albanians) with the openly-announced intent of eliciting a > > "disproportionate response" that would arouse Western indignation, then >NATO > > military attack. Very rich documentation from US, NATO, and other Western > > sources is now available, most of it produced in an effort to justify the > > bombing. Assuming these sources to be credible, we find that the Serbian > > response -- while doubtless "disproportionate" and criminal, as alleged -- > > does not compare with the standard resort to the same doctrine by the US >and > > its clients, Israel included. > > > In the mainstream British press, we can at last read that "If Palestinians > > were black, Israel would now be a pariah state subject to economic >sanctions > > led by the United States [which is not accurate, unfortunately]. Its > > development and settlement of the West Bank would be seen as a system of > > apartheid, in which the indigenous population was allowed to live in a >tiny > > fraction of its own country, in self-administered `bantustans', with > `whites' > > monopolising the supply of water and electricity. And just as the black > > population was allowed into South Africa's white areas in disgracefully > > under-resourced townships, so Israel's treatment of Israeli Arabs - > > flagrantly discriminating against them in housing and education spending - > > would be recognised as scandalous too" (Observer, Guardian, Oct. 15). > > > Such conclusions will come as no surprise to those whose vision has not >been > > constrained by the doctrinal blinders imposed for many years. It remains a > > major task to remove them in the most important country. That is a > > prerequisite to any constructive reaction to the mounting chaos and > > destruction, terrible enough before our eyes, and with long-term > implications > > that are not pleasant to contemplate. > > > > > >_______________________________________________________ > > >GANGBOX: CONSTRUCTION WORKERS NEWS SERVICE > >GANGBOX homepage: > >http://www.GeoCities.com/gangbox/ > >comments? email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >"UNION NOW, UNION FOREVER" >****************************************** > > _______________________________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi _______________________________________________________ Kominform list for general information. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anti-Imperialism list for anti-imperialist news. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________________
