Israel is skating on thin ice'

Interview with Noam Chomsky.

When bad men combine, the good must associate, Else they will fall, one by one, An unpitied sacrifice, in a contemptible struggle.

Edmund Burke, 1729-1797.

IN May, Professor Noam Chomsky was stopped at the Jordan border and questioned for three hours by the Israeli border security force.

A renowned linguist with a more-than-50-year-long academic career of groundbreaking work in linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a leading left-wing political thinker, Chomsky was denied entry to the West Bank, where he was to deliver lectures at Birzeit University in Ramallah. Chomsky was also due to visit a site where Palestinians regularly hold demonstrations against the construction of a controversial Israeli security barrier which cuts through the West Bank.

He said later in an interview, They apparently didn't like the fact that I was due to lecture at a Palestinian university and not in Israel. Israeli immigration officials called the refusal a misunderstanding between various branches of the military and civilian bureaucracy at the border crossing. But Chomsky reacted to this by stating: They told me they didn't like the kind of things I said about Israel. Israel is articulating its insistence that it controls who Birzeit is allowed to invite.

He added, I really don't know of any other examples outside of totalitarian states where people are denied entry because they are going to talk at a university. It may in part be just a reflection of the change in climate in Israel; the country has visibly got much more paranoid, circling the wagons, and so on, he said. In fact, it is rather reminiscent of South Africa in the early 1960s.

When Chomsky returned to the United States, this writer asked him about his experience on the Jordan border, his views on the delicate political situation in West Asia, the almost medieval siege of Gaza and the role of aggressive state militarism, which hindered the ushering in of a peaceful solution to the West Asia conundrum. Excerpts from the interview:

Can you comment on your being questioned for three hours at the Israeli border and denied entry to the West Bank? How do you regard the reaction, if any, of Israeli academics to this blatant attempt to end the freedom of expression and movement in West Asia?

The media reaction was mostly grotesque, apart from a few, some of them personal friends like Amira Hass (who was delighted because it exposed some of what's happening in the society). There was a public statement by many academics criticising the decision. I don't think it was terribly important in itself and haven't written about it and don't expect to. It's just another small indication of the growing paranoia, hysteria, and irrationality of the society, which definitely is a danger to itself and others.

Coming close on the heels of this unfortunate episode was the unprovoked Israeli assault on the Turkish-owned ship Mavi Marmara, part of a flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza. What is your response to this atrocity in which nine passengers were killed? Does this not amount to piracy, armed aggression and abduction of foreign nationals?

It is indeed piracy and abduction. If the ship was under Turkish registration, as has been claimed, then it was an attack against NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organisation], which should have called for an armed NATO response (in principle; the reality is different). It is also nothing new. Israel has been hijacking ships in international waters, between Cyprus and Lebanon, for 30 years, sometimes killing passengers, sometimes kidnapping them and sending them to Israeli prisons where they are held without charge, joining others abducted from Lebanon and, of course, numerous Palestinians. Israel can carry out such acts because it inherits impunity from its superpower protector. More evidence that the world is ruled by force, and by law only when that is convenient for the powerful.

The U.S. supports the giving of humanitarian aid to Gaza and yet does not want to take any step to jeopardise Israeli security. Is this not a double-faced stance of President Barack Obama's government, which should, in fact, be outraged by the blockade as are the governments of other democratic nations? And has not the support it has given Israel furthered anti-American antagonism?

The U.S. would prefer not to have an utter humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and in that sense stands for giving humanitarian aid. So does Israel, for similar reasons, though the U.S. would probably prefer less stringent constraints. The pretext is security, but that cannot be taken seriously, just as the 2008-09 invasion of Gaza did not have anything to do with security. The U.S. and Israel use the threat of rockets from Gaza, doubtless criminal acts, which they know very well how to stop: accept Hamas' repeated offers to renew the truce that Israel violated. While it held (partially, as Israel never fully observed it), Hamas fired no rockets, as Israel officially concedes.

If by democratic nations you mean their governments, I do not share the respect for them implied by the question. Europe, for example, continues to offer substantial support for Israeli crimes. Support for Israel has indeed furthered anti-American feelings, but so have other U.S. policies, facts recognised by Washington long ago. In 1958, President [Dwight] Eisenhower asked his staff why there was a campaign of hatred against us in the Arab world, not by the governments but by the people. The National Security Council gave a plausible explanation for it: it reported that there was a perception in the Arab world that the U.S. supported harsh and repressive regimes and blocked democracy and development because it wanted to control their oil. Furthermore, the NSC continued, the perception was basically accurate and we should continue with these policies. The tacit assumption is that dictatorships will be able to control their own populations.

Studies in recent years show much the same. Support for Israeli crimes, for the virtually genocidal Iraq sanctions in the 1990s, and other actions intensify these feelings, even on the part of Western-oriented privileged sectors in the Muslim and Arab worlds, as is reported by government and other studies. But the policies continue, on similar assumptions. Antagonism to U.S. policies in the Arab world is now so high that the majority even support Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons, to provide some kind of balance to U.S.-Israeli policies: not that Arabs like Iran, far from it. But again, this is dismissed by policymakers and ignored by media and most other commentary.

What do you think about Obama's latest peace initiative to bring about a historic compromise in West Asia? Both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority expressed their desire to push hard in making sincere efforts for a lasting peace but as everything depends on ensuring Israeli security and freezing Israeli settlements in West bank, this would be a difficult task to achieve.

Serious peace negotiations would require a neutral party coordinating the interchanges between the two antagonists: on one side, the world, on the other, the U.S. and Israel, which for 35 years have been blocking a political settlement in accord with an overwhelming international consensus, including the Arab states, the Organisation of Islamic States, including Iran, and in fact every relevant party.

This has been the case since January 1976, when the U.S. issued its first veto of a Security Council resolution calling for a two-state settlement on the international border perhaps with minor and mutual modifications, to quote official U.S. policy when it was still part of the world. There has been one notable break from U.S. rejectionism: in January 2001, when negotiations were conducted in Taba [Egypt] within the framework of President Clinton's December 2000 parameters, and were approaching success according to both sides when they were terminated prematurely by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

The current peace initiative is floundering over settlement expansion, a minor side issue: the real issue is the settlements themselves, all in violation of international law, as the U.S. and Israel recognised shortly after the 1967 war, and has since been repeatedly affirmed, recently by the International Court of Justice in a unanimous decision (including the U.S. Justice in a separate declaration). The settlement that was almost achieved in Taba has since been elaborated in informal negotiations, notably the Geneva accord, and could be the basis for a negotiated settlement if the U.S. would depart from its rejectionist stand and refuse to provide the decisive military, economic, diplomatic and ideological support for Israel's takeover of the West Bank (now reaching 42 per cent of the territory and its most valuable resources) and criminal siege of Gaza, the other half of Palestine.

Gaza, which is truly the world's largest open-air prison, is an example of state terrorism and a blemish on contemporary history. Do you not think that Israel is oblivious to international condemnation and does not realise that it is damaging its strategic interests in the region? I feel that recent events should move Israel to introspect on its rather isolated position in the Muslim world.

Though there are many differences, the analogy to South Africa is suggestive. Fifty years ago, South African white nationalists recognised that they were becoming international untouchables. The Foreign Minister, in an interesting exchange, informed the U.S. Ambassador, to paraphrase, that we understand we will always be condemned at the U.N., but you and I understand that there is only one vote at the U.N. or in the world: yours. As long as you back us, we'll continue undisturbed.

That is pretty much what happened. They were quite aware of the international condemnation, but right through the 1980s continued with harsh internal repression and murderous depredations in surrounding countries, killing about 1.5 million people, according to a later U.N. estimate. By then, to support them the [Ronald] Reagan administration had to violate even congressional sanctions, let alone world opinion. As late as 1988, the Pentagon condemned the ANC [African National Congress] as one of the more notorious terrorist organisations in the world. In fact, [Nelson] Mandela was just removed from the terrorist list last year, so now he can travel to the U.S. without special authorisation. Apartheid seemed very successful, at home and abroad.

Then, U.S. policy shifted, and within a few years, apartheid was gone.

It's not the only such case. Investigating these matters accurately, we learn a lot about a world that is ruled by force, with occasional pieties about law, democracy, and other good things. My own view is that Israel is skating on thin ice by relying on the U.S. and disregarding world opinion though it has some support for its crimes elsewhere, in India for example.

In your recent book Hopes and Prospects, you see hope for our collective future. What possibilities do you see for a peaceful resolution of the struggle for a Palestinian homeland, hindered as it is regrettably by Washington and Tel Aviv?

There is only one possibility, in my opinion. The one I referred to in my last response: the U.S. decides to join the world and end its decisive support for the brutal siege of Gaza and the illegal occupation of the West Bank. There are reasonable proposals on the table. Of course, Israel would have the suicidal option of going it alone, without the U.S. economic, military, and diplomatic assistance that enables it to violate international law and carry out merciless repression and violence with impunity not a likely scenario, but it is a choice.

Is an Israel-Palestine two-state solution feasible in this rather dismal situation? What will be the contours of such a solution, especially in the case of redrawing the map of the Jewish and Palestinian states? Have not the basic tenets of this solution been accepted globally? Is Washington ready to accept this?

The basic contours are very well known and have been at least formally accepted by the entire world for many years, the U.S. and Israel excluded. That includes the Non-Aligned countries, Europe, the Arab states, the Organisation of Islamic States, including Iran, in fact every relevant party. These proposals were brought to the Security Council by the major Arab states in 1976 and vetoed by the U.S., again in 1980.

General Assembly votes have generally been overwhelming. The proposals call for a settlement on the internationally recognised border (the Green Line) with minor and mutual modifications, in the words of official U.S. policy when it was still part of the world on this issue into the early 1970s. A settlement more or less along these lines was almost reached by high-level Israeli and Palestinian negotiators at Taba in January 2001, within the framework of Clinton's parameters. In their final press conference, both sides reported that with a little more time they might settle all issues, but Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak terminated the negotiations prematurely, and they were never formally reconstituted. Informal high-level negotiations continued, reaching a very detailed agreement, the Geneva Accord, released in Geneva in December 2003, warmly welcomed by most of the world, rejected by Israel, ignored by the U.S.

Suppose that Washington decides to shift policy radically and accept the international consensus. It would then withdraw all support for Israeli settlements, which are clearly in violation of international law, as recognised by the World Court [the International Court of Justice], the Security Council, virtually every country in the world, even by Israel in the late 1960s when settlement began, and by the U.S. until the 1980s. It would also withdraw all support for the Israeli military [Israel Defence Forces, or IDF] in the territories, and would reverse the U.S.-Israeli policy of separating the Gaza Strip from the West Bank in violation of the Oslo Agreements, and, of course, end any participation in the criminal siege of Gaza.

Israel would then have a choice. One choice would be to defy the demands of the global superpower, its crucial and irreplaceable base for support since it made the fateful decision to prefer expansion to security 35 years ago. The alternative would be to accept negotiated terms of withdrawal, perhaps along the general lines of Taba or Geneva, or some modification of those proposals. The former choice would radically change the rules of the game, and seems quite unlikely. The latter would not require forceful evacuation of the settlements, as often alleged. Rather, with the withdrawal of the IDF, probably 90 per cent of the settlers would climb into the lorries provided to them, leave their heavily subsidised homes in the illegal settlements, and move to highly subsidised homes within Israel proper.

Those who wish to stay can remain in the Palestinian state which, one would hope, would be a non-discriminatory state of its citizens, as one would hope that Israel too might become.

The Gaza withdrawal in 2005 could have been carried out quietly and peacefully the same way, but Israel preferred to stage a national trauma with proclamations of never again so as to gain support for its illegal occupation of the West Bank. The charade was so transparent that it was ridiculed by prominent Israeli commentators, notably the late Baruch Kimmerling, a leading sociologist. There is no reason to expect withdrawal from the illegal settlements in the West Bank to be very different.

The alternative is continuation of the U.S.-Israeli policies of taking over whatever is of value in the West Bank by now more than 40 of its territory, the crucial water resources, the best lands, the comfortable suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem leaving Palestinians cooped up in unviable cantons, what the leading author of the programme, Ariel Sharon, called Bantustans. A huge and complex infrastructure is now in place in the West Bank that enables Israelis (and tourists) to travel through it without seeing any Arabs. Gaza would remain under a crippling siege, separated from the West Bank, another barrier to any viable Palestinian state. There would be no demographic problem the problem of too many non-Jews in a Jewish state.

It is commonly argued that the alternative is that Israel will take over the entire territory, leading to a civil rights struggle similar to the anti-apartheid struggles. But that is most unlikely. There is no reason why the U.S. -Israel would agree to this in preference to the programmes they are now carrying out. The crucial element, I think, is whether Washington will agree to join the world on this issue. That raises a host of problems internal to U.S. society. It is not, incidentally, the only such example in international affairs some involving India, are in the headlines right now.

Shelley Walia is Professor and Fellow at Panjab University and Director of Academic Staff College.