The Comment Factory

As I said in my previous article I would like to discuss Chomsky’s presentation of the Gaza issue systematically, and reveal exactly the profound misunderstanding it promotes. Chomsky says:

“Israel has sought to crush any resistance to its programs of takeover of the parts of Palestine it regards as valuable, while eliminating any hope for the indigenous population to have a decent existence enjoying national rights.”

In the dark times of the Begin-Sharon-Shamir era, this may have rang true, to a certain extent. Even then Israel still approached the Arab world with a title of “Let’s talk peace”. Even if this was made meaningless by Israel’s actions on the ground – it was still a title, and one which was much better than the one held by the PLO. Ignored facts about Israel’s tragic occupation of the West Bank and Gaza:

1)    During the peace talks with Egypt, Begin offered autonomy to the Palestinians in the territories, and offered to give Gaza back to Egypt. Sadat refused both, and there was no non-terrorist Palestinian leadership to follow up the offer.

2)    In the Madrid conference of 1991, Israel made an attempt at speaking to non-PLO Palestinian leadership.

3)    In 1993, following a letter from Arafat recognizing Israel, Rabin initiated the Oslo process, with the aim of resolving the conflict peacefully. Autonomy was given to the PA, and it experienced vast economic growth.

4)    Settlements continued to expand, not because of some “program”, but because of very high political and economic pressures within Israel, a coalition democracy, because of certain security perceptions in Israel, and because no real obligations were stipulated in the Oslo agreement in that regard.

Relating to Gaza:

1)    In 2000 Barak agreed in full to the Clinton Parameters of a Palestinian state, on 98 percent of the West Bank and Gaza land swap, and Jerusalem as a shared capital.

2)    In 2005 Sharon pulled out unilaterally from the Gaza Strip. In 2006 Ehud Olmert ran, and was elected on the platform of unilaterally pulling out of the West Bank up to the Security Barrier/Wall. It lost momentum because of Hamas and Hizballah provocations.

3)    When Hamas was elected in 2006, it was requested, and pressured to recognize Israel’s right to exist (NOT “the occupation”), and prior agreements – in effect to recognize its own government and the PA- so that peace talks could continue. It refused, and continued to engage in attacks on Israeli civilians.

4)    A “siege” was declared on Gaza only after Hamas threw out Fatah by force, in a civil war. Gaza was then run by an elected government which was committed to Israel’s destruction and actively waging war by rockets, and attacks on IDF soldiers. This siege, apart from being a pressure on Hamas to comply and stop shooting (using sanctions is not an unprecedented device in such a case), was mainly aimed at preventing Hamas from bringing in weapons en mass to the Strip (as Arafat attempted to do with the Karin A in 2002). Just imagine what an all out war with a fully armed Hamas standing army would look like. It would cost innumerably more lives to Palestinians and Israelis alike. Still, Hamas managed to smuggle in rockets that reach further and further into Israel. One could easily argue that if Hamas was elected (it is not “democratic” we shall touch on that), and it declares and wages war on Israel, why is Israel under any obligation to supply it with anything at all? Surely, as an elected government it is responsible for the welfare of its people, and must act accordingly. If it wants to wage war on Israel, it should find other means of assuring that welfare – and if it fails it must, like any government, face the consequences.

5)    Israel offered a six month truce, and held indirect negotiations with Hamas through Turkey and Egypt, all the while still negotiating with Abbas and Syria. Hamas kept shooting and smuggling weapons (which it does not deny) throughout the truce, so Israel only partially removed the siege. Israel offered to extend the truce when it was over.

If, as Chomsky and others suggest, there is a joint American-Zionist “programs of takeover”, why has Israel gone through so much pretend effort? Why pull out of Gaza in the first place? Why even initiate the Oslo talks, or the 2000 talks? There was no significant international pressure to do so, and even if there was, what of it? Israel is known to be able to sustain such pressure, especially with the US on its side. Why not just throw out the Palestinians all together? Chomsky’s world view cannot answer these questions in any satisfactory way. In fact, he does not attempt to, he pretends they do not exist, and when raised, he simply denies the facts that support them.

Chomsky also says, in describing Hamas’ war on Israel: “…there are reactions there (-Gaza) to Israeli crimes, which continue daily.” As is typical for the anti-Israel camp, words like “crimes”, “massacres” “genocide” are tossed around with little attempt to define them. They are more for dramatic effect than for anything else. What are these “crimes” Chomsky refers to? Is it the occupation? There are negotiations to end it, as the Israeli leadership has been declaring night and day it wants to. The Siege? There have been negotiations to end it, and we have seen it has its reasons. IDF attacks on rocket launchers? These are legitimate defensive strikes on legitimate targets.

The quote is also an expression of the most deep-rooted misconception of the conflict, fashioned by some, in Israel and outside it, who seek a two-state solution, and seek to present Israel as the obstacle to it. This misconception is that, somehow, the Palestinian terrorist-“militant” organizations are interested only in the end of the ’67 occupation. This again ignores reality, history, and the very definition of “the Palestinian Cause”. Here are those missing facts in brief:

1)    The Palestinian political leadership since the 1920s and up to 1948 was committed to the removal of the Jews from Palestine, and began to weave European anti-Sematism and lies into their views. The Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the founder of Palestinian nationalism, president of the “Arab Higher Committee” is quoted as saying:

“The suppression of the Jewish national homeland is part of my battle…They wish to build a central state which will become the base for their activities and destructive purposes. They wish to abolish other states, all the nations of the world. One thing is certain, the Jews will not undertake constructive work in Palestine. Their propaganda is full of lies. Everything that has been built in Palestine since prehistorical times is the work of Arabs and not of Jews. Their nature does not allow them to be builders and I’ve decided to find at all costs a precise and final solution to the Jewish problem. I shall first call on all the states of Europe, and then on those outside of Europe, to work together to put a definitive end to world Judaism, which represents a dangerous threat for the entire world”.

Cited also, Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine vol.2 p.p.465-466. Here we already see the seeds for the lies and conspiracies that would be attributed to the Zionist movement later.

2)    The official policy of the Arab League countries to Israel can be summarized by this quote from the Secretary General in 1948, Azzam Pasha “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades. ” This position was reiterated by the Arab world after ’67 in the “No negotiations, no recognition, no peace” policy lead by Nasser. This has not changed except in the cases of Egypt and Jordan. This will only change when Israel and a Palestinian leadership will negotiate peace as is stated in the Saudi Peace Initiative.

3)    Arafat, when he signed the Oslo Accords, did so, we are now safe to say, not to establish peace, but to continue his “liberation” war on Israel from within. Abdel Bari Atwan quotes him as saying “By Allah, I will turn this agreement (Oslo) into a curse for them (the Israelis). By Allah, perhaps not in my lifetime, but you will see the Israelis flee from Palestine”. Arafat made such claims openly in Arab media, though this is largely ignored. He also took action such as founding the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and bringing in the Karin A weapons ship. It will be noted that contrary to the prevalent notion that “the PLO recognizes Israel” – the majority of the factions of the PLO, and many factions within Fatah itself, like the Al Aqsa Martyrs, or the Tanzim, do not recognize Israel

4)    Hamas and Islamic Jihad aim to see Israel “obliterated” by Islam . It makes no secret about this – it promises Israel’s destruction , and it makes no secret of it. At most, it is willing to give a ten year truce in return for a Palestinian state in the ’67 borders . On ideological grounds, it has no interest in peace with Israel, only peace without Israel.

Why is it that Chomsky and co never tells us any of this? Why is it, when we see a clear and consistent ideological line in Palestinian and Arab leadership that begins in the 1920s and lasts to this very day, that the terrorism that these groups engages in attributed to the ’67 occupation? This is especially strange since these organizations never do, and never have attributed their activities to that, and extreme terrorism (shooting up synagogues ect.) was very prevalent in Israel in the 1950s. Instead Chomsky tells us that president Abbas and his police forces, the only Palestinian leadership ready to negotiate peace are “of US-trained collaborators.” Again this is a clear distortion of reality that is made to promote a political agenda. What end Chomsky aims for, I cannot say.