Frontline Volume 17 - Issue 23, Nov. 11 - 24, 2000
India's National Magazine on indiaserver.com
from the publishers of THE HINDU ESSAY
Israel's killing fields
The structural reasons for the Palestinian uprising and the Israeli
terror are connected not only with the consequences of the Oslo
Accords of 1993 but also the very nature of the Israeli state and
the support it gets from the United States.
by
AIJAZ AHMAD
IT is very difficult to write about Israel now, in the ideological
climate currently prevailing in India. For several decades, when
anti-colonialism was a substantial ingredient in the secular
nationalism that informed even India's foreign policy, distan ce
from Israel as a settler-colonial state and close relationship with
the Palestinian national movement as representing the victims of
that settler-colonialism was taken for granted in the polity. So was
India's solidarity with the anti-imperialist curr ents in the Arab
world in general - be it the war of national liberation in Algeria,
the Nasserist commitments to non-alignment, or some other current of
that kind.
This aspect of Indian foreign policy was noted and admired, I might
add, by Arab diplomats and intellectuals. I remember visiting a
number of the Arab countries and regularly meeting a broad
cross-section of the intellectuals there, in the 1960s and 1970 s. I
was very young then and it was always very striking to me that
Pakistan's support for Palestine was usually seen as shallow and
Islamicist, whereas the Indian solidarity with the Palestinian cause
was regarded as a natural and secular, non-religious response from a
country that had played so seminal a role in the making of the
non-aligned movement.
I was therefore very surprised when I read the statement of Jaswant
Singh, during the course of his recent visit to Israel, that India's
foreign policy in the past decades was held hostage by the Muslim
vote bank and that the government was now going to correct that
error. India's anti-colonialist past was simply being erased, and
what even Arab intellectuals, from their great distance, could see
as an expression of India's secular solidarity with anti-Zionist
forces in Palestine was now being presented , by a suave and
insufferable Foreign Minister, as an error forced by the Muslim
minority in the country upon those whom the Bharatiya Janata Party
is fond of calling "pseudo-secularists". Hindutva was now going to
undo all that and make a strategic alli ance with its natural
counterpart: Zionism.
What, then, about the current uprising in Palestine? It is said that
the uprising, which the Palestinians themselves are calling "Al-Aqsa
Intifada", was triggered by the visit of Ariel Sharon, the Likud
Party leader, to Al-Aqsa, the holiest Muslim shrine in Palestine
(known to the Jewish people as Temple Mount), with the announced
purpose of demonstrating "Jewish sovereignty" over the Al-Aqsa
compound. The visit was clearly authorised by the Ehud Barak
government, which also provided more than 1,000 arm ed policemen to
protect Sharon. It is important to recall, though, that the Palestinian agitation
did not begin with that Thursday visit. Rather, the agitation came
the next day, when Israeli security forces were massed in the
compound at the time of Friday prayers, in a calculated pro vocation
when a large crowd was present and someone or the other could be
trusted to fan the flames. That is when the Israelis started
shooting. It is also worth remarking that during the first couple of
days the Palestinian agitation was restricted to s logan-shouting
and stone-throwing. Palestinian gunmen entered the fray only after
the corpses had begun to mount, at the hands of the Israeli
sharpshooters who were clearly under orders to kill. The ratio of
the Palestinians and Israelis killed is still about 20 to 1.
There was, in other words, a deeper design which seems to have been
prepared many months ago. Saeb Arikaat, a senior Palestinian
negotiator, has said that he and Arafat went personally to Barak's
house to persuade him not to grant permission to Sharon to make the
visit and to warn of the possible consequences; Faisal Husseini,
another senior leader of the Palestine Liberation Organisation
(PLO), says that he too appealed personally to Barak. Barak rejected
all such requests, knowing well that among Pale stinians Sharon was
the most hated man. To understand the motivation, we need to
understand something about Sharon and Barak, and then reflect also
on the consequences of the Oslo Accords and on that monstrosity
which is represented in the media as the " peace process".
ON March 23 this year, well before the latest uprising, Professor
Tanya Reinhart of Tel Aviv University, wrote in the Israeli
newspaper, Yediot Aharanot: "Barak is the most dangerous Prime
Minister in the history of Israel. Already in 1982 he prop osed to
extend the Lebanon war to a total war on Syria. Then he explained
(in a memorandum to Sharon) that the best way to do that is without
sharing the plans with the government. Today he is consulting only
with the heads of the army and the security s ervices. Never had the
army as much grip on Israeli politics as in the times of Barak."
During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, when he wrote that
notorious memorandum, Barak was merely an army general, albeit an
important one, secretly suggesting that Israel create an excuse to
invade Syria and destroy its army, to Ariel Sharon, th e Defence
Minister at that time, who, as Noam Chomsky recently put it, "is the
very symbol of Israeli state terror and aggression, with a rich
record of atrocities going back to 1953." In the recent days, Barak,
now the Labour Prime Minister of Israel, a nd Sharon, currently the
head of the Likud Party and himself aspiring to become Prime
Minister, have been negotiating the formation of a government of
national unity.
To the matter of Barak we shall return in a moment, but who is Ariel
Sharon? As the Israeli police and border guards train their guns at
Palestinian demonstrators with orders to "shoot to kill," Uri
Avnery, an authoritative veteran of the peace movement in Israel,
reminds us that the practice itself is not new. It was used first by Ariel Sharon in
the first years of the occupation, when he instituted a reign of
terror in the Gaza Strip. As he told me himself afterwards, he gave
the order "not to take prisoners". Palestinians caug ht bearing arms
were killed on the spot. Later, the practice was employed by the
"Mista'arvim" ("Pretending to be Arabs") undercover units, whose
slogan was "ensure death". This was discovered when the Mista'arvim
killed one of their own men, mistaking h im for a "terrorist". After
wounding him, they dispatched him at very close range with a shot in
the head (A Lost War, October 9, 2000).
Avnery goes on to point out that - quite aside from tanks,
helicopter gunships and other weapons of war of that kind - which
the Israelis have deployed against largely unarmed, stone-throwing
demonstrators, the deadliest introduction in this phase of que lling
the Palestinian uprising is the "sharpshooter" - a particular kind
of soldier with a special kind of training whose task is to zero in
on specific individuals, presumably 'leaders', in the demonstration
and shoot them on the spot. This, he says, is in line with the
policies Sharon framed some 30 years ago; the training for the
latest deployments bagan, according to both Avnery and Reinhart, in
June 2000. Sharon, in fact, was the one who, as Minister for Agriculture, first
planted the "settlements" of armed Israelis in the Palestinian
"territories" occupied after the 1967 war, mostly members of the Far
Right. As Minister for Defence, he pressed Prime Mini ster Menachem
Begin to invade Lebanon, leading to the destruction of Beirut, the
most cosmopolitan city in the Arab world, and the occupation of
southern Lebanon. In all his diverse ministerial assignments, he has
fixed the borders of annexation for whic h the present war is being
fought. And he was the one who ordered the massacres of the Sabra
and Shattila camps in 1982. He fits, in other words, every
conceivable definition of a war criminal. Today he is the head of
Likud, the other major party in Isra eli politics which alternates
with Labour as the ruling party, and he has been invited by Barak,
"the most dangerous Prime Minister in the history of Israel," to
form a government of national unity. How has this situation come
about? For the most recent background, we can take recourse to a
lengthier quotation, also from Avnery:
Just a month ago, Barak was bankrupt; a politician at the end of his
career. He had lost his majority in the Knesset, his partners had
left him, the days of his government were numbered and it only
managed to carry on because of the Knesset recess. The p olls
predicted that he would lose the imminent elections by a large
margin.
Ariel Sharon was in a similar situation. His career was nearing its
end. It was clear that his Likud Party would oust him and replace
him with Netanyahu, who would win the elections.
And then, as if by a miracle, everything changed. Barak started to
talk about the "holy places of the nation", because of which he
could not agree to Palestinian sovereignty over the holy mosques.
Sharon announced that he was going to visit this Muslim c ompound.
Barak took the visit under his wing and sent 1,200 police officers
to accompany Sharon. The visit caused the expected explosion. The
next day seven Palestinians were killed by Israeli policemen near
the Al-Aqsa mosque.
The timing of the Barak-Sharon provocation was thus determined by
their own political compulsions. On the one hand, Barak was expected
to face and lose by a very wide margin a no-confidence motion in a
Knesset session that was due in the last week of Oct ober. On the
other hand, the Attorney-General had on September 27 dropped charges
of corruption and bribery against Netanyahu, the former Likud Prime
Minister and by far the most popular politician in Israel at the
time, who was now free to reclaim the L ikud leadership from Sharon.
The latter appeared in the Al-Aqsa compound the next day and the
killing began the day after that.
Once the methodical killing of Palestinians began, Barak's
popularity ratings rose from 20 to 50 per cent and the very
coalition partners who had deserted him began reassuring him that
they would not press the no-confidence motion for at least a month.
H aving come in the limelight again, meanwhile, Sharon declared that
he would join a government of national unity only if Barak forgoes
the so-called "peace process" altogether. In her latest commentary,
Professor Reinhart says that "in the Sharm El-Sheikh summit...,
Barak got from the U.S. his green light to slaughter... There is
talk about the Palestinian Kosovo, with 2,000 to 3,000 Palestinians
dead. As usual, the blame for this slaughter is put in advance on
Arafat, who, the story goes, wants his peop le to be slaughtered, to
gain international sympathy."
The timing was thus surely determined by the political compulsions
of Barak and Sharon. However, the structural reasons for both the
uprising and the terror run much deeper and are connected, in the
immediate past, with the consequences of the Oslo Accor ds of 1993
and, in the larger perspective, with the very nature of the Israeli
state and the unconditional material and moral support it gets from
the United States. Both these aspects should bear some commentary.
THE basic flaw of the Oslo Accords was simply that, as Robert Fisk,
the award-winning British correspondent, has put it (The
Independent, October 13): "The Palestinians were being forced by
Americans and Israelis to sign a peace that would give th em neither
a state nor an end to Jewish settlements on Arab land, nor a capital
in Arab east Jerusalem... Many outstanding issues have been left to
the final negotiations: water, the fate of the 3.6 million
Palestinian refugees, the status of Jerusalem a nd the Israeli
settlements, and the extent of Palestinian sovereignty. After the
agreed Israeli withdrawals have been completed, 59 per cent of the
West Bank will still remain under Israeli control. Will the
resulting Palestinian state be a "mini-state" with limited
sovereignty?"
In other words, Arafat had written away all the gains of the
1987-1992 intifada for not much more than municipal authority over
little patches of Palestinian land, while all else was left to a
long-drawn process of negotiations in which the final settlement
talks were postponed until six years later. Israel used this
extended time to build so many Jewish settlements and security
highways, dividing the West Bank into many pieces which are isolated
from one another, that the Palestinian entity whic h finally results
from the peace process would not be much more than a scattering of
apartheid-style Bantustans.
Seven years after the Oslo Accords, Israel has security and
administrative control of most of the West Bank and 20 per cent of
the small principality of Gaza. As Amira Hass wrote in the
prestigious Israeli daily Ha'aretz (October 18), Israel has b een
able during this period 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 are a of the West
Bank, and to seal an entire nation into restricted areas, imprisoned
in a network of bypass roads meant only for Jews. During these days
of strict internal restriction of movement in the West Bank, one can
see how carefully each road was pl anned: 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 weeks is the natural outcome of
seven years of lying an d deception, just as the first Intifada was
the natural outcome of direct Israeli occupation.
In speaking of "200,000 Jews" Hass is obviously referring to the
Gaza Strip and the West Bank alone; another 200,000 such settlers
were introduced over the years into Jerusalem itself. We might add
that the whole of the Gaza Strip is ringed by an electri fied fence
and the airport, the strip's main contact with the outside world, is
controlled by the Israelis. A Palestinian uprising there is
basically a prison riot.
Putting an end to the so-called "peace process" at this point is
important for Israel because it has gained from the Oslo Accords
everything it had desired. And the next stage, aimed to bring about
a final solution, would require it to make some basic ch anges in
its historic positions, for which there is no consent in the broad
Israeli population which, barring the small number of anti-Zionists,
is very much in tune with the Baraks and the Sharons.
THIS brings us, then, to the very nature of Israeli society and
state. The first thing to be said here is that Israel is the only
nation-state in the world which derives the legitimacy of its
existence, its claim to territory and nationhood, the sanctity of
its national language, its very identity as a "Jewish state", its
claimed right to evict the Muslim and Christian populations of
historic Palestine and replace them with a Jewish population
imported from the four corners of the globe - in short its v ery
raison d'etre - to a religious text, in this case the Old Testament.
Palestinians have no right to return to homes from which they have
been evicted within the last half century, either because they don't
exist (as Golda Meir, Israeli Prime Minister, once said) or because
they are said to have left by their own accord for greener pastures
(which is the official position of the entire Zionist establishment
and its supporters, inside Israel and the world over). By contrast,
every Jewish person living anywhere in the world has a permanent
"right of return" because these are , after all, "the Biblical
lands"; Palestine must therefore be re-named "Israel", and what the
rest of the world knew simply as "the West Bank" must be re-named
"Judea and Samaria" because those are the names used for these areas
in the Old Testament.
When Pakistanis call their country an Islamic Republic, Indians
consider them - quite rightly - obscurantist and anti-secular. When
the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) claims that India must be
turned into a "Hindu Rashtra" and mobilises its goons to a ttack the
minorities as well as their churches and mosques, Indians call them
- quite rightly - fascist. Israel, by contrast, is free to be, in
letter and spirit, a "Jewish state," with all the racial and
religious meanings that the term implies, without coming in for any
kind of criticism; it must always be considered modern, secular,
democratic, beleagured by anti-semitism, "Islamic fundamentalism"
and so on.
To dissent from this view of Israel is to lay yourself open, if you
are not Jewish, to the charge of being anti-semitic. If you are
Jewish but also anti-Zionist, like Noam Chomsky, you will be
portrayed as a "self-hating Jew". Thanks to the Israeli milit ary
capability which keeps the whole of the middle eastern and north
African oil-producing world at bay, and thanks to the Zionist
success in portraying the state of Israel as the state of the
survivors of Nazi death camps, which then naturally evokes al l
kinds of sympathy for it, Israel commands in the western world, and
increasingly on the global scale, a matchless propaganda machinery.
Israel is quite possibly the most savage of the existing
nation-states, and surely the one where "nation" is so very
thoroughly identified with race and religion; even in Iran "nation"
is not identified with "race". Yet it is very difficult to be
believe d if one says - and documents - that Israel has been doing
to the Palestinians for some half a century what the various ethnic
militias in the former Yugoslavia have learned to do only within the
last decade, after the breakdown of the socialist state th ere, and
that in some respects the Israeli atrocities against the
Palestinians bear a marked resemblance to the Nazi atrocities
against the Jewish people themselves.
But there is more.
Nelson Mandela, the man who heroically led the struggle of the South
African peoples against what is commonly considered the most savage
racist regime in the world, once said that the Israeli treatment of
the Palestinians is "worse than apartheid." Comin g from Mandela,
this is as severe an indictment as one can imagine. Unfortunately,
the assessment is accurate.
Unlike Algeria or South Africa where the indigenous peoples managed
to fight back against eviction and extermination, regaining
sovereignty after heroic wars of liberation, Israel is the only
successful settler colony of the 20th century, evicting the ma
jority of the indigenous population, subjugating the remaining
segment, and transplanting on the Palestinian land populations which
originated elsewhere. The great majority of the Jewish population of
Israel is descended from families that were not resid ent there 50
years ago.
By contrast, the majority of Palestinians were evicted from their
homes in two waves, mainly at the time of the establishment of the
state of Israel in 1948 and then, on a relatively smaller scale, in
the aftermath of the Arab-Israeli war of 1967. Estima tes of the
Palestinian diaspora, scattered around the world, vary greatly, from
six million to eight million. Over five million of them are
concentrated in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, the states bordering on
the territories of the historic Palestine, or i n the territories
Israel captured in 1967 (the West Bank and Gaza). A million or so
live in Israel proper as internal refugees; Israel is by definition
a "Jewish state," in which the non-Jew can only be a second-class
citizen. In all, Palestinians are ac tually not very numerous. Yet,
according to the United Nations, one in four of the world's refugees
is a Palestinian.
Palestinian losses accruing from those evictions are estimated at
$180 billion. U.N. Resolution 194 of 1948 affirms the right of all
Palestinians either to return to their lost homes or elect to
receive compensation. The same right has been re-affirmed i n
Resolutions 242 and 338, and the U.N. General Assembly has
re-affirmed this resolution over a hundred times. Israel has
steadfastly rejected all these resolutions, however, and no
Palestinian has ever been compensated for loss of ancestral
property. In stead, some 90 per cent of the Israeli territory is
reserved for Jewish settlement and some 70 per cent of the
territories occupied in 1967 are - in addition to pre-1967 Israeli
borders - already taken for establishing Israeli "settlements" or
building r oads, military checkposts and so on. The so-called
Palestinian Authority, to which Israel has assigned mainly municipal
duties in civil affairs and whose police and paramilitary forces
have been trained by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to ensure
Israeli security in the face of Palestinian anger, actually controls
something like 12 per cent of the area of West Bank.
This is the arrangement that is sought to be stabilised by the new
plan that Ehud Barak unveiled in late October, which he proposes as
the basis for a final settlement. As Noam Chomsky puts it, "This
plan, extending U.S.-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 an d brutal Palestinian
Authority, 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."
The U.S. underwrites these atrocities militarily, financially,
diplomatically. Thus, on October 3, after a week of bitter fighting
and killing, the defence correspondent of Ha'aretz reported "the
largest purchase of military helicopters by the Isr aeli Air Force
in a decade", an agreement with the U.S. 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 earlier
of patrol aircraft and Apache attack h elicopters. These are "the
newest and most advanced multi-mission attack helicopters in the
U.S. inventory," the Jerusalem Post adds. When asked whether these
were "tools for crowd control," a Pentagon spokesman said that the
U.S. weapons sales "d o not carry a stipulation that the weapons
can't be used against civilians."
Meanwhile, on October 25, when Israel had settled down to its
killing fields, Aluff Benn, the diplomatic correspondent of
Ha'aretz, reported that Israel had asked the U.S. for an $800
million in emergency military aid, "on top of the usual militar y
aid package, which will total $1.98 billion next year." This is only
the tip of the iceberg, considering that Israel has been the top
U.S. aid recipient for several decades.
The same applies to the arena of diplomatic and moral support, where
too the U.S. defies all pressure from diverse quarters. Gush Shalom
(the Israeli Peace Bloc) declared on October 9: "What is happening
in Nazareth today is a pogrom, bearing all the hal lmarks which were
well known to Jews in Czarist Russia." Already on October 3, Amnesty
International had condemned the indiscriminate killings of
civilians. "The dead civilians, among them young children, include
those uninvolved in the conflict and seek ing safety," it said,
adding "the loss of civilian life is devastating and this is
compounded by the fact that many appear to have been killed or
injured as a result of the use of excessive or indiscriminate
force... We have been saying for years that Is rael is killing
civilians unlawfully by firing at them during demonstrations and
riots." Even Jacques Chirac, the French President, accused Sharon of
"irresponsible provocation." But not the U.S., where Madeleine
Albright declared that Palestinians were the ones "laying siege to
Israel."
On October 7, the U.N. Security Council voted 14 to 0 for a
resolution condemning Israel's "excessive use of force against
Palestinians" and deploring the "provocation" of Sharon's September
28 visit to Temple Mount. The U.S. was the only Security Counci l
member to abstain from the vote. The outcome was generally
interpreted as assigning most of the responsibility for the violence
to Israel. The conservative The Times (of London) called it on the
editorial page a "stinging rebuff" (September 10, 2000). On October
19, when the U.N. Human Rights Commission passed a resolution
condemning Israel for "widespread, systematic and gross violation of
human rights" while describing some of the Israeli atrocities as
"war crimes", the U.S. and its principal allies of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) voted against the resolution.
The saddest part of this mess is that Yasser Arafat, once the symbol
of Palestinian resistance, has settled down to the role of a
quisling, begging the U.S. for largesse and handing over his own
security apparatus to the CIA; Alu Ben reported in Ha'ar etzon
October 18, regarding Arafat's promise at the Sharm El-Sheikh summit
to do what he could for Israeli security: its implementation will be
overseen by CIA chief George Tenet and the CIA representative in Tel
Aviv. This agreement will, for the fi rst time, involve CIA
observers in the field in addition to CIA participation in
Israeli-Palestinian meetings."
Part of the Al-Aqsa Intifada is perhaps against Arafat himself and
his bunch of corrupt cronies - "the Oslo class" as the rebellious
Palestinian youth calls them.