Israel is a
Terrorist State by Definition: Chomsky
Following is
an excerpt of Professor Chomsky’s interview with Christiana
Voniati, who is head of International News Department POLITIS
Newspaper, Nicosia, Cyprus.
By Christiana Voniati
February 21, 2009 "Countercurrents" --
Voniati: The international public opinion and especially
the Muslim world seem to have great expectations from the historic
election of Obama. Can we, in your opinion, expect any real change
regarding the US approach to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict?
Chomsky: Not much.
Quite the contrary: it may be harsher than before. In the case of
Gaza, Obama maintained silence, he didn’t say a word. He said well
there’s only one president so I can’t talk about it. Of course he
was talking about a lot of other things but he chose not to talk
about this. His campaign did repeat a statement that he had made
while visiting Israel six months earlier –he had visited Sderot
where the rockets hit- and he said “if this where happening to my
daughters, I wouldn’t think of any reaction as legitimate”, but he
couldn’t say anything about Palestinian children. Now, the attack
on Gaza was at time so that it ended right before the inauguration,
which is what I expected. I presume that the point was so that they
could make sure that Obama didn’t have to say something, so he
didn’t. And then he gave his first foreign policy declaration, it
was a couple of days later when he appointed George Mitchell as his
emissary, and he said nothing about Gaza except that “our paramount
interest is preserving the security of Israel”. Palestine
apparently doesn’t have any requirement of security. And then in
his declaration he said of course we are not going to deal with
Hamas -the elected government the US immediately, as soon as the
government was elected in a free election the US and Israel with
the help of European Union immediately started severely punishing
the Palestinian population for voting in the “wrong way” in a free
election and that’s what we mean by democracy. The only substantive
comment he made in the declaration was to say that the arab peace
plan had constructive elements, because it called for a
normalization of relations with Israel and he urged the arab states
to proceed with the normalization of relations. Now, he is an
intelligent person, he knows that that was not what the arab peace
plan said. The arab peace plan called for a two state settlement on
the international border that is in accord with the long standing
international consensus that the US has blocked for over 30 years
and in that context of the two state settlement we should even
proceed further and move towards a normalization of relations with
Israel. Well, Obama carefully excluded the main content about the
two state settlement and just talked about the corollary, for which
a two state settlement is a precondition. Now that’s not an
oversight, it can’t be. That’s a careful wording, sending the
message that we are not going to change their (Israel’s)
rejectionist policy. We ‘ll continue to be opposed to the
international consensus on this issue, and everything else he said
accords with it. We will continue in other words to support
Israel’s settlement policies- those policies are undermining any
possible opportunity or hope for a viable Palestinian entity of
some kind. And it’s a continued reliance on force in both parts of
occupied Palestine. That’s the only conclusion you could
draw.
Voniati: Let us
talk about the timing of the assault on the Gaza Strip. Was it
accidental or did it purposefully happen in a vacuum of power? To
explain myself, the global financial crisis has challenged the
almost absolute US global hegemony. Furthermore, the attack on Gaza
was launched during the presidential change of guard. So, did this
vacuum of power benefit the Israeli assault on Gaza?
Chomsky: Well, the
timing was certainly convenient since attention was focused
elsewhere. There was no strong pressure on the president or other
high officials of the US to say anything about it. I mean Bush was
on his way out, and Obama could hide behind the pretext that he’s
not yet in. And pretty much the same was in Europe, so that they
could just say, well we can’t talk about it now, it’s too difficult
a time. The assault was well chosen in that respect. It was well
chosen in other respects too: the bombing began shortly after Hamas
had offered a return to the 2005 agreement, which in fact was
supported by the US. They said, ok, let’s go back to the 2005
agreement that was before Hamas was elected. That means no violence
and open the borders. Closing the borders is a siege, it’s an act
of war……… not very harmful but it’s an act of war. Israel of all
countries insists on that. I mean Israel went to war twice in 1956
and 1967 on the grounds, it claimed, that its access to the outside
world was being hampered. It wasn’t a siege, its access through the
Gulf of Aqaba was being hampered. Well if that is an act of war
then certainly a siege is, and so it’s understood.
So Khaled
Mashaal asked for an end of the state of the war, which would
include opening the borders. Well, a couple of days later, when
Israel didn’t react to that, Israel attacked. The attack was timed
for Saturday morning – the Sabbath day in Israel – at about 11:30,
which happens to be the moment when children are leaving school and
crowds are miling in the streets of this very heavily crowded city…
The explicit target was police cadets… Now, there are civilians, in
fact we now know that for several months the legal department of
the Israeli army had been arguing against this plan because it said
it was a direct attack against civilians. And of course, plenty
civilians will be killed if you bomb a crowded city, especially at
a time like that. But finally the legal department was sort of
bludgeoned into silence by the military so they said alright. So
that’s when they opened –on a Sabbath morning. Now two weeks later,
Israel – on Saturday as well- blocked the humanitarian aid because
they didn’t want to disgrace Sabbath. Well, that’s interesting too.
But the main point about the timing was that there was an effort to
undercut the efforts for a peaceful settlement and it was
terminated just in time to prevent pressure on Obama to say
something about it. It’s hard to believe that this isn’t conscious.
We know that it was very meticulously planned for many months
beforehand.
Voniati: In a
recent interview with LBC, you said that the policies of Hamas are
more conducive to peace than the US’s or Israel’s.
Chomsky: Oh yes,
that’s clear.
Voniati: Also,
that the policies of Hamas are closer to international consensus on
a political peaceful settlement than those of Israel and the US.
Can you explain your stance?
Chomsky: Well for
several years Hamas has been very clear and explicit, repeatedly,
that they favor a two state settlement on the international border.
They said they would not recognize Israel but they would accept a
two state settlement and a prolonged truce, maybe decades, maybe 50
years. Now, that’s not exactly the international consensus but it’s
pretty close to it. On the other hand, the United States and Israel
flatly reject it. They reject it in deeds, that’s why they are
building all the construction development activities in the West
Bank, not only in violation of international laws, US and Israel
know that the illegal constructions are designed explicitly to
convert the West Bank into what the architect of the policy, Arial
Sharon, called bantustan. Israel takes over what it wants, break up
Palestine into unviable fragments. That’s undermining a political
settlement. So in deeds, yes of course they are undermining it, but
also in words: that goes back to 1976 when the US vetoed the
Security Council resolution put forward by the arab states which
called for a two state settlement and it goes around until today.
In December, last December, at the meetings of the UN’s General
Assembly there were many resolutions passed. One of them was a
resolution calling for recognition of the right of
self-determination of the Palestinian people. It didn’t call for a
state, just the right of self-determination. It passed with 173 to
5. The 5 were the US, Israel and a few small pacific islands. Of
course that can’t be reported in the US. So they are rejecting it
even in words, as well as –more significantly- in acts. On the
other hand, Hamas comes pretty close to accepting it. Now, the
demand which Obama repeated on Hamas is that they must meet three
conditions: they must recognize Israel’s right to exist, they must
renounce violence and they must accept past agreements, and in
particular the Road Map. Well, what about the US and Israel? I
mean, obviously they don’t renounce violence, they reject the Road
Map – technically they accepted it but Israel immediately entered
14 reservations (which weren’t reported here) which completely
eliminated its content, and the US went along. So the US and Israel
completely violate those two conditions, and of course they violate
the first, they don’t recognize Palestine. So sure, there’s a lot
to criticize about Hamas, but on these matters they seem to be much
closer to –not only international opinion- but even to a just
settlement than the US and Israel are.
Voniati: On the
other hand, Hamas has been accused of using human shields to hide
and protect itself. Israel insists that the war was a matter of
defense. Is Hamas a terrorist organization, as it is accused to be?
Is Israel a terrorist state?
Chomsky: Well,
Hamas is accused of using human shields, rightly or wrongly. But we
know that Israel does it all the time. Is Israel a terrorist state?
Well yes according to official definitions. I mean, one of the main
things holding up cease fire right now is that Israel insists that
it will not allow a cease fire until Hamas returns a captured
Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit - he’s very famous in the West
everybody knows he was captured. Well, one day before Gilad Shalit
was captured, Israeli forces went into Gaza City and kidnapped two
Palestinian civilians (the Muamar Brothers) and brought them across
the border to Israel in violation of international law and hid them
somewhere in the huge Israeli prisons. Nobody knows what happened
to them since. I mean, kidnapping civilians is a much worse crime
than capturing a soldier of an attacking army. And furthermore this
has been regular Israeli practice for decades. They’ve been
kidnapping civilians in Lebanon or on the high seas…They take them
to Israel, put them into prisons, sometimes keeping them as
hostages for long periods. So you know, if the capturing of Gilad
Shalit is a terrorist act, well, then israel’s regular practice
supported by the US is incomparably worse. And that’s quite apart
from repeated aggression and other crimes. I don’t like Hamas by
any means, there is plenty to criticize about them, but if you
compare their actions with US and Israel, they are minor
criminals.
Voniati: Though of
Jewish decent, you have been repeatedly accused of anti-Semitism.
How do you respond?
Chomsky: The most
important comment about that was made by the distinguished
statesman Abba Eban, maybe 35 years ago, in an address to the
American people. He said that there are two kinds of criticism of
Zionism (by Zionism I mean the policies of the state of Israel).
One is criticism by anti-Semites and the other is criticism by
neurotic self-hating Jews. That eliminates 100% of possible
criticism. The neurotic self-hating Jews, he actually mentioned
two, I was one and I.F. Stone, a well-known writer was another). I
mean that’s the kind of thing that would come out of a communist
party in its worst days. But you see, I can’t really be called
anti-semite because I’m jewish so I must be a neurotic self-hating
Jew, by definition. The assumption is that the policies of the
state of Israel are perfect, so therefore any kind of criticism
must be illegitimate. And that’s from Abba Eban, one of the most
distinguished figures in Israel, the most westernised … praised,
considered a dove.
Voniati: How do
you comment on the Davos incident concerning Erdogan’s verbal
attack against Peres?
Chomsky: It was
impolite. You are not supposed to behave like that at Davos. But
the idea that Peres was given 25 minutes to justify major
atrocities and aggression, that’s what’s shocking. Why have that at
Davos? I mean, do you allow Saddam Husein in such a gathering to
justify the invasion of Kuwait? So Erdogan reacted, in my view, not
in accord with the gentile atmosphere of the collection of the
people who but basically appropriate under the
circumstances.
Voniati: Have you,
by any chance, been informed about the Cypriot-flagged vessel
"Monchegorsk" that is docked in Limassol and seems to have been
carrying weapons to the Hamas-run Gaza Strip? Israel and the United
States requested that the vessel be stopped...
Chomsky: I don’t
know about the Iranian vessel but I do know that right in the
middle of the Gaza attack, Dignity was blocked in international
waters and attacked by the Israeli navy and almost sunk. Now,
that’s a major crime. That’s much worse than piracy off the coast
of Somalia for example. If the Iranian vessel was stopped in
international waters, that’s completely illegitimate. Israel has no
authority to do anything in international waters. And the talk
about not sending arms to Gaza …I mean, do they stop sending arms
to Israel? I mean right in the middle of the Gaza war, the pentagon
announced that it was sending a huge shipman of armaments to
Israel. Did anybody stop that? They should say that those armaments
are not intended for use by the Israeli army. The pentagon also
announced that they are being prepositioned, that is, that they re
being placed in Israel for the use of the US army In other words
what they re saying is –and it’s been true for a long time- is that
the US regards Israel as an offshore military base of its own,
which they can use for their aggressive acts throughout the
region.
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22067.htm