Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Anti-Semitism, Zionism, and the Palestinians

Anti-Semitism, Zionism, and the Palestinians
NOAM CHOMSKY
11 October 2002
[This is an edited transcript of a live video link-up from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology to public meetings called by the
Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and other groups & organisations,
throughout Scotland and the north of England, on Friday 11 October 2002.]
It's useful to mention a moral principle that's so trivial it's
embarrassing—the reason for doing so is it's near universally disregarded.
It's easy (and not even gratifying) to criticise and condemn the crimes of
others. It's a little harder to look in the mirror and ask what we're
doing because it's usually not very pretty, and if we're minimally decent
we're going to try to do something about it. When we do, depending on
where you are in the world the problems can vary. In some countries it can
mean prison, brutal torture, or getting your brains blown out. In
countries like ours its condemnation, the loss of job opportunities, or
something mild by international standards. It's much harder than to just
talk about how awful the other guy is. 
For example, there's a US literary genre developing with many books,
articles and passionate discussions about a flaw in our character: 'We
don't react properly to the crimes of others', and 'What's the matter with
us that prevents us from doing this?' There are obviously much bigger
problems - like why do we continue to participate in massive atrocities,
repression, terror, but we don't do anything about it? But there's no
literary genre on that. All of that shouldn't be necessary to say, but
I've said it. Beginning with anti-Semitism. In the US when I was growing
up anti-Semitism was a severe problem. In the 1930's depression when my
father finally had enough money to buy a second-hand car and could take
the family on a trip to the mountains, if we wanted to stop at a motel we
had to check it didn't have a sign saying 'Restricted'. 'Restricted' meant
no Jews, so not for us; of course, no Blacks. 
Even when I got to Harvard 50 years ago you could cut the anti-Semitism
with a knife. There was almost no Jewish faculty. I think the first Jewish
maths professor was appointed while I was there in the early '50s. One of
the reasons MIT (where I now am) became a great university is because a
lot of people who went on to become academic stars couldn't get jobs at
Harvard - so they came to the engineering school down the street. Just 30
years ago (1960s) when my wife and I had young children, we decided to
move to a Boston suburb (we couldn't afford the rents near Cambridge any
longer). We asked a real estate agent about one town we were interested
in, he told us: 'Well, you wouldn't be happy there.' Meaning they don't
allow Jews. It's not like sending people to concentration and termination
camps but that's anti-Semitism. That was almost completely national. 
By now Jews in the US are the most privileged and influential part of the
population. You find occasional instances of anti-Semitism but they are
marginal. There's plenty of racism, but it's directed against Blacks,
Latinos, Arabs are targets of enormous racism, and those problems are
real. Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem, fortunately. It's raised, but
it's raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total
control, not just 98% control. That's why anti-Semitism is becoming an
issue. Not because of the threat of anti-Semitism; they want to make sure
there's no critical look at the policies the US (and they themselves)
support in the Middle East. 
With regard to anti-Semitism, the distinguished Israeli statesman Abba
Eban pointed out the main task of Israeli propaganda (they would call it
exclamation, what's called 'propaganda' when others do it) is to make it
clear to the world there's no difference between anti-Semitism and
anti-Zionism. By anti-Zionism he meant criticisms of the current policies
of the State of Israel. So there's no difference between criticism of
policies of the State of Israel and anti-Semitism, because if he can
establish 'that' then he can undercut all criticism by invoking the Nazis
and that will silence people. We should bear it in mind when there's talk
in the US about anti-Semitism.
To turn to what are called the problems of Israel/ Palestine, that's a
misnomer. It should be called the problems of US-Israel versus Palestine.
Britain is also involved in its usual manner—a British Foreign Officer in
WW II said that 'from now on Britain is not going to be an independent
actor in world affairs, its going to be junior partner to the US.'
Essentially correct. (There are less flattering terms used now in the
British press, but the picture is about the same.) 
Britain doesn't play an initiating, active role in the conflict but a
passive role essentially supporting the US. The US plays an overwhelming
and decisive role. Europe can play an independent role; insofar as it
chooses not to act and to use its influence it is essentially supporting
what the US does. I'm not going to try to run through the history of the
conflict, so let's take the current Intifada and the military aspects
which are revealing. 
A few weeks ago in the Hebrew press there was a report by a well known,
respected military correspondent attending a meeting of high Israeli
military officials discussing the military tactics in the Intifada. One of
the officers asked for information about ordnance: How many bullets got
fired? The information came back from the IDF (the Israeli army) that "in
the first few days of the Intifada [Sept 30th 2000 and the next few days]
the IDF fired a million bullets." There was some surprise, it sounded
high, and one officer said kind of bitterly (they don't necessarily like
the orders they're given to carry out): 'That means approximately one
bullet for every Palestinian child.' Remember what was going on then, some
teenagers throwing stones. 
The same article reported another military source who gave a graphic
illustration of how it works. He reported that an official from the
Palestinian authority who had a European visitor in the first weeks of the
Intifada wanted to illustrate to him how it works, so he had his body
guard shoot a single bullet. That was followed by two hours of heavy
Israeli gun fire aiming at no particular target in response to a single
bullet that was fired. In the first month of the Intifada (according to
Israeli sources) the ratio of deaths was about 20:1 (75 Palestinians: 4
Israeli soldiers in the Occupied Territories). 
Another example, in the first days of the Intifada Israel immediately
began using what are called in the press 'Israeli helicopters'. They're
not Israeli helicopters, they're US helicopters with Israeli pilots that
were used to attack civilian complexes, killing and wounding dozens of
people. That was sort of reported, it wasn't a secret. That's in response
to stone throwing, at most. 
The US did react to that officially. October 3rd 2000, the Clinton
administration made the biggest deal in a decade to send new military
helicopters to Israel, along with more parts for Apache Attack helicopters
— the most advanced in the arsenal which had been sent in September. It's
not that they didn't know what they were using them for, you could read
that in the newspapers. They were using them to attack and murder
civilians. But they needed more because a million bullets in the first few
days isn't enough so we need to send them attack helicopters and missiles. 
When you hear of the atrocities in Gaza (July 22nd 2002, 14 civilians
killed by a helicopter missile attack) that's thanks to the US government,
and its allies who didn't raise a finger. How did the American press
respond to this? They did report helicopters attacking civilians, but the
deal made by the Clinton administration (the biggest in a decade for
military helicopters) went literally without report. 
To be precise, one opinion column in a small newspaper in Virginia
mentioned it. That's it for the 'free' press. It's not that they didn't
know about it. It was all over the Israeli press, and there were queries
to the Pentagon from European reporters asking what are the conditions on
the sale of these helicopters. They were told there are no conditions, we
don't second guess Israeli commanders, they use if for what they want —
and they knew what they were using it for. Two weeks later Amnesty
International had a report condemning this and no mention of that, which
continues. The reason is, it is considered the right thing to do for the
West. 
Remember Israel is virtually a US military base, an offshoot of the US
military system. The same reporter quoted a General as saying: 'Israel is
no longer a state with an army, it's now an army with a state.' If you're
talking about the Israeli government you're talking about the military.
The top political figures are almost always ex-Generals, chiefs of staff
and so on. It's not a small army, according to the IDF and analysts their
air, naval, armour forces are larger and more advanced than those of any
NATO power outside of the US, and as an offshoot it certainly is. So we
have an army with a State, the army's basically a branch of the Pentagon.
That's the system and it's considered right for them to use these kinds of
tactics — a million bullets in the first few days, US helicopters to
murder civilians. So we send them more helicopters and so on, because it's
a normal way for things to be, and it goes way back. 
If you know your history of the British Empire you can find many examples.
To cite one, 1932, the distinguished British statesman Lloyd George wrote
in his diary: 'We have to reserve the right to bomb niggers.' He was
referring to the fact Britain had just succeeded in undermining an
international disarmament conference which was attempting to put
restrictions on the use of air power to attack civilians. 
Britain very quickly understood that use of air power to attack civilians
was far more cost effective and murderous than using ground forces. In
parts of the Empire where they no longer had the power to control by
ground forces they turned to air power—in the Arab world, against Kurds,
Afghans, Iraqis, others who were not front pages. Air power was turning
out to be a very effective way to control and suppress civilian
populations, hence Britain naturally wanted to undermine disarmament
conventions which would block it. (A precedent its successors as global
rulers also follow.) 
Lloyd George was commenting on the British success in this, praising the
Government for undermining the treaty as: 'We have to reserve the right to
bomb niggers.' That's a fundamental principle of European civilisation,
and basic principles like that have a long life. People usually don't say
it publicly, but Lloyd George was correctly articulating their inner
thoughts and the reason that lies behind them, and what I just described
in the first few days of the Intifada is a perfect example.
We could go on from there up till today, and trace it back to the earliest
days of what has been from the beginning a harsh and brutal occupation. In
which for the most part Israel itself was immune from retaliation from
within the territories. It carried out oppressive, brutal often murderous
policies - mainly the usual imperial techniques: humiliation, degradation,
making sure that what are called the 'Arabushi' (Hebrew slang for
'niggers') don't raise their heads and if they do they get beaten down,
meanwhile taking the land and resources, with the US army. 
It's a US-Israeli operation which continues until today. All of that was
fine. It's only when the Arabushi did raise their heads and the niggers
started bombing us that it becomes a horrifying atrocity. It is an
atrocity, but it's not the first and it's not the largest, something we
would easily recognise if we were able to rise to the level of looking in
the mirror, thinking about ourselves and what we do.
Let me turn to the political. Once the Arabushi are beaten down and they
don't raise their heads any more then you can talk, and you move to the
stage called 'diplomacy'.
There was another recent article in the Hebrew press, this time our main
newspaper, the New York Times. The article (by a former high official in
the Foreign Office and vice president of Tel Aviv University) was
translated into English. In it he was reputing the idea that General/Prime
Minister Sharon doesn't have a strategy. He said Sharon does have a
strategy, one which goes way back. 
In the 1970s and '80s high officials in the security establishment were
paying close attention to what was going on in South Africa, regarding it
as a model that Israel should follow. What was going on in South Africa
was an effort to establish 'bantustans' — independent black run homelands.
The South Africa government in the depths of the Apartheid regime was
trying to gain international support for the idea that these black-run
States were viable independent States: the leadership was black, the
police forces were black, the population was mostly black. To gain
international support for them South Africa subsidised them, they actually
tried to develop industry, keep them viable somehow. Well the world
wouldn't go along, but the Israeli and I'm sure the US establishment was
keeping a close eye on them. 
(South Africa was an ally of the US and Britain throughout this period. As
late as 1988 the US government identified Nelson Mandela and the African
National Congress as "one of the more notorious terrorist organisations of
the world." The US congress did try and impose sanctions on South Africa,
which the Regan administration finally passed after vetoing it but found
ways around so that US trade with South Africa actually increased in the
late 1980s. Britain was playing similar games with Rhodesia, South
Africa.) 
In 1993 the US and Israel moved to trying to impose a South African style
solution - it's called the Oslo Peace Process. The Oslo Peace Process was
described quite accurately by one of the leading Israeli doves, Shlomo
Ben-Ami (Foreign Minister under Ehud Barak and chief negotiator at Camp
David). He said: "The goal of the Oslo Process is to establish for the
Palestinians a neo-colonial dependency which will be permanent." That is
to establish a bantustan in the Occupied Territories. (He was from the
dovish end of the spectrum but it's a pretty narrow spectrum, as in most
countries.) 
Throughout the Oslo process Israel and the US jointly (you can't do it
without US authorisation or support) moved to institute a neo-colonial
dependency that would be permanent, bantustans essentially as the model.
So US-funded settlement programmes continued right through the Oslo years,
peaking in the last Clinton/Barak years. And settlement plans were
continued still further, Sharon escalated it — there is a spectrum but
it's the same policy. The settlements are built with an eye for the future
- take a look at a map. 
Take the map presented at Camp David. Camp David was described by the US
and much of the West as an amazing, magnanimous, generous offer by Clinton
and Barak which the terrible Palestinians turned down and so therefore are
responsible for their own fate. In the US no maps were presented. That's
crucial if you want to determine how magnanimous and generous the offer
was. If maps weren't presented there's a reason: the maps would tell you
exactly how magnanimous and generous an offer it is (and it's better for
the public not to know things like that, particularly when you're praising
the magnanimity and magnificence of our great leaders). Maps were
published in Israel. 
If you look at the maps you'll discover exactly how generous the Camp
David offers were, and what Ben-Ami meant when talking of a 'permanent
neo-colonial dependency.' They reflect the settlement policies of the
Peres and Rabin Governments. Israel takes what's called Jerusalem.
Jerusalem is a vastly expanded area with no resemblance to the pre-1967
Jerusalem which was effectively annexed in violation of Security Council
orders. To the East of what's called Jerusalem there's an Israeli
settlement (which includes a city, Ma'al Adumim) extending virtually to
Jericho, which was established to all effect with the purpose of bisecting
the West Bank. (A town and settlement means infrastructure, roads,
developments on the sides of the roads and so forth). 
There's another development in the north going to the settlement of Ariel
and beyond which bisects the Northern area. That's three basic cantons:
one Northern around Nablus, another central around Ramallah, another
Southern, parts of Bethlehem. These three cantons are separated from a
small part of East Jerusalem which would be under Palestinian
administration. (Jerusalem is traditionally the centre of Palestinian
cultural, commercial, and other life in fact for the whole region.) That's
the West Bank: four cantons, separated from Gaza which is a fifth, and the
fate of Gaza was unclear. That's the generous settlement. 
You can see why maps aren't presented. It should be stated however that
Clinton/Barak did improve the situation at Camp David, as prior to it the
Palestinians in the West Bank were divided into over 200 separated areas.
(Some a couple of square kilometers surrounded by barriers and road
blocks, mainly for the purpose of humiliation and degradation, they didn't
serve any military function to speak of.) They reduced it from over 227 to
only 4. 
That's a step forward, a step towards the South African solution, and
notice from below because the South African bantustans (whatever you think
about them) were reasonably viable by comparison to what was being offered
the Palestinians. The settlement programmes also insured the main
resources (the best land in the West Bank, the nice suburbs of Tel Aviv
and Jerusalem) primarily were and would remain under effective Israeli
control with this outcome, and the Palestinians would be able to have a
neo-colonial dependency. Under the Oslo agreements the Palestinian
Authority which was established had the same role granted by South Africa
to the leadership of the black homelands. Their primary role in South
Africa was to ensure the security and safety of the white population, to
prevent that notorious terrorist organisation Nelson Mandela and the ANC
from harming the people that count. Meanwhile the people that count
reserve the 'right to bomb niggers' — that's a constant. 
But the Arabs don't shoot back, for if they do they become notorious
terrorists. And the same is true in the Palestinian bantustan. It was
intended that the Palestinian Authority should be brutal, repressive and
corrupt. That's exactly what Israel and the US wanted, that's why they
liked Arafat. What they're criticising him for is correct, he's supposed
to be brutal, corrupt, repressive and control the population, to sustain
the neo-colonial dependency. 
Prime Minister Rabin was very frank about it, right after Oslo in the
Hebrew press he said 'look, if we give security control over to the
Palestinian Authority they'll be able to control the population without
any concern about the high court, or human rights organisations, or
mothers and fathers who may not like what their children are doing', and
so on. And if Arafat robbed European money, or his Authority lived in
villas in Gaza while the population is starving, that was fine as long as
they did their job — they control the population and ensure that the
neo-colonial dependency is established, and make sure the people that
count don't get harmed. They can bomb the niggers but they themselves
don't get harmed. 
That was the policy of the Clinton administration, and so it continues,
until they raise their heads. Then we get one million bullets,
helicopters, two hours of firing after a pistol shot, the horror from the
West over the fact that the wrong people are being attacked by atrocious
actions—and they are undoubtedly atrocious, but the gun fire is the wrong
way. That's essentially it, we can choose to disregard it but technically
the facts are pretty straight.
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
 
http://www.italia-cuba.it/associazione/associazione.htm
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 NOAM CHOMSKY
LOL, è il momento-signature
Tb
-- 
E' una grande mitzvah essere sempre felici (R. Nachman di Breslavia)

 don't get harmed.
e a questo galantuomo (e al suo degno compare Arafat) hanno dato il
nobel per la pace...complimenti vivissimi...