Mr.Chomsky
Apocalypse
Near
By MERAV YUDILOVITCH
[Note from NC: "The Yediot
Ahronot interview came out (on Ynet), Aug. 3, but only in Hebrew
-- so far at least. What they published was a kind of amalgam
of two versions, the second when the asked me to shorten the
first by eliminating the part about Iranian nuclear weapons.
What they published, for some reason, included the part they
asked me to cut and eliminated parts I thought were more important.
But worked out OK." The version posted here reproduces the
original transcript in full.]
MY: You say the provocation
and counter-provocation all serve as a distraction from the real
issue. does the war in Lebanon is also a distraction the aims
to draw the world's attention to the north of Israel while Gaza
is been destroyed?
NC: I assume you are referring
to John Berger's letter (which I signed, among others).
The "real issue"
that is being ignored is the systematic destruction of any prospects
for a viable Palestinian existence as Israel annexes valuable
land and major resources (water particularly), leaving the shrinking
territories assigned to Palestinians as unviable cantons, largely
separated from one another and from whatever little bit of Jerusalem
is to be left to Palestinians, and completely imprisoned as Israel
takes over the Jordan valley (and of course controls air space,
etc.). This program of "hitkansut," cynically disguised
as "withdrawal," is of course completely illegal, in
violation of Security Council resolutions and the unanimous decision
of the World Court (including the dissenting statement of US
Justice Buergenthal). If it is implemented as planned, it spells
the end of the very broad international consensus on a two-state
settlement that the US and Israel have unilaterally blocked for
30 years matters that are so well documented that I do
not have to review them here.
The US and Israel do not tolerate
any resistance to these plans, preferring to pretend falsely
of course that "there is no partner," as they
proceed with programs that go back a long way. We may recall
that Gaza and the West Bank are recognized to be a unit, so that
if resistance to Israel's destructive and illegal progams is
considered to be legitimate within the West Bank, then it is
legitimate in Gaza as well, in reaction to Israeli actions in
the West Bank.
To turn to your specific question,
even a casual look at the Western press reveals that the crucial
developments in the occupied territories are marginalized even
more by the war in Lebanon. The ongoing destruction in Gaza
which was rarely seriously reported in the first place -- has
largely faded into the background, and the systematic takeover
of the West Bank has virtually disappeared. The severe punishment
of the population for "voting the wrong way" was never
considered problematic, consistent with the long-standing principle
that democracy is fine if and only if it accords with strategic
and economic interests, documented to the heavens. However, I
would not go as far as the implication in your question that
this was a purpose of the war, though it clearly is the effect.
MY: Do you see the world
media partialy responsible for not insisting of linking between
what's going on in the Occupied Territories and Lebanon?
NC: Yes, but that is the least
of the charges that should be levelled against the world media,
and the intellectual communities generally. One of many far more
severe charges is brought up in the opening paragraph of the
Berger letter. Recall the facts. On June 25, Cpl. Gilad Shalit
was captured at an army post near Gaza, eliciting huge cries
of outrage worldwide, continuing daily at a high pitch, and a
sharp escalation in Israeli attacks in Gaza. The escalation was
supported on the grounds that capture of a soldier is a grave
crime for which the population must be punished. One day before,
on June 24, Israeli forces kidnapped two Gaza civilians, Osama
and Mustafa Muamar, by any standards a far more severe crime
than capture of a soldier. The Muamar kidnappings were certainly
known to the major world media. They were reported at once in
the English-language Israeli press (Jerusalem Post, Ha'aretz
English edition, June 25), basically IDF handouts. And there
were indeed a few brief, scattered and dismissive reports in
several newspapers around the US; the only serious news report
in English that day was in the Turkish press. Very revealingly,
there was no comment, no follow-up, no call for military or terrorist
attacks against Israel. A google search will quickly reveal the
relative significance in the West of the kidnapping of civilians
by the IDF and the capture of an Israeli soldier a day later.
The paired events, a day apart,
demonstrate with bitter clarity that the show of outrage over
the Shalit kidnapping was cynical fraud. They reveal that by
Western moral standards, kidnapping of civilians is just fine
if it is done by "our side," but capture of a soldier
on "our side" a day later is a despicable crime that
requires severe punishment of the population. As Gideon Levy
accurately wrote in Ha'aretz, the IDF kidnapping of civilians
the day before the capture of Cpl. Shalit strips away any "legitimate
basis for the IDF's operation," and, we may add, any legitimate
basis for support for these operations. The same assessment carries
over to the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers near the
Lebanon border, heightened, in this case, by the (null) reaction
to the regular Israeli practice for many years of abducting Lebanese
and holding many as hostages for long periods, and of course
killing many Lebanese. No one ever argued that these crimes justified
bombing and shelling of Israel, invasion and destruction of much
of the country, or terrorist actions within it. The conclusions
are stark, clear, and entirely unambiguous.
All of this is, obviously,
of extraordinary importance in the present case, particularly
given the dramatic timing. That is, I suppose, why the major
media chose to avoid the crucial facts, apart from a very few
scattered and dismissive phrases.
Apologists for state crimes
claim that the kidnapping of the Gaza civilians is justified
by IDF claims that they are "Hamas militants" or were
planning crimes. By their logic, they should therefore be lauding
the capture of Gilad Shalit, a soldier in an army that was (uncontroversially)
shelling and bombing Gaza. These performances are truly disgraceful.
MY: You're talking first
and foremost about acknowledging the Palestinian nation but will
it solve the "iranian threat" will it push the Hizbullah
from the Israeli boarder? today Israelis see an imediate danger
in the northern front are we being blinded?
NC: Virtually all informed
observers agree that a fair and equitable resolution of the plight
of the Palestinians would considerably weaken the anger and hatred
towards Israel and the US in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Such
an agreement is surely within reach, if the US and Israel depart
from their long-standing rejectionism. Before they were called
off prematurely by Ehud Barak, the Taba negotiations of January
2001 were coming close to a viable settlement, carried forward
by subseqnent negotiations, most prominently the Geneva Accord
released on December 2002, which received strong international
support but was dismissed by the US and rejected by Israel. One
can raise various criticisms of these proposals, but they are
at least a basis, perhaps a solid basis, for progress towards
peaceful settlement if the US and Israel sharply reverse
their rejectionist policies.
On Iran and Hizbollah, there
is, of course, much more to say, and I can only mention a few
central points here.
Let us begin with Iran. In
2003, Iran offered to negotiate all outstanding issues with the
US, including nuclear issues and a two-state solution to the
Israel-Palestine conflict. The offer was made by the moderate
Khatami government, with the support of the hard-line "supreme
leader" Ayatollah Khamenei. The Bush administration response
was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer.
In June 2006, Khamenei issued
an official declaration stating that Iran agrees with the Arab
countries on the issue of Palestine, meaning that it accepts
the 2002 Arab League call for full normalization of relations
with Israel in a two-state settlement in accord with the international
consensus. The timing suggests that this might have been a reprimand
to his subordinate Ahmadenijad, whose inflammatory statements
are given wide publicity in the West, unlike the far more important
declaration by his superior Khamenei. Just a few days ago, former
Iranian diplomat Saddagh Kharazzi "reaffirmed that Iran
would back a two-state solution if the Palestinians accepted"
(Financial Times, July 26, 2006). Of course, the PLO has officially
backed a two-state solution for many years, and backed the 2002
Arab League proposal. Hamas has also indicated its willingness
to negotiate a two-state settlement, as is surely well-known
in Israel. Kharazzi is reported to be the author of the 2003
proposal of Khatami and Khamanei.
The US and Israel do not want
to hear any of this. They prefer to hear that Iran "is sworn
to the destruction of the Jewish state" (Jerusalem correspondent
Charles Radin, Boston Globe, 2 August), the standard and more
convenient story.
They also do not want to hear
that Iran appears to be the only country to have accepted the
proposal by IAEA director Mohammed ElBaradei that all weapons-usable
fissile materials be placed under international control, a step
towards a verifiable Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty (FMCT),
as mandated by the UN General Assembly in 1993. ElBaradei's proposal,
if implemented, would not only end the Iranian nuclear crisis
but would also deal with a vastly more serious crisis: the growing
threat of nuclear war, which leads prominent strategic analysts
to warn of "apocalypse soon" (Robert McNamara) if policies
continue on their current course. The US strongly opposes a verifiable
FMCT, but over US objections, the treaty came to a vote at the
United Nations, where it passed 147-1, with two abstentions:
Israel, which cannot oppose its patron, and more interestingly,
Blair's Britain, which retains a degree of sovereignty. The British
ambassador stated that Britain supports the treaty, but it "divides
the international community" 147 to 1. These again
are matters that are virtually suppressed outside of specialist
circles, and are matters of literal survival of the species,
extending far beyond Iran.
It is commonly said that the
"international community" has called on Iran to abandon
its legal right to enrich uranium. That is true, if we define
the "international community" as Washington and whoever
happens to go along with it. It is surely not true of the world.
The non-aligned countries have forcefully endorsed Iran's "inalienable
right" to enrich uranium. And, rather remarkably, in Turkey,
Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, a majority of the population favor
accepting a nuclear-armed Iran over any American military action,
international polls reveal.
The non-aligned countries also
called for a nuclear-free Middle East, a longstanding demand
of the authentic international community, again blocked by the
US and Israel. It should be recognized that the threat of Israeli
nuclear weapons is taken very seriously in the world. As explained
by the former Commander-in-Chief of the US Strategic Command,
General Lee Butler, "it is dangerous in the extreme that
in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East,
one nation has armed itself, ostensibly, with stockpiles of nuclear
weapons, perhaps numbering in the hundreds, and that inspires
other nations to do so." Israel is doing itself no favors
if it ignores these concerns.
It is also of some interest
that when Iran was ruled by the tryant installed by a US-UK military
coup, the United States including Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kissinger,
Wolfowitz and others -- strongly supported the Iranian nuclear
programs they now condemn and helped provide Iran with the means
to pursue them. These facts are surely not lost on the Iranians,
just as they have not forgotten the very strong support of the
US and its allies for Saddam Hussein during his murderous aggression,
including help in developing the chemical weapons that helped
kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians.
There is a great deal more
to say, but it appears that the "Iranian threat" to
which you refer can be approached by peaceful means, if the US
and Israel would agree. We cannot know whether the Iranian proposals
are serious, unless they are explored. The US-Israel refusal
to explore them, and the silence of the US (and, to my knowledge,
European) media, suggests that it is perhaps feared that they
may be serious.
I should add that to the outside
world, it sounds a bit odd, to put it mildly, for the US and
Israel to be warning of the "Iranian threat" when they
and they alone are issuing threats to launch an attack, threats
that are immediate and credible, and in serious violation of
international law; and are preparing very openly for such an
attack. Whatever one thinks of Iran, no such charge can be made
in their case. It is also apparent to the world, if not to the
US and Israel, that Iran has not invaded any other countries,
something that the US and Israel have done regularly.
On Hezbollah too, there are
hard and serious questions. As well-known, Hezbollah was formed
in reaction to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and its
harsh and brutal occupation in violation of Security Council
orders. It won considerable prestige by playing the leading role
in driving out the aggressors. Also, like other Islamic movements,
including Hamas, it has gained popular support by providing social
services to the poor. Along with Amal, now its close ally, Hizbollah
represents the Shi'a community in the parliament in Lebanon's
confessional system. It is an integral part of Lebanese society.
And much as in the past, US-backed Israeli violence is sharply
increasing popular support for Hezbollah, not only in the Arab
and Muslim worlds generally, but also in Lebanon itself. Polls
taken in late July reveal that "87 percent of Lebanese support
Hizbullah's fight with Israel, a rise of 29 percent on a similar
poll conducted in February. More striking, however, is the level
of support for Hizbullah's resistance from non-Shiite communities.
Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hizbullah along
with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis. Lebanese no
longer blame Hizbullah for sparking the war by kidnapping the
Israeli soldiers, but Israel and the US instead" (Christian
Science Monitor, July 28). As often in the past, Israel is doing
itself no favors by failing to attend to the predictable consequences
of its resort to extreme violence instead of such measures as
prisoner exchange, as in the past.
It is also not wise to ignore
the recent observations of Zeev Maoz (Ha'aretz, July 24). As
he wrote, the "wall-to-wall consensus in Israel that the
war against the Hezbollah in Lebanon is a just and moral waris
based on selective and short-term memory, on an introverted world
view, and on double standards." The reasons include the
Israeli practice of kidnapping and the almost daily violations
of the Lebanese border for surveillance: "a border violation
is a border violation." The reasons also include the historical
record: the four earlier Israeli invasions since 1978, and their
grim consequences for Lebanese. And we should also not forget
the pretexts. The 1982 invasion was carried out after a year
in which Israel repeatedly carried out bombing and other provocations
in Lebanon, apparently trying to elicit some PLO violation of
the 1981 truce, and when it failed, attacked anyway, on the pretext
of the assassination attempt against Ambassador Argov (by Abu
Nidal, who was at war with the PLO). The invasion was clearly
intended, as virtually conceded, to end the embarrassing PLO
initiatives for negotiation, a "veritable catastrophe"
for Israel as Yehoshua Porat pointed out. It was, as described
at the time, a "war for the West Bank." The later invasions
also had shameful pretexts. In 1993, Hezbollah had violated "the
rules of the game," Yitzhak Rabin announced: these Israeli
rules permitted Israel to carry out terrorist attacks north of
its illegally-held "security zone," but did not permit
retaliation within Israel. Peres's 1996 invasion had no more
credible pretexts. It is convenient to forget all of this, or
to concoct tales about shelling of the Galilee in 1981, but it
is not an attractive practice, nor a wise one.
The problem of Hezbollah's
arms is quite serious, no doubt. Resolution 1559 calls for disarming
of all Lebanese militias, but Lebanon has not enacted that provision.
Sunni Prime Minister Fuad Siniora describes Hezbollah's military
wing as "resistance rather than as a militia, and thus exempt
from" Resolution 1559. A National Dialogue in June 2006
failed to resolve the problem. Its main purpose was to formulate
a "national defense strategy" (vis-à-vis Israel),
but it remained deadlocked over Hezbollah's call for "a
defense strategy that allowed the Islamic Resistance to keep
its weapons as a deterrent to possible Israeli aggression"
(Beirut-based journalist Jim Quilty, Middle East Report, July
25), in the absence of any credible alternative. The US could,
if it chose, provide a credible guarantee against an invasion
by its client state, but that would require a sharp change in
long-standing policy.
In the background are crucial
facts emphasized by several veteran Middle East correspondents.
Rami Khouri, an editor of Lebanon's Daily Star, writes that "the
Lebanese and Palestinians have responded to Israel's persistent
and increasingly savage attacks against entire civilian populations
by creating parallel or alternative leaderships that can protect
them and deliver essential services." Syria specialist Patrick
Seale agrees: "You have the rise of essentially non-state
actors like Hezbollah and Hamas because of the vacuum created
by the impotence of Arab states to contain or deter Israel. These
actors are basically taking issue with Israel's 'deterrence,'
which posits that Israel can strike but no one can strike at
it." Until such basic questions are dealt with, it is likely
that "the Middle East will sink further into violence and
despair," as Khouri predicts.
MY: You are not refering
in your letter to the Israeli casualties. is there diferentiation
in your opinion between Isareli casualties of war (and I'm not
talking about soldiers I'm talking about civilians) and Lebanese
or Palestinians casualties?
NC: That is not accurate. John
Berger's letter is very explicit about making no distinction
between Israeli and other casualties. As his letter states: "Both
categories of missile rip bodies apart horribly - who but field
commanders can forget this for a moment."
MY: Why in your opinion
the world is co-operating with the Israeli invasion to Lebanon
and why isn't there any real pressure on the israeli government
to stop the madness in Gaza and Jenin? What purpose does this
silence serve?
NC: The great majority of the
world protests, but chooses not to act. Europe is unwilling to
take a stand against the US administration, which has made it
clear that it supports Israeli policies in Palestine and Lebanon.
The rest of the world strongly objects, but they are not even
considered part of the "international community," unless
they obey. The US-backed Arab tyrannies at first condemned Hezbollah,
but were forced to back down out of fear of their own populations.
Even King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Washington's most loyal (and
most important) ally, was compelled to say that "If the
peace option is rejected due to the Israeli arrogance, then only
the war option remains, and no one knows the repercussions befalling
the region, including wars and conflict that will spare no one,
including those whose military power is now tempting them to
play with fire."
With regard to Palestine, while
Bush's stand is extreme, it has its roots in earlier policies.
The week in Taba in January 2001 is the only real break in US
rejectionism in 30 years. During the Oslo years, the US-Israel
hinted at joining the international consensus, but made sure
it would be very difficult to implement by steady increase in
settlement, the rate peaking in 2000. The US also strongly supported
earlier Israeli invasions of Lebanon, though in 1982 and 1996,
it compelled Israel to terminate its aggression when atrocities
were reaching a point that harmed US interests.
Unfortunately, one can generalize
a comment of Uri Avnery's about Dan Halutz, who "views the
world below through a bombsight." Much the same is true
of Rumsfeld-Cheney-Rice, and other top Bush administration planners,
despite occasional soothing rhetoric. As history reveals, that
view of the world is not uncommon among those who hold a virtual
monopoly of the means of violence, with consequences that we
need not review.
MY: What is the next chapter
in this middle-eastern conflict as you see it?
NC: I do not know of anyone
foolhardy enough to predict. The US and Israel are stirring up
popular forces that are very ominous, and which will only gain
in power and become more extremist if the US and Israel persist
in demolishing any hope of realization of Palestinian national
rights, and destroying Lebanon. It should also be recognized
that Washington's primary concern, as in the past, is not Israel
and Lebanon, but the vast energy resources of the Middle East,
recognized 60 years ago to be a "stupendous source of strategic
power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in
world history." We can expect, with confidence, that the
US will continue to do what it can to control this unparalleled
source of strategic power. That may not be easy. The remarkable
incompetence of Bush planners has created a catastrophe in Iraq,
for their own interests as well. They are even facing the possibility
of the ultimate nightmare: a loose Shi'a alliance (including
Shi'ite-dominated Iraq, Iran, and the Shi'ite regions of Saudi
Arabia), controlling the world's major energy supplies, and independent
of Washington or even worse, establishing closer links
with the China-based Asian Energy Security Grid and Shanghai
Cooperation Council. The results could be truly apocalyptic.
And even in tiny Lebanon, the leading Lebanese academic scholar
of Hezbollah, and a harsh critic of the organization, describes
the current conflict in "apocalyptic terms," warning
that possibly "All hell would be let loose" if the
outcome of the US-Israel campaign leaves a situation in which
"the Shiite community is seething with resentment at Israel,
the United States and the government that it perceives as its
betrayer" (Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, Washington Post, 23 July).
It is no secret that in past
years, Israel has helped to destroy secular Arab nationalism
and to create Hezbollah and Hamas, just as US violence has expedited
the rise of extremist Islamic fundamentalism and jihadi terror.
The reasons are understood. There are constant warnings about
it by Western (including US) intelligence agencies, and by the
leading specialists on these topics. One can bury one's head
in the sand and take comfort in a "wall-to-wall consensus"
that what we do is "just and moral" (Maoz), ignoring
the lessons of recent history, or simple rationality. Or one
can face the facts, and approach dilemmas which are very serious
by peaceful means. They are available. Their success can never
be guaranteed. But we can be reasonably confident that viewing
the world through a bombsight will bring further misery and suffering,
perhaps even "apocalypse soon."
Pitäisikö heidät viedä Guantamoon?
Ja muistakaa: