3
1
1
6-How being a peace activist fighting for Palestinian rights in Israel feels like? Also, could you give us an overview of the Israeli peace movement today?
Although ICAHD cooperates with other critical Israeli peace and human rights organizations, I stand somewhat apart from many activists for several reasons. Unlike most of my comrades, I do not think that activism by itself can achieve political results. The Israeli peace movement in general seems to think it cannot influence policy or events, and if it is limited merely to protest and symbolic solidarity acts, then there is no need to even try and participate in the political process. ICAHD considers itself an actor, a political player. We believe we can influence events, and so we seek to work with international partners, governments and civil society alike. I do not think it is worthwhile to try and reach the Israeli public. Unlike most Israeli peace activists, again, I again prefer to dedicate ICAHD’s limited energy and resources to international advocacy. Finally, I define myself politically as an Israeli; an ideology like Zionism cannot determine the life of a country. Thus we at ICAHD belong to a small coterie of Israeli peace groups – together with the Alternative Information Center, the anarchists and ’48 Palestinians – who can envision Israeli national expression within a single political entity shared with the Palestinians.
The Zionist peace movement is largely paralyzed today. Peace Now, the largest and best known of this camp, is non-functional except in its important monitoring of settlement activity. The Zionist left party, Meretz, has only five seats in the parliament out of 120. The critical (or “radical,” if you like) left of the Israeli peace movement to which ICAHD belongs is, it is true, even smaller in numbers and unable to elect a single member to the parliament. Nevertheless, we do unflinching actions and analysis from the ground and make our voices heard in many international forums.
7-What do you make of the recent Jerusalem attacks by Palestinians living in East Jerusalem? (3, 4, 5)
In fact, Palestinian violence against Israelis (“terrorism” in our parlance; Israeli violence against Palestinians is “legitimate military operations”) has been virtually eliminated – except limited rocket attacks coming periodically out of Gaza. Israelis are feeling great personal security, which removes much of the motivation for peace, which for Israelis means only concessions and becoming vulnerable to our permanent enemies. The Wall might have something to do with this, but incessant Israeli military activity throughout the Occupied Territories – today bolstered by military/police operations of the Palestinian Authority against Hamas and those “wanted” by Israel – provides a better answer. The only actual attack in recent years was that carried out against the yeshiva in Jerusalem, and it stands out as an exception to the rule.
8-On the 17th of September 2008, Tzipi Livni was elected leader of the Kadima party. What could bar her from being the next Israeli prime minister? In what way could she been different than Ehud Olmert?
Israel’s four major parties – Likud of Netanyahu, Kadima of Olmert and Livni, Labor of Barak and Shas of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and Eli Yishai – are all right-wing and have members (especially generals and former security agents) who frequently cross over from one to the other. Tzipi Livni is merely another right-wing politician, and it is a mistake to consider Kadima a “centrist” party (it was, in fact, Sharon’s personal political vehicle). Still, Livni is the most popular candidate for Prime Minister, but she cannot win because in Israel we do not have representative democracy. Voters vote only for parties, not for candidates, and citizens have no representation by district. The only way to get Livni, then, is to vote Kadima, but it is not a popular party and people would rather vote Likud, meaning they will get Netanyahu even though few want him, even in his own party. See what I mean by a disempowered Israeli electorate?
9-Gideon Levy said that as long as the Israeli public will have no problem with the occupation, it will not stop. He also said that in most polls Israelis showed strong support for peace (up to 70%), but then voted for people like Benjamin Netanyahu (who will win the next Israeli election in 2 months according to Levy). Would you like to comment on this?
Three things disempower Israelis and neutralize them as a positive, pro-active political force: (1) the fact that although most Israelis are willing to support a two-state solution, they have been convinced by their political and military leaders that there is no political solution, there is no “partner for peace,” and therefore they have no choice but to let the government do whatever it wishes (which is to strengthen the Occupation); (2) as I’ve mentioned, they have no political representation and no ability to influence government decision, and so do not even try; and (3) as long as life is good – which it is inside the Israeli bubble – then who thinks of Arabs? So the issue of peace is way down the list of electoral priorities, and since candidates are dictated by parties, Israelis end up voting for the least evil choice. Thus Netanyahu.
10-In the last few years, unemployment rates in the West Bank and Gaza have reached new heights. In Nablus for example, which used to be a commercial centre for Palestine, more than 50% of its inhabitants are now without a job. The Palestinian Authority, in close collaboration with the World Bank and the British Department for International Development, has drawn up a new plan to be implemented in the West Bank called the Palestinian Reform and Development Plan (6).
In your opinion is this the right plan?
I don’t believe – together with the World Bank and DIFID, in my opinion – that development is possible under occupation. In fact, it ends up enabling occupation, since Israel can destroy Palestinian infrastructure at will and besiege Palestinians to the point of starvation knowing full well that the “development” and relief agencies will pick up the clack and keep the Palestinians’ heads just above water. This in Operation “Defensive Shield” in 2002 Israel destroyed $350 million of urban infrastructure, airports and ports, exactly the amount the international community had invested during the previous year. To paraphrase Clinton: “It’s the Occupation, Stupid!”
11-Barack Obama's election as President has been celebrated all over the world as a proof that America had changed and was ready to stop the warmongering Bush years and start anew. Any chance that this will apply to Israel/Palestine?
I wrote an article entitled “A Bone in America’s Throat” which was published on Nov. 10, 2008, in Counterpunch <www.counterpunch.org>. In it I argue that Obama is entering into a wholly different international reality than Bush did, in which America is militarily over-stretched and economically weakened and the world is more multi-polar. Rather than a “War on Terror,” the US will have to rejoin, rather than browbeat, the community of nations. To do that – and to leave Iraq and Afghanistan while stabilizing relations with Iran and Pakistan, plus trying to prevent the fall of Egypt, Jordan and other American “allies” to Islamic fundamentalists – it will have to find an accommodation, if not reconciliation, with the Muslim world. And it will not get to first base without addressing the Palestinian issue, which for the world’s Muslims is emblematic, a conflict more symbolically significant than Iraq. The Palestinians’ clout is that they are the gatekeepers. Until they signal to the Arab/Muslim world that the conflict with Israel is over, that they have reached a political solution acceptable to them and that now is time to normalize relations with Israel and its US patron, the conflict is not over, and the US cannot move ahead. My hope is not in Obama per se but in that he will recognize that it is in America’s interest to end the Israeli occupation, and will then move forcefully to do so. So I’m optimistic. I don’t believe Israeli control of Palestine is sustainable.
12-Noam Chomsky told me that "What current advocates of a one-state (binational) settlement don't seem to fully appreciate is that the choices are not two-states versus one-state with an internal civil rights (anti-apartheid) struggle, but rather two-states versus continuation of current US-Israeli programs, which take no responsibility for Palestinians outside of the areas Israel expects to incorporate, so that they can rot or leave". He also said that “I presume that's why binationalist proposals that were anathema when they were feasible (roughly '67-'73) are treated much more gently today, even approved in the mainstream, now that they can be exploited by the right to undermine a two-state first stage in the process.” What is your position on this issue and what is your vision for the future of Palestine/Israel?
I think mathematically there are only three solutions: one state, either bi-national (most likely) or a unitary state like South Africa; two states, which is still preferred by the vast majority of Palestinians in Palestine, who seek national self-determination (although they expect the eventual evolution of a single state); or apartheid – a “two-state solution” envisioned by Israel in which the Palestinians are shoved into a Bantustan on a truncated 15% of historic Palestine and Israel controls the rest, including borders, movement, water, Jerusalem and even the airspace. I believe that Israel has eliminated the two-state solution by its settlement project, and only an assertive US Administration can force Israel to withdraw to a meaningful degree, which is possible if US interests are at stake but unlikely. Since apartheid is not an option, we are left with a one-state solution, which I think is difficult – the history of bi-national states is not a happy one – but do-able if both peoples go into that project in good faith (very unlikely on the part of Israel). The one-state solution also enjoys no support today either in Israel or in the international community. It appears, then, that we have a conflict with no apparent solution at the moment.
