Demographic,
Environmental,
and
Security Issues Project
The Mideast: A Widening Circle of Violence
A talk presented to
the Phoenix Community of Newark, Delaware, November 9, 2003. John Cartier,
President, The Rev. Robert W. Andrews, Founder and Pastor
by Ronald Bleier
I’d like to begin with a few words about my background. I
was born during the Second World War, in November 1942, on a tiny island called
Lopud off the Croatian coastline near Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia, while my parents
were escaping from the Nazis. Fifteen months later, my brother was born in
February 1944 on yet another of these islands called Vis, as my parents
continued their escape. In due course, my parents made it safely to a refugee
camp in Italy where they were among about 1,000 mostly Jewish refugees who were
granted temporary asylum in the United States by President Roosevelt during the
war. About a year after the war, we were granted permanent residency leading to
citizenship by an act of Congress during the Truman presidency. I grew up in
Brooklyn, New York where I attended yeshiva elementary and high school and
where I was indoctrinated in Zionism, an ideology that I didn’t question for
many years. After graduating from Brooklyn College, I spent two years with the
Peace Corps in Iran.
It was only in the aftermath of the 1967 war when it became
clear to me that the Israelis did not intend to withdraw from the West Bank
that my views slowly changed, and I was to meet with a series of
disillusionments that culminated in my present anti-Zionist views. The horrific
Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 made me understand some of the depths of
the savagery and the ruthlessness of Israeli policy. The first Palestinian
uprising in December 1987 sparked tremendous interest and activism on the
Palestinian issue and roughly coincided with the publication of several
revisionist histories by such writers as Simcha Flapan, Walid Khalidi, Benny
Morris, Tom Segev and others which opened my eyes to the myths surrounding the
birth of Israel. It was then that I learned that Israel was born out of the
expulsion of the Palestinian people, out of racial discrimination and that a
Zionist Israel, required cruelty and oppression in order to retain control of a
second class population. In that connection I needed to look up and figure out
for myself the definition of Zionism. I deduced that it meant the ideology that
a Jewish state of Israel should replace the former Palestine. From this I
concluded that Zionism is manifestly racist in theory and in practice since it
treats only Jews as first class citizens.
In my yeshivas we were taught ethical, universal Judaism. We
learned about the Torah, the Law of Moses. I was imbued by my rabbis with the
notion of Judaism as a religion embodying justice, equality, and human rights
for all. Only much later did I begin to recognize the reality of Israel as a
state like other states, engaging in the very worst atrocities of which it was
capable in order to further its political goals. And later still I began to
recognize the special, terrible way Israel was different from other states
since it acted with the full diplomatic, economic and military support of the
United States.
My next great disillusionment was to find that I was alone
among my family and friends in taking an objective and critical view of Israeli
policy. I can still recall the moment in the early 80s that I broached my new
views of Israel with my father, a dedicated Zionist. We were in a restaurant
and his first reaction was to laugh at my ignorance and naiveté. He couldn’t
believe that his son would take the side of the Arabs – that’s how he saw it.
His second reaction was to ask me to lower my voice lest others overhear my
outlandish views. We very quickly had to agree to disagree on the issue.
I underwent another disillusionment with regard to the role
of the media. I had already been something of a critic of the major media but
it was a completely new world to learn of the power of the “friends of Israel”
lobby to obscure the reality of the crimes of Israel. As it happened, my first
publications appeared in the now sadly defunct magazine, Lies of Our Times.
The rumor going around when the magazine died was that its forthright stand on
the Israeli Arab issue doomed its funding in the post Oslo period. On the power
of the Israeli lobby to ruin political careers, to stifle dissent and to
procure political support and hundreds of billions of dollars in military and
economic aid, I read Paul Findley, Moshe Menuhin, Donald Neff, Jeffrey
Blankfort, Alfred Lilienthal and others who pointed to the dramatic and rigid
control by Zionists and their supporters over the media and over Congress and
the executive on Middle East Policy.
Until the advent of the current Bush administration and the
terrible events of 9/11, it may have been possible even for those sympathetic
to the Palestinian struggle, to view events in Palestine and elsewhere in the
Middle East, as confined to that area of the world, with minimal effects on
daily life elsewhere. Needless to say there was more than an element of
denial in such a view as we had to put to one side the corruption of our national
discourse and the censorship of information coming out of the Middle East, not
to mention the raiding of the U.S. Treasury of $3-6 billion a year or more to pacify the Israeli lobby.
But today, in the wake of 9/11 we are confronted with an
energized and radical neo conservative movement that has led to the Iraq War
and to the resurgence of Al Qaeda. We watch as our civil liberties are
restricted, and our government pushes through massive tax cuts for the rich,
and sweetheart multi-billion dollar wartime contracts for its political
patrons, while piling on enormous deficits with no relief in sight. We watch as
our economy falters, as our homeland security becomes more ragged and tattered,
and we begin to recognize that we are in many ways as much the victims of war
as are the helpless Palestinians, Iraqis, and Afghans.
Why did the United States go to war against Iraq in 2003? In
large part, I argue, because of a domestic neoconservative agenda married to
Israeli government
interest in eliminating Iraq as a potential enemy. Those like Cheney,
Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Eliot Abrams and others in senior government positions
are interested in extending U.S. military power abroad not in the interests of
democracy as they claim, but in order to sow chaos, confusion and international
tension. They are engaged in overthrowing the international order and they
believe in military might not diplomacy as the preferred means of conflict
resolution. They might simply be termed bandits or international outlaws.
The power of the Israeli lobby to smooth the way for war was
highlighted by the furor over Virginia Congressman Jim Moran's response in
early March 2003 to a constituent question during a town hall meeting. He said:
that "if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for
this war with Iraq we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish
community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where
this is going and I think they should."
He would have been on safer ground had he limited his
remarks to the leaders of the Jewish community. Jews, like many other groups,
are split on the war. But the congressman was correct and extraordinarily
courageous in pointing to the leadership of the major Jewish organizations,
suggesting that they could have blocked the war. As a 13-year veteran member of
the House, Jim Moran has been around long enough to understand how political
power on Middle East issues operates in Congress. War against Iraq has so
isolated the United States and made so little sense that were it not perceived
as good for Israel, in all likelihood it would not have gained sufficient
traction in the media or in Congress.
The power of Zionist interests explains in part why many
high profile Democrats such as Senators John Kerry, Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden and others voted to give President
Bush the authority for war in October 2002 despite the manifest recklessness of
the venture. They understood that opposition to perceived Israeli interests
might well have a dramatic impact on campaign contributions since Jewish
sources reportedly donate 50% or more of the total receipts to the Democratic
Party. In addition to money, they understood that they would be on shaky
grounds with regard to media coverage unless they played it safe and supported
the administration.
Playing it safe seems to have boomeranged with presidential
contender Senator John Kerry who showed in his October speech in the Senate debate
that he well understood the dangers and recklessness of the Iraqi adventure.
Nevertheless, he supported Bush and voted to authorize war. By that one
decision alone, he seems to have put himself well behind the current Democratic
front-runner Howard Dean. Kerry’s situation is a dramatic example of how
subservience to Zionist interests pollutes our politics.
We are now in a holding period of about a year until the
next presidential elections, where the Iraqi opposition seems to have put at
least a temporary break on the neoconservative agenda, and their dreams of
regime change in Syria or Iran. The Iraqi opposition has contributed to a new
stronger domestic opposition, reflected in the insurgent candidacy of Howard
Dean and to some optimism that regime change in this country might be possible.
Edward Said, about a month before he died predicted that George W. Bush would
lose the 2004 elections because of the Iraq quagmire. I would personally be
more optimistic were it not for the advent of computerized and touch screen
voting which may already have contributed to upset victories by Republican
Saxby Chambliss in Georgia over incumbent Democratic war hero Max Cleland. In
Nebraska, Republican Chuck Hegel won two elections where touch screen voting
machines owned by Diebold, in which he has a part interest tabulated the votes
without a paper record. In addition
there were questionable results in Minnesota, Missouri and other states in 2002
due to touch screen voting. But all of that is another story.
While we’re waiting for the political situation in the U.S.
to resolve itself, one loose cannon is Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Will Sharon keep quiet for a year, and not provoke any more suicide bombings
that he can then use as a pretext to take some provocative action against the
Palestinians or the Syrians or the Iranians? Or will he find a way to take
advantage of this interim period to provoke some large-scale operation. About a month ago, the U.S. and Israel
leaked the news that Israel’s fleet of Dolphin class submarines are deployed
with U.S. supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads --
information which may or may not be true. Why did they leak this intelligence?
Are they contemplating an adventure somewhere? Are they afraid of some
pre-emptive attack against Israel? Are they delivering a warning to Iran? We
don’t know.
As part of our analysis, we need to recognize the new factor
in U.S. Israeli relations in the era of Bush and Sharon, two of the most
irresponsible leaders in two of the world’s most powerful positions. One
important point is that Sharon has managed to carve out for himself the maximum
freedom of action of any Israeli leader since the 1956 Suez War. Ever since
that time, the Israeli government
has made sure that it had a green light from Washington for its adventures. The
same is nominally true today, but the Israeli air attack in early October on an
abandoned Palestinian training camp deep inside Syria revealed that the U.S. government control
over such Israeli adventures is weaker than it has been for decades. Evidently,
the Israeli strike was not cleared beforehand with the U.S. government and the
first U.S. response was lukewarm since the attack was an outrageous and
unprovoked act of Israeli aggression. In the end it took about 24 hours before
Washington decided to climb completely on board when Bush announced that Israel
had every right to defend the “homeland.”
The Israeli attack on Syria in early October [2003] came in
response to a successful Palestinian suicide attack in Haifa that killed 19
people. A pattern had been established. Sharon provokes a Palestinian attack,
generally by assassinating a top leader of one of the militant groups such as
Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or the Al Aqsa martyrs brigade. Then the Palestinians
respond with an attempted suicide bombing, usually within a week. If the
Palestinian attack is successful as was the case with the October Haifa attack,
then Israel reacts with high profile retaliation. In this latest instance, the difficulty for Sharon’s government was to
choose a retaliation that would satisfy the right wing element of his government, as well
as the public at large that is used to such retaliations. An obvious target was
Yasser Arafat especially since the Israeli security cabinet decided in early
September to expel him. However, such an option was off the table in regard to
the Haifa bombing, not merely because of the likely international outcry and
because of U.S. opposition to such a plan, but because Arafat is extremely
useful to Sharon’s government
as he has been to previous Israeli governments.
Arafat exists as a convenient punching bag, someone to blame whenever there is
a successful Palestinian attack. Arafat’s usefulness makes it highly unlikely that
the Israelis will act against him before they have decided and put into
operation a plan for mass expulsion of the Palestinians to Jordan.
In the end, Sharon decided on the attack on Syria, being at
the same time careful to minimize Syrian casualties in order to dampen the U.S.
and international reaction that was carefully measured by the Israelis. As was
pointed out, even on a segment of NPR’s Morning Edition program, Sharon’s
technique is to continually extend the boundaries of his retaliations (read:
aggressions) against the Arabs, confident in the knowledge that after the
predictable uproar, a new reality will have been created. Later, when he
embarks on yet another attack, he will be starting from a more aggressive
position, from which he can ratchet up the pressure even further.
An unexpected and most welcome fly in Sharon’s ointment
appeared in the form of a dispute made public by Lt Gen Moshe Yaalon, the
Israeli army chief of staff. At the end of October he complained that the tough
policies against the Palestinians, the closures, sieges and assassinations are
increasing Palestinian hatred toward Israel and fostering sympathy for the very
militant groups Israel is trying to destroy.
One hardly knows what to make of this since General Yaalon is notorious
as a hardliner and seemed to be totally on board with Sharon’s most cynical
plans. Only a year ago, Ya’alon emphasized that Israel was fighting a war of
survival against Palestinian militants who must be crushed at all costs and he
compared the threat by Palestinian militants to a cancer and argued that he was
applying “chemotherapy.” Nevertheless, a hint of his newly critical,
anti-Sharon position came in September of this year when he voiced public
reservations about the Israeli bomb attack on Hamas leadership in a Gaza
residential neighborhood in which the wheelchair bound Hamas leader Sheikh
Ahmed Yassin was lightly injured. But
Ya’alon’s September comments were seen to be of a tactical nature. Now he has
apparently moved to making strategic complaints. This comes shortly after 27
Israeli pilots signed a letter of protest stating their refusal to participate
in bombings targeting Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Finally, the
rally on November 3rd at the Rabin memorial drew an unexpectedly
large crowd of 100,000 people signaling widespread discomfort with Sharon’s
hard-line policies.
Another problem for Sharon is that he and his two sons are
currently under investigation for two corruption cases over political funding
and the Israeli police most recently questioned him for seven hours at his
residence. It’s not impossible that
Sharon will have to step down from his position as Prime Minister as a result
of this investigation, although right now I would say that the odds are not
high for such a result. Nevertheless, the incident helps to underline the
importance of Sharon at the top of Israel’s political echelon. There is a
tendency in the public mind to underestimate him or perhaps to soften his
edges, since he has attained the office of prime minister. However, we should
bear in mind his unique capabilities to unify the country behind his draconian
measures against the Palestinians, his ability to intimidate President Bush and
the U.S. administration and his ability to make use of and to create
opportunities to fulfill the Zionist dream of a land of Israel only for Jews.
What does all this signify about the future direction of
Israeli policy? Is it possible to
discern a real shift towards normalcy or will we soon see a resumption of the
dynamic of terror leading to the fulfillment of Sharon’s plans to rid the
former Palestine of as many Palestinians as possible. One way to seek an answer
to that question is to look at the reality of Palestinian life as it is lived
today, on the ground in Occupied Palestine. For a snapshot of what Palestinians
undergo I turn to the testimony of Dr. Mustafa Barghouti who is currently in
the United States to offer testimony and who appeared on Pacifica’s Democracy
Now! on Friday November 7th. He arrives just as a U.N. committee
monitoring human rights abuses concludes that the situation in the Occupied
Territories was the worst ever last year. Dr Barghouti is the President of the
Union of Palestinian Medical Relief committees. He spoke about the 482 Israeli
checkpoints that cut the country up into 300 clusters of prison like entities
that create havoc and make normal life impossible. He said that a recent
45-minute trip in the West Bank took him 9 hours in 11 different vehicles since
travelers must change vehicles at every checkpoint. He said that 52 Palestinian
women have thus far been forced to give birth at checkpoints. He spoke of one
recent incident where a woman about to give birth was stopped at a checkpoint
and not allowed to continue. An ambulance arrived but she was not allowed to
cross the checkpoint in order to get to the hospital. She finally gave birth at
the checkpoint and afterwards was not allowed to get to the ambulance and had
to return home. It has been widely noted that the Israelis create checkpoints
not solely for security, but they use them to harass and humiliate the
Palestinian people and to show them that they are not welcome in their land.
Dr. Barghouti spoke about the apartheid wall that Israel is
building. He cited the northern West Bank town of Qalqilya, with its 46,000
people surrounded by the apartheid wall. There is one gate for the whole town
that closes at 6 pm, opens at 6 am. and is sometimes closed for days. He said
that the wall and the checkpoints make normal life impossible.
Dr Barghouti’s case illustrates one of the hot issues
surrounding the Palestinians, namely the suicide bombers. Many of those sympathetic to the
Palestinians deplore the suicide bombings, putting them on a level with Israeli
terrorism. In doing so, they ignore the
pressures of everyday life most Palestinian youth are subjected to. They ignore
the hopelessness of their situation as they confront the implacable Israeli
determination to make their lives as harsh and as hopeless as possible. Many
suggest that a better strategy would be for the Palestinians to emulate the
tactics of non-violent resistance modeled by Ghandi and Martin Luther King.
Would that they be allowed to do so! Such critics ignore Israel’s ruthless
control over the situation and the Israeli understanding that non-violent
protest is more dangerous to Zionist goals than is violent resistance, because
the struggle for world opinion is crucial.
To give just one example from Dr. Barghouti’s experience. Amnesty
International reported on an incident from March 2002 when Dr Barghouti was
arrested and beaten after giving a press conference with the participation of
an international delegation, including members of the European Parliament,
delegates from the U.S. and other European countries. He had spoken about the
disastrous impact on medical treatment of the Israeli closures of towns and
villages in the Occupied Territories. As a result of the beating, he suffered a
broken kneecap and various lacerations and bruises on his face and body. Luisa
Morgantini, an Italian member of the European parliament also suffered bruises
and other injuries as she tried to shield him at the al Ram checkpoint between
Jerusalem and Ramallah. Since Dr Barghouti had a world wide reputation he got
off lightly according to the Amnesty International report which mentioned the
cases of several other Palestinians who were members of human rights groups who
suffered lengthy jail terms and beatings.
Many say, why can’t the two peoples simply share the land.
But it doesn’t work that way in politics, which is the struggle for the control
of resources. There are now about 10 million people struggling for a land that
held less than 700,000 a century ago. The reason that the Ben Gurions and the
Sharons of this world win out is because they demonstrate the ruthlessness to
take by force what their tribe feels is necessary for their
existence. In such struggles, it’s a
tautological truth that the stronger side wins. Right now the overwhelming power
is with the Israelis and the Americans, and there will be much suffering and
tears and blood before that power is seriously threatened.
How do we speak of solutions in the face of such terrible
and intractable forces in the former Palestine and here at home? I have always believed that the first step
is to look the devil – that is to say, reality – in the eye, describe it, and
understand it as best and as clearly as we are able. That is exactly what we
are trying to do here this evening. The next step for each of us is to find
ways to struggle for our visions and our dreams and our futures. There are of
course no easy answers and no single answer. There is only a difficult and
puzzling and impossible process and our job is to find ways to plug into that
process and to make it happen. And for that task we are armed only with the
hope that we can find the energy and the leadership and the unity to put us on
a better path than the one we seem headed towards now.
The End