Palestine 2012 – Gaza and the UN Resolution
Monday, December 03, 2012
An
old man in Gaza held a placard that reads: “You take my water, burn my
olive trees, destroy my house, take my job, steal my land, imprison my
father, kill my mother, bombard my country, starve us all, humiliate us
all but I am to blame: I shot a rocket back.”1
The
old man’s message provides the proper context for the timelines on the
latest episode in the savage punishment of Gaza. They are useful, but
any effort to establish a “beginning” cannot help but be misleading. The
crimes trace back to 1948, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians
fled in terror or were expelled to Gaza by conquering Israeli forces,
who continued to truck them over the border for years after the official
cease-fire. The persecution of Gazans took new forms when Israel
conquered the Strip in 1967. From recent Israeli scholarship we learn
that the goal of the government was to drive the refugees into the
Sinai, and if feasible the rest of the population too.
Expulsions
from Gaza were carried out under the direct orders of General Yeshayahu
Gavish, commander of the Southern Command. Expulsions from the West
Bank were far more extreme, and Israel resorted to devious means to
prevent the return of those expelled, in direct violation of Security
Council orders. The reasons were made clear in internal discussion
immediately after the war. Golda Meir, later Prime Minister, informed
her Labor colleagues that Israel should keep the Gaza Strip while
“getting rid of its Arabs.” Defense Minister Dayan and others agreed.
Prime Minister Eshkol explained that those expelled cannot be allowed to
return because “We cannot increase the Arab population in Israel” –
referring to the newly occupied territories, already tacitly considered
part of Israel. In accord with this conception, all of Israel’s maps
were changed, expunging the Green Line (the internationally recognized
borders), though publication was delayed to permit UN Ambassador Abba
Eban to attain what he called “favorable impasse” at the General
Assembly, by concealing Israel’s intentions.2
The
goals may remain alive, and might be a factor contributing to Egypt’s
reluctance to open the border to free passage of people and goods barred
by the US-backed Israeli siege.
The
current upsurge of US-Israeli violence dates to January 2006, when
Palestinians voted “the wrong way” in the first free election in the
Arab world. Israel and the US reacted at once with harsh punishment of
the miscreants, and preparation of a military coup to overthrow the
elected government, routine procedure. The punishment was radically
intensified in 2007, when the coup attempt was beaten back, and the
elected Hamas government established full control over Gaza.
The
standard version of these events is more anodyne, for example, in the
New York Times, November 29: “Hamas entered politics by running in, and
winning, elections in the Palestinian territories in 2006. But it was
unable to govern in the face of Western opposition and in 2007 took
power in the Gaza Strip by force, deepening the political split [with
Fatah and the Palestinian Authority].”3
Ignoring
immediate Hamas offers of a truce after the 2006 election, Israel
launched attacks that killed 660 Palestinians in 2006, mostly civilians,
one-third minors. The escalation of attacks in 2007 killed 816
Palestinians, 360 civilians and 152 minors. The UN reports that 2879
Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire from April 2006 through July
2012, along with several dozen Israelis killed by fire from Gaza.4
A
truce in 2008 was honored by Hamas until Israel broke it in November.
Ignoring further truce offers, Israel launched the murderous Cast Lead
operation in December. So matters have continued, while the US and
Israel also continue to reject Hamas calls for a long-term truce and a
political settlement in accord with the international consensus on a
two-state settlement that the US has blocked since 1976, when the US
vetoed a Security Council resolution to this effect, brought by the
major Arab states.
In
late 2012 the US devoted extensive efforts to block a General Assembly
resolution upgrading Palestine’s status to that of a “non-member
observer state.” The effort failed, leaving the US in its usual
international isolation on November 29, when the resolution passed
overwhelmingly on the anniversary of the 1947 General Assembly vote on
partition.5 The
reasons Washington frankly offered for its opposition to the resolution
were revealing: Palestine might approach the International Criminal
Court on Israel’s U.S.-backed crimes, which cannot be permitted judicial
review for reasons that are all too obvious. A second concern, the New
York Times reported, was that “the Palestinians might use the vote to
seek membership in specialized agencies of the United Nations,” which
could lead Washington to defund these international organizations, as it
cut off financing to UNESCO in 2011 when it dared to admit Palestine as
a member. The Master does not tolerate disobedience.6
Israel
had warned that it would “go crazy” (“yishtagea”) if the resolution
passed, reviving warnings from the 1950s that it would “go crazy” if
crossed – not very meaningful then, much more so now.7 And
indeed, hours after the UN vote Israel announced its decision to carry
forward settlement in Area E1 that connects the vastly expanded Greater
Jerusalem that it annexed illegally to the town of Ma’aleh Adumim,
greatly expanded under Clinton after the Oslo Accords, with lands
extending virtually to Jericho, effectively bisecting the West Bank if
the Area E1 corridor is closed by settlement.8 Before
Obama, US presidents had barred Israel’s efforts to expand its illegal
settlements into the E1 region, so it was compelled to resort to stealth
measures, like establishing a police station in the zone. Obama has
been more supportive of Israeli criminal actions than his predecessors,
and it remains to be seen whether he will keep to a tap on the wrist
with a wink, as before.
Israel
and the US insist on “direct negotiations” as the only “path to peace.”
They also insist on crucial preconditions. First, the negotiations must
be under US leadership, which makes as much sense as asking Iran to
mediate Sunni-Shiite conflicts in Iraq. Genuine negotiations would take
place under the auspices of some neutral party with a claim to
international respect, perhaps Brazil, and would have the US and Israel
on one side of the table, and most of the rest of the world on the
other. A second precondition, left tacit, is that expansion of Israel’s
settlements must be allowed to continue in one or another form (as
happened, for example, during the formal 10-month “suspension”), with
Washington signaling its disapproval while continuing to provide the
required support.
The
call for “direct negotiations” without substance is an old Israeli
tactic to prevent steps towards diplomatic settlement that would impede
its expansionist projects. After the 1967 war, the respected diplomat
Abba Eban, who was in charge of the effort, was highly praised by Golda
Meir and other colleagues in the governing Labor Party for his success
at the United Nations in carrying forward “Israel’s peacemaking
strategy” of confusion and delay, which came to “take the shape of a
consistent foreign policy of deception,” as it is described by Israeli
scholar Avi Raz in a detailed review of internal records.9 At
that time the tactics angered US officials, who protested vigorously
though to no effect. But much has changed since, particularly since
Kissinger took control of policy and the US largely departed from the
world on Israel-Palestine.
The
practice of delay goes back to the earliest Zionist settlement, which
sought to “create facts” on the ground while keeping goals obscure. Even
the call for a “Jewish commonwealth” was not made officially by the
Zionist organization until a May 1942 meeting at the Biltmore hotel in
New York.
Returning
to Gaza, one element of the unremitting torture of its people is
Israel’s “buffer zone” within Gaza from which Gazans are barred entry,
almost half of Gaza’s limited arable land according to Sara Roy, the
leading academic scholar of Gaza. From September 2005, after Israel
transferred its settlers to other parts of the occupied territories, to
September 2012, Israeli security forces killed 213 Palestinians in the
zone, including 154 who were not taking part in hostilities, 17 of them
children.10
From
January 2012 to the launching of Israel’s latest killing spree on
November 14, Operation Pillar of Defense, one Israeli was reported to
have been killed by fire from Gaza while 78 Palestinians were killed by
Israel fire.11
The full story is naturally more complex, and considerably uglier.
The
first act of Operation Pillar of Defense was to murder Ahmed Jabari.
Aluf Benn, editor of Haaretz, describes him as Israel’s “subcontractor”
and “border guard” in Gaza, who enforced relative quiet in Gaza for over
five years.12 The
pretext for the assassination was that during these five years Jabari
had been creating a Hamas military force, with missiles from Iran.13 Plainly, if that is true it was not learned on November 14.
A
more credible reason was provided by Israeli peace activist Gershon
Baskin, who had been involved in direct negotiations with Jabari for
years, including plans for the release of the captured Israeli soldier
Gilad Shalit. Baskin reports that hours before Jabari was assassinated,
“he received the draft of a permanent truce agreement with Israel, which
included mechanisms for maintaining the ceasefire in the case of a
flare-up between Israel and the factions in the Gaza Strip.” A truce was
then in place, called by Hamas on November 12. Israel apparently
exploited the truce, Reuters reports, directing attention to the Syrian
border in the hope that Hamas leaders would relax their guard and be
easier to assassinate.14
Throughout
these years, Gaza has been kept on a level of bare survival, imprisoned
by land, sea and air. On the eve of the latest attack, the UN reported
that 40 percent of essential drugs and more than half of essential
medical items were out of stock.15
One of the first of the series of hideous photos that were sent from
Gaza in November showed a doctor holding the charred corpse of a
murdered child. That one had a personal resonance. The doctor is the
director and head of surgery at Khan Yunis hospital, which I had visited
a few weeks earlier. In writing about the trip I reported his
passionate appeal for desperately needed simple drugs and surgical
equipment. These are among the crimes of the US-Israeli siege, and
Egyptian complicity.
The
casualty rates from the November episode were about normal: over 160
Palestinian dead, including many children, and 6 Israelis. Among the
dead were three journalists. The official Israeli justification was that
“The targets are people who have relevance to terror activity.”
Reporting the “execution” in the New York Times, David Carr observes
that “it has come to this: killing members of the news media can be
justified by a phrase as amorphous as `relevance to terror activity’.”16
The
massive destruction was all in Gaza. Israel used advanced US military
equipment for the slaughter and destruction, and relied on US diplomatic
support, including the usual US intervention to block a Security
Council call for a cease-fire.17
With
each such exploit Israel’s global image erodes. The images of terror
and destruction, and the character of the conflict, leave few remaining
shreds of credibility to the self-declared “most moral army in the
world,” at least among people with eyes open.
The
pretexts for the assault were also the usual ones. We can put aside the
predictable declarations of the perpetrators in Israel and Washington,
but even decent people ask what Israel should do when attacked by a
barrage of missiles. It’s a fair question, and there are straightforward
answers.
One
response would be to observe international law, which allows the use of
force without Security Council authorization in exactly one case: in
self-defense after informing the Security Council of an armed attack,
until the Council acts (UN Charter, Article 51). Israel understands that
well. That is the course it followed at the outbreak of the June 1967
war, but of course Israel’s appeal went nowhere when it was quickly
ascertained that it was Israel that had launched the attack. Israel did
not follow this course in November, knowing well what would be revealed
in a Security Council debate.
Another
narrow response would be to agree to a truce, as appeared quite
possible before the operation was launched on November 14, as often
before.
There are more far-reaching responses. By coincidence, one illustration is discussed in the current issue of the journal National Interest.
The authors, Asia scholars Raffaello Pantucci and Alexandros Petersen,
describe China’s reaction after rioting in western Xinjiang province “in
which mobs of Uighurs marched around the city beating hapless Han
[Chinese] to death.” Chinese president Hu Jintao quickly flew to the
province to take charge, senior leaders in the security establishment
were fired, and a wide range of development projects were undertaken to
address underlying causes of the unrest.18
In
Gaza too a civilized reaction is possible. The US and Israel could end
the merciless unremitting assault and open the borders, and provide for
reconstruction – and if it were imaginable, reparations for decades of
violence and repression.
The
cease-fire agreement stated that the measures to implement the end of
the siege and the targeting of residents in border areas “shall be dealt
with after 24 hours from the start of the ceasefire.” There is no sign
of steps in this direction. Nor is there any indication of US-Israeli
willingness to rescind their policy of separating Gaza from the West
Bank in violation of the Oslo Accords, to end the illegal settlement and
development programs in the West Bank designed to undermine a political
settlement, or in any other way to abandon the rejectionism of the past
decades.
Some
day, and it must be soon, the world will respond to the plea issued by
the distinguished Gazan human rights lawyer Raji Sourani while the bombs
were once again raining down on defenseless civilians in Gaza: “We
demand justice and accountability. We dream of a normal life, in freedom
and dignity.”19Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor emeritus at the MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. He is the author of numerous bestselling political works; he is also a member of the IOA Advisory Board.
