TEHRAN TIMES - By Kourosh Ziabari
As Israel continues its massive military aggression against the Gaza
Strip, which has already cost the lives of more than 2,000 Palestinians,
the international condemnation of the atrocities committed by the Tel
Aviv regime and its cruel massacre of the unarmed citizens of the
besieged Gaza grows steadily.
Just recently, a group of Jewish scholars, most of whom were born in
the Occupied Territories and teaching at the Israeli universities, have
signed a petition, calling on the government of Benjamin Netanyahu to
stop its deadly incursion into the coastal territory.
A prominent anti-Zionist Israeli historian and intellectual, who is
best known for his outspoken criticism of the Israeli government and his
opposition to the occupation of Palestinian territories, believes that
the Western mainstream media are giving a lopsided and unfair coverage
to the war on Gaza, which has many different reasons, including the
influence of the Israeli lobby and the fear of these media outlets of
being branded anti-Semitist.
Ilan Pappé is a political activist, historian and professor at the
College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University
of Exeter, Britain. He is also the director of the university's European
Centre for Palestine Studies, and co-director of the Exeter Centre for
Ethno-Political Studies. From 1984 to 2007, he was a senior lecturer in
political science at the University of Haifa. A former member of
Israel's Hadash Party, he was the party's candidate for the parliament
(Knesset) elections in 1996 and 1999. In 2012, he published the book
"The Bureaucracy of Evil: The History of the Israeli Occupation" that
was released by the Oneworld Publications.
Prof. Pappé responded to our questions on the recent Israeli onslaught
on the Gaza Strip and the historical, legal aspects of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The following is the text of the
interview.
Q: It was reported that Israel launched its military incursion
into the Gaza Strip after Hamas allegedly kidnapped and killed three
young Israeli settlers. So far, more than 2,000 Palestinians have been
slaughtered in the month-long conflict. Do you consider this mass
killing in such a broad extent, and the obliteration of the civilian
infrastructure of the Gaza Strip a logical, proportionate and
justifiable response to the kidnapping of three Israeli citizens, while
there isn't still reliable evidence showing that the abduction was done
by Hamas?
A: No, of course not and the destruction of Gaza is not really a
retaliation to the abduction and killing of the three settlers. The
incident was a pretext for implementing a policy that was formulated
long time ago towards the Gaza Strip; a geopolitical area of Palestine
for which Israel has no clear policy. It manages, at least in its own
eyes, quite successfully, the rest - 98 percent - of Palestine. It
imposes harsh restrictions on the Palestinian minority inside Israel and
colonial rule in the West Bank. These policies were also tried in the
Gaza Strip but it was a risk to have settlers there and it was too full
of refugees for to be seriously considered part of Israel. So it was
‘ghettoized’ with the hope that it would be domiciled in such a way. But
Gaza resists and the only way Israel deems possible to react to this,
is to use all its military might to crash that rebellion.
Q: Can we interpret the Israeli offensive into the Gaza Strip
as an effort to ruin the newly-formed unity government in Palestine? Is
Israel trying to delegitimize Hamas in the eyes of the people of Gaza
Strip who voted unanimously in the 2006 legislative election to bring it
to power, and to pretend that Hamas is not capable of providing
security and welfare for them?
A: Indeed, there is also a more immediate reason for the particular
timing of this assault. The Fatah-Hamas unity government and the
Palestinian Authority decision to replace the ‘peace process’ with an
appeal to international organizations endangers, in the eyes of the
Israelis, their control over the West Bank. So the wish was for
destroying Hamas politically in the West Bank and militarily in the Gaza
Strip.
Q: It seems that a growing number of Israeli academicians,
intellectuals, journalists and ordinary citizens on the streets are
turning frustrated at the policies of Israel and its brutalization of
the Palestinian citizens. I just read that a large group of Israeli
university professors have signed a petition, calling on Tel Aviv to
cease its military operations against the civilian population in Gaza.
So, we see an emerging trend in opposition to the Israeli policies.
What's your take on that?
A: I would not exaggerate the number of dissenting voices inside
Israel. There are of course such voices, but the society at large, 87
percent according to one poll, is not only behind the government’s
policy in Gaza, but even demand a more brutal action over there. So I
think we cannot rest our hopes for an end to the violence in Palestine
on a change from within Israel. Only strong pressure from the outside
can produce such a result.
Q: Do you think it's possible to stop Israel from intensifying
its assault on the Gaza Strip and violating the international law?
Israel has hasn't paid any attention to the UN bodies' condemnations and
calls for the cessation of hostilities. So, it sounds like
international law doesn't have any mechanism for obligating Israel to
abide by its commitments as an occupying power under the international
law. What do you make of it?
A: The only way of stopping Israel is adopting towards it the same
attitude adopted against South Africa at the time of Apartheid. For
this to be effective, one would have hoped to see a change in the
American position. This is not likely to take place soon. But also in
the case of South Africa, the American position was an obstacle for an
effective action against South Africa. The fall of the Soviet Union
convinced the Americans that South Africa was not needed any more in the
cold war. So something similar has to occur to change American
positions. But in the meantime it is important to build the solidarity
movement with the Palestinians on the basis of human and civil rights’
agenda.
Q: All of those Israeli politicians, diplomats, intellectuals
and academicians who break the wall of silence and level some criticisms
against the discriminatory practices and policies of the Israeli
government with regards to the Palestinian people are immediately
defamed as anti-Semites and self-hating Jews. Have you ever faced such
charges? What's your perspective on those who want to officially
sanction any criticism of Israel under this pretext and obstruct the way
to a meaningful dialog on what's happening in that sensitive region of
the world?
A: Yes a lot. Self-hating Jew is a common reference to me. But I have
no problem with my Jewish identity. My conflict is with Zionism. I think
Zionism reduced Judaism into a narrow minded ethno-nationalism that
depended on the success of a colonialist project. This brought more
misery to Jews around the world, rather than helping them to defeat
anti-Semitism. I think now that the Jews are already a third generation
in Palestine, they can be recognized as a separate ethnic group provided
they are willing to share the land with the indigenous people and not
strive to dispossess them.
Q: The United States government has offered its unconditional
and unrestrained support to the Israeli government in its deadly
operations in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Washington is the
largest financial and military benefactor to Israel. Israel will never
be held accountable if this approach continues. Does it mean that
Israel, with its criminal record of murdering the Palestinians would
always remain immune to accountability before the international
community?
A: I think one should not take a deterministic view on this. First of
all, the United States was not always pro-Israeli and the American
public is not the same as its political elites. In fact, there is a far
more significant change in the attitude towards Israel among young
American, including many Jews, than in Israel. Secondly, America's
ability to impact world politics has seriously diminished. States such
as Brazil, India, Russia, South Africa and China (the BRICS countries)
have more influence than ever before. If they are recruited to the
campaign to change the reality on the ground in Palestine, then there is
a good chance for change and peace.
Q: In a September 2006 article, you referred to the Israeli
policies in the Gaza Strip as an incremental genocide, and reiterated
that its ongoing military assault on the caged people of Gaza represents
the continuation of that lethal policy. Do you believe that Israel is
carrying out a project of ethnic cleansing and is trying to kill as many
Palestinians as possible so as to alter and distort the demographics of
the region and realize its plan for establishing the Greater Israel?
A: I think it is a bit more nuanced. The Zionist project from its very
beginning was having as much of Palestine as possible with as few
Palestinians in it possible. The means for achieving it have changed
with time. In 1948, the major effort to achieve it was attempted when
half of the country’s indigenous people were expelled. More
sophisticated means were used afterwards; military rule, discriminatory
legislation and small scale ethnic cleansing operations. In Gaza all
these means proved useless and therefore the idea was to ghettoize Gaza
and hope that this would separate its people from Palestine. But when
they resisted the reaction became genocidal.
Q: It's understandable why the Israeli media are giving a
lopsided and biased coverage to the war that Netanyahu and his entourage
have inflicted on the empty-handed Palestinians. But why do the Western
mainstream media, most of the times proudly boasting of their adherence
to the codes of ethics and professionalism, follow the same path and
don't talk the truth and present the realities of this unjust carnage
that is playing out in the beleaguered Gaza Strip?
A: An excellent question. There is no good reason for this biased
Western coverage. I think it differs in explanation for different parts
of the West. In the United State, there is a strong pro-Zionist, Jewish
and Christian presence in the media which reflect both AIPAC and the
Christian Zionist Churches’ point of view on Israel. The more liberal
press, especially the New York Times, slowly become more critical on
Israel but still has not walked the extra mile, maybe because of
timidity. In Europe, I think the fear of being accused of anti-Semitism
is still very strong, as well as financial consideration connected to
pro-Zionist corporations. So they adopted the paradigm of balance and
parity which continues to provide Israel with immunity.
