--Kevin
CHALLENGING MISPERCEPTIONS OF U.S. POLICY IN ISRAEL/PALESTINE
Talk given by Libby Frank to W. Palm Beach branch of the Women's
International League for Peace and Freedom
November 15, 2008
As you know, this issue is often difficult to discuss among those who
have emotional ties to Israel or to Palestine. I believe it is
especially difficult for those, Jewish or not, who were alive during the
Nazi onslaught and World War 2. Israel was seen as a haven for Jewish
victims of fascism, and indeed it was.
Many good people condemn the evils of assassinations, occupation of
land, violation of UN treaties and IMF policies elsewhere in the world,
but they make an exception in the case of Israel.
They are afraid for the security of Israel and afraid of anti-Semitism.
But those fears, whether real or manufactured, are used to keep Jews and
non-Jews from criticizing Israeli policy.
To be part of the solution, we must understand the propaganda exerted by
a variety of powerful lobby groups and corporate media which feed the
fears of so many.
My interest in the Middle East started when I was a young Zionist in
Cleveland. My first political act was organizing a demonstration in the
1940s in front of the British Consulate - demonstrating because Britain
wouldn't allow Jewish refugees into what was then Palestine, to escape
being killed in Europe.
Who lived in British controlled Palestine? I had a picture in my mind
of young, white, open shirted Chalutzim, Jewish pioneers, taming the
land and populating it. Along with many others, I was taught it was a
"Land without people for a people without a land." Obviously, there
were no Palestinians in such a picture. This vision took a long time to
disappear from my mind. I just couldn't believe that Jewish young
people could do what I learned about later.
It is exciting to see the changes over the years in how WILPF addresses
Middle East issues. Some of the statements we made in the 1970s were
controversial then but have become much more acceptable. When we
advocated the acceptance of the PLO as a negotiating partner, we were
almost alone in the U.S. peace movement. Thirty years ago, we were the
only group saying that the U.S. is a major player in the region. We
weren't always popular, but we were pioneers.
And WILPF now has a national section in Palestine, in addition to
sections in Israel and Lebanon - something we used to just dream of.
Thirty years ago, there was only one weak but inspiring U.S. Jewish
peace group. Today there is Brit Tzedek v'Shalom (which is interested
in forming a group in this area;) Jewish Voice for Peace, the Shalom
Center and lots of local groups. And U.S. Arab voices were much quieter
than now. Today we have the civil rights group, Council on
American-Islamic Relations, Arab American Institute, American Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee and more. In addition, the major peace
coalition, United for Peace and Justice includes the Middle East in its
actions.
As a long-time peace activist, I've been angry for years at how my
country had me fooled into thinking it was a true friend of Israel.
But I've since learned that U.S. policy is no different vis a vis Israel
as it was in Vietnam, or in Iraq or elsewhere.
Will the new President make a difference? As you know, it largely
depends on the pressure we put on him.
The Democratic Party Platform endorses the recent unconditional $30
billion in U.S. military aid to Israel. It calls on the U.S. to "ensure
that Israel retains a qualitative edge in military capabilities." The
Platform does not call for a reduction in the large-scale U.S. arms
transfers to Arab governments historically hostile to Israel. The
Platform supports the creation of a Palestinian State alongside Israel.
But it calls only for compromises from the Palestinian side to order to
make such a two-state solution possible.
Like the Republicans, the Democratic Platform pledges to "continue to
isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel's right to
exist, and abides by past agreements. However, it doesn't call for
isolating Likud and other extremist Israeli parties that similarly fail
to renounce attacks against civilians, recognize Palestine's right to
exist, and abide by past agreements.
The Platform says that "Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of
Israel" without mentioning the possibility of it also becoming a shared
capital, with East Jerusalem becoming the capital of an independent
Palestinian State and West Jerusalem remaining Israeli. Obama has in
the past shown warmth and concern for the Palestinians as well as for
Israelis and has been attacked for calling on the U.S. to have a
more-evenhanded approach to the region.
I will discuss today:
" U.S. policy in that region and who makes it; " Some
little-known information about the goings on in Israel and Palestine;
" obstacles to the struggle for peace and justice in the region;
" and resistance.
Some Americans criticize Israeli policy, and many more criticize Hamas
in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as Iran, Syria and others.
But, we are U.S. activists and our primary responsibility is to look at
our own government's actions.
Peace and justice in the M.E. is probably the most difficult foreign
policy issue there is. And we live in the U.S., one of the most
difficult places to challenge it.
WHAT IS U.S. POLICY AND HOW IS IT DETERMINED?
First of all, Israel's security does not determine U.S. policy. Jews do
not determine U.S. policy. Some neocons are Jewish which leads some
people to assert that Jews do control U.S. policy.
No, U.S. strategy is dictated by its perceived interests, just as
elsewhere: that is, cheap and ready access to natural resources, in this
case, oil, not in Israel, but in countries in the region; privatization
of major institutions in the region to guarantee access to the oil; and
the curbing of revolutionary or nationalist movements which would likely
threaten that access.
Paul Wolfowitz, a well-known neocon, explained that "anyone who
controls those resources has enormous capability to build up military
forces.... The more oil one controls, the more it can be used both to
secure alliances and to weaken enemies."
Why the strong support by the U.S., not of the Israeli people, but of
its right-wing policies? There have been many official agreements
between Israel and the U.S. which build on the mutual security
relationship that exists between the two nations.
As a result, Israeli anti-terrorist experts help the U.S. in its attacks
on Iraq. An Israeli official told reporter Seymour Hersh: "No one
wants to talk about this, it's incendiary. Both governments have
decided at the highest level that it is in their interests to keep a low
profile on U.S.-Israeli cooperation."
A true friend helps someone who is down and needy, but U.S. military and
financial aid to Israel increased, as Israel grew more powerful and
therefore more helpful to the U.S. Israel was the victor in the 1967
war. After Israel's victory, U.S. aid kept increasing until it reached
over three billion dollars in 2003. This is in addition to $11 billion
dollars in loan guarantees that same year, which are not considered
foreign aid.
In June of this year, Congress passed the 2009 spending bill that
included a $17 million increase in security assistance to Israel as part
of its new 10-year, 30 billion dollar defense aid commitment to Israel.
It is part of the U.S. new 10-year defense commitment to Israel. Both
Rep. Hastings and Wexler voted for it.
And this past September, the U.S. sent to Israel a high-powered radar
system and the supporting people and equipment needed to defend against
an Iranian missile attack. An attack which most military experts claim
as highly unlikely. It is the first permanent U.S. military presence
on Israeli soil.
It isn't just Israel which receives such aid. The pact includes a $20
billion weapons package for Saudi Arabia, a $123 billion package for
Egypt and reportedly arms deals worth at least $20 billion for other
Gulf States. You will note that what they all have in common is a
conservative or right-wing government that will cooperate with the U.S.
in keeping the region safe from nationalization of resources.
What does the U.S. get from Israel in return?
Several years ago, Douglas Feith, then Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy, explained "...Israel has formidable military forces,
intelligence capabilities, militarily relevant R&D skills, strategically
located ports and airfields, training facilities..." and more. Israel
willingly allows the U.S. to benefit from all this. Without Israel, the
U.S. couldn't duplicate these benefits in the Middle East, even if we
spent many billions of dollars."
But that's not all the U.S. gets from Israel.
Israel has advanced U.S. interests not just in the Middle East, but in
other areas, as well.
For example, Israel served as a conduit for U.S. arms to places the U.S.
couldn't be seen as helping, such as apartheid South Africa and the
Nicaraguan Contras.
SOME LITTLE-KNOWN FACTS ABOUT HAMAS, GAZA AND ISRAELI OPINION.
You are all aware that there is great hostility between the Palestinian
group Hamas and Israeli policies. Hamas is the major political party in
Gaza. It is referred to in the West as "the terrorist" organization
which kidnaps and commits suicide missions. We all have read that.
But you may not be aware that Israel, with the quiet support of the
U.S., aided the formation of Hamas in the 1970s. It gave direct and
indirect financial aid to Hamas. The Israelis wanted to use it as a
counterbalance to the PLO. It was a direct attempt to divide and
dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious
alternative, that is, Hamas. According to U.S. officials, it was to
serve as a counterweight to the PLO and communists. There is evidence
that the United States helped unleash fundamentalist Islam in such
places as Jordan, as well.
However, right before the January 2006 Palestinian election, the U.S.
was worried about Hamas, after supporting it in the past. So it sent
funds for humanitarian relief to Fatah, the primary Palestinian
opposition to Hamas. The U.S. hoped the funds would give enough support
so that Fatah would get elected. This was 30 years after it had done
just the opposite. Congress passed a resolution right before the
elections that conditioned future financial aid to the Palestinian
Authority on the actual exclusion of Hamas from the Palestinian
elections. Yet Hamas won the election.
Why did the Palestinians vote for Hamas?
Hamas provides social services as the PLO did many years ago. I didn't
know about the PLO support of clinics, schools, care for the elderly,
etc. until I went on a WILPF trip in the 70s and saw for myself. Today,
most people in the U.S. don't know that's what Hamas in Gaza and
Hezbollah in Lebanon provide.
Fatah is the major party within the PLO. Its leaders had talked to
Israel, recognized Israel and still didn't get a state. And, it was
accused of serious corruption. Hamas is seen as corruption proof.
Palestinians were ready for a change. A top Hamas leader in the West
Bank, said Hamas would accept a Palestinian independent state with the
1967 borders with a long-term truce. "For us a truce means that two
warring parties live side by side in peace and security for a certain
period and this period is eligible for renewal."
Gila Sverski, an Israeli peace activist said, "Fatah failed in the
election because Israel refused to offer any reward for moderation,
refusing to sit down and negotiate with them."
How should our government respond? The Israeli peace movement, Gush
Shalom, says: "We must talk with Hamas; they also can be partners."
If the U.S. agrees it needs to talk to the "enemy," that is, Hamas, what
a strong effect that could have on how Israel acts and how Hamas might
react. Instead, what we got was an hysterical anti-Palestinian bill in
Congress which calls for restricting humanitarian aid with punishment
for helping supply such aid; and calls for how Hamas should act. But no
calls for Israel to curb illegal settlements or lift the siege on Gaza.
(It is HR 4681.) The Senate passed a similar bill (S.2370) which
became law at the end of Dec. 2006. Both Alcee Hastings and Robert
Wexler [Representatives from Florida] were co-sponsors. McCain and Obama
were co-sponsors of the Senate version.
Let's be clear. Israel didn't withdraw from Gaza. The Israeli
occupation changed form. Yes, the Israeli settlers had to leave. But
after Hamas won the Palestinian election in January 2006, international
donors led by the U.S. cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority. Israel
periodically stops its monthly transfer of the tax revenue it collects
for the Palestinians.
Gaza is under siege. Israel doesn't allow goods to leave Gaza and
allows only limited food supplies to enter. Industry has shut down.
There is only intermittent electricity and water services, since Israel
bombed the main power station. Checkpoints out of Gaza are closed or
open only for short periods of time, which are set arbitrarily. Fruit
and flowers that are grown in Gaza spoil, as they can't be exported.
Every transaction at terminals is videoed and beamed to a site where
Israeli officials watch.
Increasing poverty in Gaza is leading to a desperate, radicalized
population, which may resort to desperate measures. Neither Israel nor
Palestine is made secure by these policies.
The whole world knows the name of the Israeli soldier captured by Hamas
in Gaza in 2006, Corporal Gilad Shalit. But the corporate media have
not told us that the day before, on June 24, Israeli soldiers kidnapped
two Palestinian civilians in Gaza. And to this day I don't know their
names. But they join 10,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails. And that
includes many members of the Palestinian Parliament.
Regarding Israeli attacks on Gaza, the Israeli media presented a very
different picture than that in the U.S.
A survey of politically diverse Israeli Hebrew language papers (by BBC)
showed there was strong condemnation of Israel's action in Gaza,
ostensibly seeking the missing Israeli solder. Israel's top circulation
paper says, "What we have here is not an attempt to rescue Cpl. Shalit
... and not an attempt to stop the firing of the rockets but a move
aimed at destroying the Hamas government that will negotiate with
Israel."
On the other hand, the Jerusalem Post, an English language paper,
portrays a severe right-wing position on Israeli/Palestine issues. No
negotiations. While many are Israeli readers, its hard copy and online
newspapers are read by hundreds of thousands of readers in the U.S. It
helps us understand where many Jewish Americans, as well as others, get
their information and opinions.
The Israeli public had a different opinion of Israeli military attacks
in Lebanon than in Gaza. When the Israeli government portrayed its
attacks on Lebanon as a war of Israeli survival, Israeli opinion favored
the Israeli military solution. This was unlike what they thought
regarding Gaza.
It's important to understand what's different. Ze'ev Sternhell,
professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, put things unsparingly
painfully. "...When it was clear that Israel was not achieving its aims
in Lebanon,... a war of survival was invented."
(By the way, Professor Sternhell's home was recently bombed by Israeli
right-wingers and he was lightly injured. And Hebrew language flyers
were distributed by Israeli right-wingers offering the equivalent of
$300,000 to anyone killing a member of the Israeli organization, Peace
Now).
THERE IS A VARIETY OF OBSTACLES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE IN
THE REGION.
I'll start with Islamophobia. It refers to hostility toward Islam and
Muslims that tends to dehumanize an entire faith, portraying it as
fundamentally alien and attributing to it a variety of negative traits.
It is led by right-wing ideologues, including our past President. They
refer to that world as "Islamofascism."
To get the U.S. public willing to support the U.S. wars in Iraq and
elsewhere, Bush and his cronies have painted the entire Muslim world
with that term. It presents the very diverse Muslim world as "them,"
and we're against "them." The McCain-Palin campaign fed it, emphasizing
Obama's middle name, Hussein, for instance.
About a month before the election, 28 million copies of an awful DVD
were included as freebies in major newspapers in swing states across the
country. It's called "Obsession, Radical Islam's War Against the
West." Given the attack on Obama as a Muslim, the clear intent was to
tap into the "Islamophobia" among many voters. The sponsor is "The
Clarion Fund." It is based at the same N.Y. address as Aish Hatorah,
an Israeli right-wing group affiliated with U.S. neocons.
This has frightened many, Muslim or not. Mosques have been attacked in
many places across the country; an Irvine, CA Muslim candidate for
office received a death threat; women wearing head scarves have been
discriminated against in jobs and schools; people looking like Arabs are
stopped and searched at U.S. airports and worse.
The organization, FAIR, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, has produced a
fine report called "Smearcasting: How Islamophobes spread fear, bigotry
and misinformation."
Regarding Obstacles, what about the infamous "Jewish" Lobby?
Congress is besieged with lobbyists creatively pushing for all kinds of
military aid to Israel and other nations friendly to U.S. noncons and
putting impossible conditions on aid to the Palestinians.
It's important to realize that the groups lobby on other issues in
addition to relations with Israel.
The lobbyists may differ in the make-up of their basic constituencies.
But they are inter-related by their support of right-wing Israeli
government and its strategic cooperation with the corporate right-wing
power of the U.S.
There are several kinds of lobby groups. I will touch on four of them:
The Jewish Lobby; the Christian Zionist fundamentalists; Big Oil and the
Aerospace Industry.
1. Regarding the Jewish Lobby, we all think of AIPAC, the
American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee. What I want to emphasize is
that AIPAC's interests go beyond support for Israeli policy. They touch
on broader aspects of U.S. policy as the interests of the leadership of
both countries coincide.
One example: In 1995, AIPAC co-founded the Campaign for U.S. Global
Leadership. It includes over 250 "leaders from the aerospace,,
telecommunications, chemical and financial industries and others." The
Campaign's mission is to educate Congress about foreign aid as a tool to
enhance U.S. global interests."
Less known but also effective are some other Jewish right-wing groups:
the Jewish Institute for National Security (JINSA) and Toward Tradition
being two of them.
JINSA was founded in 1976 to "put the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship
first...." JINSA's focus includes U.S. defense and foreign policy, in
general. It calls for regime change in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia
and the Palestinian Authority.
Toward Tradition was formed in 1991. In its own words, "It is a
non-profit educational organization working to advance our nation toward
the traditional Judeo-Christian values that defined America's creation…"
These values include "free markets; a strong military; and, a moral
public culture."
Regarding Israel, founder Rabbi Lapin says: "One message of Genesis 1:1
is that 'All the earth belongs to the Holy One, Blessed Be He. He
created [Israel] and bestows it upon whoever he chooses.'" God has
become a real estate agent.
2. The second major category of organized lobby groups is the Christian
Right or "Christian Zionism."
There are several groups involved in this movement. In 2002, a group
called "Stand for Israel" was formed which aims to be a Christian
counterpart of "AIPAC". It claims it can mobilize 100,000 affiliated
churches and 250,000 donors to call into Washington at crucial times.
Another is "Christians United for Israel." It intends to establish a
50-state rapid-response network that aims to reach every senator and
Congressmember in the U.S. It is also concerned with "protecting
marriage, family and faith."
A few years ago, the N.Y. Times magazine section had an article titled,
"The Rabbi who Loved Evangelicals. My favorite quote is from a
supporter of the Rabbi, who said, "I support Israel in every way
possible. For example, I make it a point to buy my clothes from Jews."
3. The third lobbying force is the Arms Industry. It has a powerful
lobbying arm, The Aerospace Industry Association (AIA). How powerful?
There had been a long-standing U.S. policy of limiting sales of
sophisticated weapons to the region. But this was changed in 1992 when
McDonnell Douglas wanted to sell advanced fighter planes to Saudi
Arabia. The Association helped create the "U.S. Jobs Now" coalition,
arguing that exporting its F-15E fighter planes to Saudi Arabia would
save 40,000 jobs. Working with the AIA, McDonnell Douglas was
successful, but still laid off 14,000 workers over the next three
years. As an aside, let me say that the U.S. has sold the same planes
to Israel for decades.
Unlike in any other case, the U.S. requires Israel to use 75% of all the
U.S. government military aid it receives to buy US-made arms.
4. To be frank, I've just learned about the Big Oil lobbyists, although
I should have figured it out myself. I worked with a fascinating book,
"The Tyranny of Oil. The World's Most Powerful Industry-And what we
must do to stop it." by Antonia Juhasz.
She writes, "Lobbying firms and groups such as the API, the American
Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce represent the oil
companies. Many of the lobbyists are former members of Congress,
cabinet secretaries, and ex-White House, congressional, or agency staff
people."
The API's primary job on behalf of its 400 corporate members is to
eliminate barriers to oil production, and to keep their activities
private. So they favor digging in public land in the U.S. and off-shore
drilling wherever they can.
Big Oil spent millions of dollars lobbying the Federal government and
giving campaign funds to Congress members. And we know how Congress
caved on the off-shore drilling issue.
"The day before he launched the U.S. attack against Iraq, President Bush
signed a National Security Directive.. The first line states, "Access
to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area
are vital to U.S. national security." Evidently, Israel is one of the
key friendly states along with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others.
RESISTANCE TO U.S. AND ISRAELI POLICIES:
Is there resistance to what's happening? Yes there is. I mentioned
some U.S. groups early in my talk.
Some of you may be aware of resistance in Israel to Israeli policies:
Rabbis for Human Rights, Gush Shalom, Coalition of Israeli Women, Women
in Black, Machsom Watch, New Profile and the Shminitsim. If you are
aware of any of them, I dare say you didn't learn about them from the
mainstream media.
The Shminitsim are Israeli 12th graders who resist military service,
which is compulsory except for the Orthodox youth. Let me read you an
excerpt from a statement from 250 high-school "refusniks."
"We, boys and girls, citizens of Israel, who believe in the values of
democracy, humanism and pluralism, hereby declare that we will refuse to
take part in the policy of occupation and repression for which the
Israeli government has opted.... Every person is entitled to basic
rights: the right to life, equality, dignity and freedom. It is our
conscientious and civic duty to act in defence of these rights by
refusing to take part in the policy of occupation and repression....
"We want to see the society in which we live pursuing justice, upholding
equality for every person and citizen. The policy of occupation and
repression is an obstacle to realisation of that vision, and we shall
refuse to take part therein. We wish to contribute to society in an
alternative way, which does not involve harm to human beings.
"We call upon all young people awaiting induction, and all the soldiers
of the Israeli army, to reconsider whether to risk their lives in taking
part in the policy of repression and destruction. We believe there is a
different way."
And, something just a few years old: 120 former Israeli combat soldiers
and Palestinian militants unveiled a unique peace group. It's called
"Combatants for Peace." It was started jointly by Palestinians and
Israelis, who have taken an active part in the cycle of violence;
Israelis as soldiers in the Israeli army (IDF) and Palestinians as part
of the violent struggle for Palestinian freedom. Their statements say,
"After brandishing weapons for so many years, and having seen one
another only through weapon sights, we have decided to put down our
guns, and to fight for peace."
One might ask about peace groups among the Palestinians. It's almost
like asking about peace groups among the Vietnamese while the U.S. was
bombing. They cannot be equated. Yet, there is non-violent resistance
among Palestinians.
There is a network of 54 popular committees throughout the West Bank.
Palestinians have engaged in sit-ins and protests, and have literally
put their bodies in front of the bulldozers used to build the Wall. It's
not just members of the International Solidarity Movement or Americans
like Rachel Corrie, but courageous Palestinians, as well who faced the
bulldozers. Although these communities have consistently used only
nonviolent tactics, in many cases openly declaring they will not use
force in their protests, they have been met with tear gas, rubber
bullets and sometimes live ammunition by Israeli forces.
One example is the village of Nilin, in the West Bank. In May, its 4,700
inhabitants began a campaign of mainly nonviolent demonstrations to halt
the building of Israel's separation wall across their land. The wall
will cut off the village from 40 percent of its remaining farmland,
effectively annexing it to half a dozen large Jewish settlements that
encircle Nilin. Those settlements are all illegal under international
law.
Several times a week the villagers, joined by small numbers of Israeli
and international supporters, congregate in olive fields where
bulldozers are tearing up their land to make way for the wall. They
have tried various nonviolent forms of protest, including praying in the
path of the heavy machinery, using mirrors to reflect sunlight at the
construction workers, banging pots and pans, and placing rocks in the
way of the bulldozers during the night.
The Israeli army has responded with tear gas and stun grenades. And on
occasion, with rubber-coated steel bullets and live ammunition. While
preparing this talk, I saw a video of just that. Awful.
The Middle East remains a major pillar of U.S. imperialism. It is also
a major area of division and miseducation for the U.S. anti-war and
anti-imperialist movement. The most important distinctions in the
Middle East, as elsewhere, are between the oppressors and the
oppressed. This distinction cuts across all national, language and
religious boundaries. Unless we in the U.S. come to grips with the
forces at play and come to a unified position on the Middle East, our
movement in the U.S. will be weak.
The highest form of solidarity with resistance movements across the
Middle East, including Israel, is to expose and work to change U.S.
policy, despite the many obstacles along the way.
And, with the new President and a large population of activists, we just
might succeed in helping bring about peace and justice in the region.
_______________________________________________
PDI mailing list
PDI@illinoisprogressives.org
http://illinoisprogressives.org/mailman/listinfo/pdi_illinoisprogressives.org
This message was sent to aquarianm.pd-il@blogger.com.
To unsubscribe, visit the URL above, or email webmaster@illinoisprogressives.org for assistance.
No comments:
Post a Comment