ZNet Commentary
Apocalypse Near August 08, 2006
By Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Merav Yudilovitch
Last week, a group of renowned intellectuals published an open letter
blaming Israel for escalating the conflict in the Middle East. The letter,
which mainly referred to the alignment of forces between Israel and the
Palestinian Authority, caused a lot of anger among Ynet and Ynetnews
readers, particularly due to its claim that the Israeli policy’s political
aim is to eliminate the Palestinian nation.
The letter was formulated by art critic and author John Berger and among
its signatories were Nobel Prize winner, playwright Harold Pinter,
linguist and theoretician Noam Chomsly, Nobel Prize laureate José
Saramago, Booker Prize laureate Arundhati Roy, American author Russell
Banks, author and playwright Gore Vidal, and historian Howard Zinn.
Prof. Chomsky, you claimed that the provocation and counter-provocation
all serve as a distraction from the real issue. What does it mean?
“I assume you are referring to John Berger’s letter (which I signed, among
others). The “real issue” that is being ignored is the systematic
destruction of any prospects for a viable Palestinian existence as Israel
annexes valuable land and major resources, leaving the shrinking
territories assigned to Palestinians as unviable cantons, largely
separated from one another and from whatever little bit of Jerusalem is to
be left to Palestinians, and completely imprisoned as Israel takes over
the Jordan valley.
“This program of realignment cynically disguised as “withdrawal,” is of
course completely illegal, in violation of Security Council resolutions
and the unanimous decision of the World Court (including the dissenting
statement of US Justice Buergenthal). If it is implemented as planned, it
spells the end of the very broad international consensus on a two-state
settlement that the US and Israel have unilaterally blocked for 30 years –
matters that are so well documented that I do not have to review them
here.
“To turn to your specific question, even a casual look at the Western
press reveals that the crucial developments in the occupied territories
are marginalized even more by the war in Lebanon. The ongoing destruction
in Gaza – which was rarely seriously reported in the first place – has
largely faded into the background, and the systematic takeover of the West
Bank has virtually disappeared.
“However, I would not go as far as the implication in your question that
this was a purpose of the war, though it clearly is the effect. We should
recall that Gaza and the West Bank are recognized to be a unit, so that if
resistance to Israel’s destructive and illegal programs is legitimate
within the West Bank (and it would be interesting to see a rational
argument to the contrary), then it is legitimate in Gaza as well.”
You claim that the world media refuses to link between what’s going on in
the occupied territories and in Lebanon?
“Yes, but that is the least of the charges that should be leveled against
the world media, and the intellectual communities generally. One of many
far more severe charges is brought up in the opening paragraph of the
Berger letter.
“Recall the facts. On June 25, Cpl. Gilad Shalit was captured, eliciting
huge cries of outrage worldwide, continuing daily at a high pitch, and a
sharp escalation in Israeli attacks in Gaza, supported on the grounds that
capture of a soldier is a grave crime for which the population must be
punished..
One day before, on June 24, Israeli forces kidnapped two Gaza civilians,
Osama and Mustafa Muamar, by any standards a far more severe crime than
capture of a soldier. The Muamar kidnappings were certainly known to the
major world media. They were reported at once in the English-language
Israeli press, basically IDF handouts. And there were a few brief,
scattered and dismissive reports in several newspapers around the US.
Very revealingly, there was no comment, no follow-up, and no call for
military or terrorist attacks against Israel. A Google search will quickly
reveal the relative significance in the West of the kidnapping of
civilians by the IDF and the capture of an Israeli soldier a day later.
“The paired events, a day apart, demonstrate with harsh clarity that the
show of outrage over the Shalit kidnapping was cynical fraud. They reveal
that by Western moral standards, kidnapping of civilians is just fine if
it is done by “our side,” but capture of a soldier on “our side” a day
later is a despicable crime that requires severe punishment of the
population.
“As Gideon Levy accurately wrote in Ha’aretz, the IDF kidnapping of
civilians the day before the capture of Cpl. Shalit strips away any
“legitimate basis for the IDF’s operation,” and, we may add, any
legitimate basis for support for these operations.
The same elementary moral principles carry over to the July 12 kidnapping
of two Israeli soldiers near the Lebanon border, heightened, in this case,
by the regular Israeli practice for many years of abducting Lebanese and
holding many as hostages for long periods.
Truly disgraceful
“Over the many years in which Israel carried out these practices
regularly, even kidnapping on the high seas, no one ever argued that these
crimes justified bombing and shelling of Israel, invasion and destruction
of much of the country, or terrorist actions within it. The conclusions
are stark, clear, and entirely unambiguous – hence suppressed.
“All of this is, obviously, of extraordinary importance in the present
case, particularly given the dramatic timing. That is, I suppose, why the
major media chose to avoid the crucial facts, apart from a very few
scattered and dismissive phrases, revealing that they consider kidnapping
a matter of no significance when carried by US-supported Israeli forces.
“Apologists for state crimes claim that the kidnapping of the Gaza
civilians is justified by IDF claims that they are ‘Hamas militants’ or
were planning crimes. By their logic, they should therefore be lauding the
capture of Gilad Shalit, a soldier in an army that was shelling and
bombing Gaza. These performances are truly disgraceful.”
You are talking first and foremost about acknowledging the Palestinian
nation, but will it solve the “Iranian threat”? Will it push Hizbullah
from the Israeli border?
“Virtually all informed observers agree that a fair and equitable
resolution of the plight of the Palestinians would considerably weaken the
anger and hatred of Israel and the US in the Arab and Muslim worlds – and
far beyond, as international polls reveal. Such an agreement is surely
within reach, if the US and Israel depart from their long-standing
rejectionism.
“On Iran and Hizbullah, there is, of course, much more to say, and I can
only mention a few central points here.
“Let us begin with Iran. In 2003, Iran offered to negotiate all
outstanding issues with the US, including nuclear issues and a two-state
solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The offer was made by the
moderate Khatami government, with the support of the hard-line “supreme
leader” Ayatollah Khamenei. The Bush administration response was to
censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer.
“In June 2006, Ayatollah Khamenei issued an official declaration stating
that Iran agrees with the Arab countries on the issue of Palestine,
meaning that it accepts the 2002 Arab League call for full normalization
of relations with Israel in a two-state settlement in accord with the
international consensus. The timing suggests that this might have been a
reprimand to his subordinate Ahmadenijad, whose inflammatory statements
are given wide publicity in the West, unlike the far more important
declaration by his superior Khamenei.
“Of course, the PLO has officially backed a two-state solution for many
years, and backed the 2002 Arab League proposal. Hamas has also indicated
its willingness to negotiate a two-state settlement, as is surely
well-known in Israel. Kharazzi is reported to be the author of the 2003
proposal of Khatami and Khamanei.
“The US and Israel do not want to hear any of this. They also do not want
to hear that Iran appears to be the only country to have accepted the
proposal by IAEA director Mohammed ElBaradei that all weapons-usable
fissile materials be placed under international control, a step towards a
verifiable Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty.
“ElBaradeiR17;s proposal, if implemented, would not only end the Iranian
nuclear crisis but would also deal with a vastly more serious crisis: The
growing threat of nuclear war, which leads prominent strategic analysts to
warn of ‘apocalypse soon’ (Robert McNamara) if policies continue on their
current course.
“The US strongly opposes a verifiable FMCT, but over US objections, the
treaty came to a vote at the United Nations, where it passed 147-1, with
two abstentions: Israel, which cannot oppose its patron, and more
interestingly, Blair’s Britain, which retains a degree of sovereignty. The
British ambassador stated that Britain supports the treaty, but it
“divides the international community”. These again are matters that are
virtually suppressed outside of specialist circles, and are matters of
literal survival of the species, extending far beyond Iran.
“It is commonly said that the ‘international community’ has called on Iran
to abandon its legal right to enrich uranium. That is true, if we define
the “international community” as Washington and whoever happens to go
along with it. It is surely not true of the world. The non-aligned
countries have forcefully endorsed Iran’s “inalienable right” to enrich
uranium. And, rather remarkably, in Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, a
majority of the population favor accepting a nuclear-armed Iran over any
American military action, international polls reveal.
“The non-aligned countries also called for a nuclear-free Middle East, a
longstanding demand of the authentic international community, again
blocked by the US and Israel. It should be recognized that the threat of
Israeli nuclear weapons is taken very seriously in the world.
“As explained by the former Commander-in-Chief of the US Strategic
Command, General Lee Butler, “it is dangerous in the extreme that in the
cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East, one nation has armed
itself, ostensibly, with stockpiles of nuclear weapons, perhaps numbering
in the hundreds, and that inspires other nations to do so.” Israel is
doing itself no favors if it ignores these concerns.
“It is also of some interest that when Iran was ruled by the tyrant
installed by a US-UK military coup, the United States – including
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kissinger, Wolfowitz and others – strongly supported the
Iranian nuclear programs they now condemn and helped provide Iran with the
means to pursue them. These facts are surely not lost on the Iranians,
just as they have not forgotten the very strong support of the US and its
allies for Saddam Hussein during his murderous aggression, including help
in developing the chemical weapons that killed hundreds of thousands of
Iranians.
Peaceful means
“There is a great deal more to say, but it appears that the “Iranian
threat” to which you refer can be approached by peaceful means, if the US
and Israel would agree. We cannot know whether the Iranian proposals are
serious, unless they are explored. The US-Israel refusal to explore them,
and the silence of the US (and, to my knowledge, European) media, suggests
that the governments fear that they may be serious.
“I should add that to the outside world, it sounds a bit odd, to put it
mildly, for the US and Israel to be warning of the “Iranian threat” when
they and they alone are issuing threats to launch an attack, threats that
are immediate and credible, and in serious violation of international law,
and are preparing very openly for such an attack. Whatever one thinks of
Iran, no such charge can be made in their case. It is also apparent to the
world, if not to the US and Israel, that Iran has not invaded any other
countries, something that the US and Israel do regularly.
“On Hizbullah too, there are hard and serious questions. As well-known,
Hizbullah was formed in reaction to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in
1982 and its harsh and brutal occupation in violation of Security Council
orders. It won considerable prestige by playing the leading role in
driving out the aggressors.
“The 1982 invasion was carried out after a year in which Israel regularly
bombed Lebanon, trying desperately to elicit some PLO violation of the
1981 truce, and when it failed, attacked anyway, on the ludicrous pretext
that Ambassador Argov had been wounded (by Abu Nidal, who was at war with
the PLO). The invasion was clearly intended, as virtually conceded, to end
the embarrassing PLO initiatives for negotiation, a “veritable
catastrophe” for Israel as Yehoshua Porat pointed out.
Shameful pretexts
“It was, as described at the time, a “war for the West Bank.” The later
invasions also had shameful pretexts. In 1993, Hizbullah had violated “the
rules of the game,” Yitzhak Rabin announced: these Israeli rules permitted
Israel to carry out terrorist attacks north of its illegally-held
“security zone,” but did not permit retaliation within Israel. Peres’s
1996 invasion had similar pretexts. It is convenient to forget all of
this, or to concoct tales about shelling of the Galilee in 1981, but it is
not an attractive practice, nor a wise one.
“The problem of Hezbollah’s arms is quite serious, no doubt. Resolution
1559 calls for disarming of all Lebanese militias, but Lebanon has not
enacted that provision. Sunni Prime Minister Fuad Siniora describes
Hizbullah’s military wing as “resistance rather than as a militia, and
thus exempt from” Resolution 1559.
“A National Dialogue in June 2006 failed to resolve the problem. Its main
purpose was to formulate a “national defense strategy” (vis-Ã -vis
Israel), but it remained deadlocked over Hizbullah’s call for “a defense
strategy that allowed the Islamic Resistance to keep its weapons as a
deterrent to possible Israeli aggression,” in the absence of any credible
alternative. The US could, if it chose, provide a credible guarantee
against an invasion by its client state, but that would require a sharp
change in long-standing policy.
“In the background are crucial facts emphasized by several veteran Middle
East correspondents. Rami Khouri, now an editor of Lebanon’s Daily Star,
writes that “the Lebanese and Palestinians have responded to Israel’s
persistent and increasingly savage attacks against entire civilian
populations by creating parallel or alternative leaderships that can
protect them and deliver essential services.”
You are not referring in your letter to the Israeli casualties. Is there
differentiation in your opinion between Israeli civic casualties of war
and Lebanese or Palestinian casualties?
“That is not accurate. John Berger’s letter is very explicit about making
no distinction between Israeli and other casualties. As his letter states:
“Both categories of missile rip bodies apart horribly – who but field
commanders can forget this for a moment.”
“You claimed that the world is cooperating with the Israeli invasion to
Lebanon and is not interfering in the events Gaza and Jenin. What purpose
does this silence serve?
“The great majority of the world can do nothing but protest, though it is
fully expected that the intense anger and resentment caused by US-Israeli
violence will – as in the past – prove to be a gift for the most extremist
and violent elements, mobilizing new recruits to their cause.
“The US-backed Arab tyrannies did condemn Hizbullah, but are being forced
to back down out of fear of their own populations. Even King Abdullah of
Saudi Arabia, Washington’s most loyal (and most important) ally, was
compelled to say that “If the peace option is rejected due to the Israeli
arrogance, then only the war option remains, and no one knows the
repercussions befalling the region, including wars and conflict that will
spare no one, including those whose military power is now tempting them to
play with fire.”
“As for Europe, it is unwilling to take a stand against the US
administration, which has made it clear that it supports the destruction
of Palestine and Israeli violence. With regard to Palestine, while Bush’s
stand is extreme, it has its roots in earlier policies. The week in Taba
in January 2001 is the only real break in US rejectionism in 30 years.
“The US also strongly supported earlier Israeli invasions of Lebanon,
though in 1982 and 1996, it compelled Israel to terminate its aggression
when atrocities were reaching a point that harmed US interests.
“Unfortunately, one can generalize a comment of Uri Avnery’s about Dan
Halutz, who “views the world below through a bombsight.” Much the same is
true of Rumsfeld-Cheney-Rice, and other top Bush administration planners,
despite occasional soothing rhetoric. As history reveals, that view of the
world is not uncommon among those who hold a virtual monopoly of the means
of violence, with consequences that we need not review.”
What is the next chapter in this middle-eastern conflict as you see it?
“I do not know of anyone foolhardy enough to predict. The US and Israel
are stirring up popular forces that are very ominous, and which will only
gain in power and become more extremist if the US and Israel persist in
demolishing any hope of realization of Palestinian national rights, and
destroying Lebanon. It should also be recognized that Washington’s primary
concern, as in the past, is not Israel and Lebanon, but the vast energy
resources of the Middle East, recognized 60 years ago to be a “stupendous
source of strategic power” and “one of the greatest material prizes in
world history.”
“We can expect with confidence that the US will continue to do what it can
to control this unparalleled source of strategic power. That may not be
easy. The remarkable incompetence of Bush planners has created a
catastrophe in Iraq, for their own interests as well. They are even facing
the possibility of the ultimate nightmare: a loose Shi’a alliance
controlling the world’s major energy supplies, and independent of
Washington – or even worse, establishing closer links with the China-based
Asian Energy Security Grid and Shanghai Cooperation Council.
“The results could be truly apocalyptic. And even in tiny Lebanon, the
leading Lebanese academic scholar of Hizbullah, and a harsh critic of the
organization, describes the current conflict in “apocalyptic terms,”
warning that possibly “All hell would be let loose” if the outcome of the
US-Israel campaign leaves a situation in which “the Shiite community is
seething with resentment at Israel, the United States and the government
that it perceives as its betrayer.
“It is no secret that in past years, Israel has helped to destroy secular
Arab nationalism and to create Hizbullah and Hamas, just as US violence
has expedited the rise of extremist Islamic fundamentalism and jihad
terror. The reasons are understood. There are constant warnings about it
by Western intelligence agencies, and by the leading specialists on these
topics.
“One can bury one’s head in the sand and take comfort in a “wall-to-wall
consensus” that what we do is “just and moral” (Maoz), ignoring the
lessons of recent history, or simple rationality. Or one can face the
facts, and approach dilemmas which are very serious by peaceful means.
They are available.. Their success can never be guaranteed. But we can be
reasonably confident that viewing the world through a bombsight will bring
further misery and suffering, perhaps even ‘apocalypse soon.'”
–> If you pass this comment along to others — periodically but not
repeatedly — please explain that Commentaries are a premium sent to
Sustainer Donors of Z/ZNet and that to learn more folks can consult ZNet
at http://www.zmag.org
—
You are currently on Mha Atma’s Earth Action Network email list, option D (up to 3 emails/day). To be removed, or to switch options (option A – 1x/week, option B – 3/wk, option C – up to 1x/day, option D – up to 3x/day) please reply and let us know! If someone forwarded you this email and you want to be on our list, send an email to earthactionnetwork@earthlink.net and tell us which option you’d like.
“Our German forbearers in the 1930s sat around, blamed their rulers, said ‘maybe everything’s going to be alright.’ That is something we cannot do. I do not want my grandchildren asking me years from now, ‘why didn’t you do something to stop all this?” –Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst of 27 years, referring to the actions and crimes of the Bush Administration
After reading the article please share your thoughts in the comment section below.