The whole interview (this is just the Gaza part, will publish the rest later) is definitely worth reading (like everything Chomsky does) but this line particularly struck me:
Colonialism looks very similar no matter where it occurs. How similar are the ideas of "manifest destiny", which basically said that all land between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans belonged to European settlers, and the zionist notion that the land between the Jordan River and the Red sea belongs to Jews?
And of course the really striking thing is what kind of blinders folks in the U.S., Israel, and mainstream media all over the world have to be wearing to not be able to see that. As a friend of mine commented yesterday, if a thousand trees were cut down in a forest, there would be outrage. If a thousand animals were killed in a zoo there would be disgust. A thousand Palestinians - eh, that's ok, I guess. Very disturbing.
DOSSANI: The Israeli government and many Israeli and U.S. officials
claim that the current assault on Gaza is to put an end to the flow of
Qassam rockets from Gaza into Israel. But many observers claim that if
that were really the case, Israel would have made much more of an
effort to renew the ceasefire agreement that expired in December,
which had all but stopped the rocket fire. In your opinion, what are
the real motivations behind the current Israeli action?
CHOMSKY: There's a theme that goes way back to the origins of Zionism.
And it's a very rational theme: "Let's delay negotiations and
diplomacy as long as possible, and meanwhile we'll 'build facts on the
ground.'" So Israel will create the basis for what some eventual
agreement will ratify, but the more they create, the more they
construct, the better the agreement will be for their purposes. Those
purposes are essentially to take over everything of value in the
former Palestine and to undermine what's left of the indigenous
population.
I think one of the reasons for popular support for this in the United
States is that it resonates very well with American history. How did
the United States get established? The themes are similar.
There are many examples of this theme being played out throughout
Israel's history, and the current situation is another case. They have
a very clear program. Rational hawks like Ariel Sharon realized that
it's crazy to keep 8,000 settlers using one-third of the land and much
of the scarce supplies in Gaza, protected by a large part of the
Israeli army while the rest of the society around them is just
rotting. So it's best to take them out and send them to the West Bank.
That's the place that they really care about and want.
What was called a "disengagement" in September 2005 was actually a
transfer. They were perfectly frank and open about it. In fact, they
extended settlement building programs in the West Bank at the very
same time that they were withdrawing a few thousand people from Gaza.
So Gaza should be turned into a cage, a prison basically, with Israel
attacking it at will, and meanwhile in the West Bank we'll take what
we want. There was nothing secret about it.
Ehud Olmert was in the United States in May 2006 a couple of months
after the withdrawal. He simply announced to a joint session of
Congress and to rousing applause, that the historic right of Jews to
the entire land of Israel is beyond question. He announced what he
called his convergence program, which is just a version of the
traditional program; it goes back to the Allon plan of 1967. Israel
would essentially annex valuable land and resources near the green
line (the 1967 border). That land is now behind the wall that Israel
built in the West Bank, which is an annexation wall. That means the
arable land, the main water resources, the pleasant suburbs around
Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and the hills and so on. They'll take over the
Jordan valley, which is about a third of the West Bank, where they've
been settling since the late 60s. Then they'll drive a couple of super
highways through the whole territory — there's one to the east of
Jerusalem to the town of Ma'aleh Adumim which was built mostly in the
1990s, during the Oslo years. It was built essentially to bisect the
West Bank and are two others up north that includes Ariel and Kedumim
and other towns which pretty much bisect what's left. They'll set up
check points and all sorts of means of harassment in the other areas
and the population that's left will be essentially cantonized and
unable to live a decent life and if they want to leave, great. Or else
they will be picturesque figures for tourists — you know somebody
leading a goat up a hill in the distance — and meanwhile Israelis,
including settlers, will drive around on "Israeli only" super
highways. Palestinians can make do with some little road somewhere
where you're falling into a ditch if it's raining. That's the goal.
And it's explicit. You can't accuse them of deception because it's
explicit. And it's cheered here.
DOSSANI: In terms of U.S. support, last week the UN Security Council
adopted a resolution calling for a cease fire. Is this a change,
particularly in light of the fact that the U.S. did not veto the
resolution, but rather abstained, allowing it to be passed?
CHOMSKY: Right after the 1967 war, the Security Council had strong
resolutions condemning Israel's move to expand and take over
Jerusalem. Israel just ignored them. Because the U.S. pats them on the
head and says "go ahead and violate them." There's a whole series of
resolutions from then up until today, condemning the settlements,
which as Israel knew and as everyone agreed were in violation of the
Geneva conventions. The United States either vetoes the resolutions or
sometimes votes for them, but with a wink saying, "go ahead anyway,
and we'll pay for it and give you the military support for it." It's a
consistent pattern. During the Oslo years, for example, settlement
construction increased steadily, in violation of what the Oslo
agreement was theoretically supposed to lead to. In fact the peak year
of settlement was Clinton's last year, 2000. And it continued again
afterward. It's open and explicit.
To get back to the question of motivation, they have sufficient
military control over the West Bank to terrorize the population into
passivity. Now that control is enhanced by the collaborationist forces
that the U.S., Jordan, and Egypt have trained in order to subdue the
population. In fact if you take a look at the press the last couple of
weeks, if there's a demonstration in the West Bank in support of Gaza,
the Fatah security forces crush it. That's what they're there for.
Fatah by now is more or less functioning as Israel's police force in
the West Bank. But the West Bank is only part of the occupied
Palestinian territories. The other part is Gaza, and no one doubts
that they form a unit. And there still is resistance in Gaza, those
rockets. So yes, they want to stamp that out too, then there will be
no resistance at all and they can continue to do what they want to do
without interference, meanwhile delaying diplomacy as much as possible
and "building the facts" the way they want to. Again this goes back to
the origins of Zionism. It varies of course depending on
circumstances, but the fundamental policy is the same and perfectly
understandable. If you want to take over a country where the
population doesn't want you, I mean, how else can you do it? How was
this country conquered?
DOSSANI: What you describe is a tragedy.
CHOMSKY: It's a tragedy which is made right here. The press won't talk
about it and even scholarship, for the most part, won't talk about it
but the fact of the matter is that there has been a political
settlement on the table, on the agenda for 30 years. Namely a two-
state settlement on the international borders with maybe some mutual
modification of the border. That's been there officially since 1976
when there was a Security Council resolution proposed by the major
Arab states and supported by the (Palestinan Liberation Organization)
PLO, pretty much in those terms. The United States vetoed it so it's
therefore out of history and it's continued almost without change
since then.
There was in fact one significant modification. In the last month of
Clinton's term, January 2001 there were negotiations, which the U.S.
authorized, but didn't participate in, between Israel and the
Palestinians and they came very close to agreement.
DOSSANI: The Taba negotiations?
CHOMSKY: Yes, the Taba negotiations. The two sides came very close to
agreement. They were called off by Israel. But that was the one week
in over 30 years when the United States and Israel abandoned their
rejectionist position. It's a real tribute to the media and other
commentators that they can keep this quiet. The U.S. and Israel are
alone in this. The international consensus includes virtually
everyone. It includes the Arab League which has gone beyond that
position and called for the normalization of relations, it includes
Hamas. Every time you see Hamas in the newspapers, it says "Iranian-
backed Hamas which wants to destroy Israel." Try to find a phrase that
says "democratically elected Hamas which is calling for a two-state
settlement" and has been for years. Well, yeah, that's a good
propaganda system. Even in the U.S. press they've occasionally allowed
op-eds by Hamas leaders, Ismail Haniya and others saying, yes we want
a two-state settlement on the international border like everyone else.
DOSSANI: When did Hamas adopt that position?
CHOMSKY That's their official position taken by Haniya, the elected
leader, and Khalid Mesh'al, their political leader who's in exile in
Syria, he's written the same thing. And it's over and over again.
There's no question about it but the West doesn't want to hear it. So
therefore it's Hamas which is committed to the destruction of Israel.
In a sense they are, but if you went to a Native American reservation
in the United States, I'm sure many would like to see the destruction
of the United States. If you went to Mexico and took a poll, I'm sure
they don't recognize the right of the United States to exist sitting
on half of Mexico, land conquered in war. And that's true all over the
world. But they're willing to accept a political settlement. Israel
isn't willing to accept it and the United States isn't willing to
accept it. And they're the lone hold-outs. Since it's the United
States that pretty much runs the world, it's blocked.
Here it's always presented as though the United States must become
more engaged; it's an honest broker; Bush's problem was that he
neglected the issue. That's not the problem. The problem is that the
United States has been very much engaged, and engaged in blocking a
political settlement and giving the material and ideological and
diplomatic support for the expansion programs, which are just criminal
programs. The world court unanimously, including the American justice,
agreed that any transfer of population into the Occupied Territories
is a violation of a fundamental international law, the Geneva
Conventions. And Israel agrees. In fact even their courts agree, they
just sort of sneak around it in various devious ways. So there's no
question about this. It's just sort of accepted in the United States
that we're an outlaw state. Law doesn't apply to us. That's why it's
never discussed.