With the focus so often on governmental policy, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at some grassroots movements for peace in Israel and Palestine.

Oasis of Peace (Neve Shalom / Wahat al-Salam.)

Situated between Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv, this village community of 200 people aims to prove that Israel's Jews and Arabs can live peacefully side by side. Autonomous and self-governed, the village claims to have no political affiliation. Instead their aim is to construct an "humane, egalitarian and just society." To this end they have set up the School for Peace which educates young Arab and Jewish Israelis. In turn governed by a Jewish and Arab director, the school has educated some 35,000 students since it opened its doors for the first time in 1979. Their work is guided by four basic assumptions:

1.The beliefs and outlooks on which a person’s identity and behavior are constructed are deep-seated and stable, and generally resistant to change. Our work attempts to expose these outlooks and permit people to grapple with them.

2.The conflict rests on an encounter between two national groups, not between individuals; hence we see the group as having an essential importance, beyond the sum of the individuals comprising it.

3.The group is a microcosm of reality and thus offers an avenue for learning about the society at large.

4.The encounter group is an open entity, linked to and influenced by the larger reality outside.

The village also operates a humanitarian aid programme for those, primarily palestinians, who have been affected by the ongoing conflict.

Their website can be found here.

Also interesting to look at is:

The Parents Circle-Families Forum

Follow the link below and read a fascinating interview with Bibi's father. Simply imagine the discussions at the kitchen table when Bibi was growing up. Whilst many of his father's sentiments are obviously not all shared by his son Bibi they do give an indication of the enviroment in which Bibi grew up in and do not bode well for an Arab-Israeli peace process under his leadership.

http://www.promisedlandblog.com/?p=803<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

25 June 2010 marked the four year anniversary of the capture of Gilad Shalit by Hamas. Symbolically Shalit represents the fate of the peace process in the Middle East. His fate will almost certainly determine whether the region is plunged into a new cycle of violence, or whether the peace process can somehow be revived.

If Hamas were to kill him any prospect of a rapprochement between Israel and a Hamas-led Palestinian Government would vanish. Without doubt Israel would seek revenge against those it held responsible; not only Hamas but also against the group’s exiled leaders in Beirut and Damascus. Conversely if Israel’s military pressure, or a deal to swap Palestinian prisoners for the soldier could persuade Hamas to release Shalit, surprising possibilities could open up.

The sticking point for Hamas surrounding the release of Palestinian prisoners relates to Marwan Barghouti and Ahmed Saadat. Whilst Israel has agreed to release many of the 1,000 Palestinian prisoners they categorically will not release the two above mentioned prisoners.

Israelis, on the other hand, are incensed with their government regarding the recent agreement to ease the Israeli blockade of Gaza due to international pressure after the flotilla incident in May 2010. By not having negotiated Shalit’s release at this time the Israeli government have forsaken a point of leverage with Hamas.

Millions of people have been affected by the ongoing hostilities in Israel and Palestine, but Gilad Shalit has become the face that represents the hopelessness of the stalled peace talks

The Kuwait Royal family is trying to face down moves by Kuwait's parliament to pull out of the Arab Initiative for peace with Israel. Though technically illegal (the royals and the cabinet are actually obliged to stand by resolutions with a National Assembly majority) they may get away with it. They are under pressure from the USA not to break ranks with the rest of the Arab World and destroy the only peace process achievement since the heady days of the Jordan-Egypt peace with Israel:

Kuwait keen on Arab consensus on peace initiative: Al-Busairi
Kuwait government spokesman Dr. Mohammad Al-Busairi reaffirmed on Monday the government's commitment to maintaining the Arab consensus on the initiative for peace in the Middle East, reaffirmed at several Arab summits . . . More >>>>>>>>>>>

The Mava Marmara set out from Istanbul for Gaza on 22nd May. It carried $20m worth of aid. As everyone knows, the ship was however attacked, killing 9 of the 500 or more peace activits and injuring dozens more. Israel's continuing disregard for international law, its blockade of Gaza and the construction illegal settlements in East Jerusalem will affect the security of the United States and ally nations as well. It will also be an insurmountable obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

This came in from Ayatollah Safavi. It expresses an Iranian perspective on the current crisis over the Gaza blockade:

Freedom Flotilla: A call for an International and Israeli change of policy

By Seyed Safavi & Hanan Nasser

International Peace Studies Centre (IPSC)
peace-ipsc.org

The Freedom Flotilla, which headed for the besieged Gaza Strip from Cyprus on Sunday with the aim of breaking the Israeli blockade and delivering 10,000 tonnes of much needed humanitarian aid, was stopped by the killing of at least nine civilian activists on board the Turkish passenger ship, Mavi Marmara, by Israeli Naval Commandos. The Israeli military’s operation, which was conducted in international waters, received the “full backing” of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, caused an outpouring of condemnation from nations and governments across the globe and placed Israeli-Turkish relations at a turning point.

The siege, imposed since 2007, has turned the Gaza Strip into a concentration camp imprisoning its 1,400,000 residents. Amnesty International has said that the Gaza population is “trapped in the Gaza Strip. Their daily lives – in an area of land just 40 kilometers long and 9.5 kilometers wide – are marked by power shortages, little or no running water of poor quality and deteriorating health care. Mass unemployment, extreme poverty, and food insecurity both exacerbate and are deepened by the impact of the Israeli blockade”. In addition, the Gazans live in constant fear of Israeli bombings and the threat of yet another Israeli military operation similar to Operation Cast Lead which resulted in the deaths of 1,400 Palestinians, in which the UN fact finding mission into the operation found “strong evidence that Israeli forces committed grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention in Gaza, including: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction of property.” In its report, known as the Goldstone report, the mission stated: “Israel’s blockade of Gaza amounts to a violation of Israel’s obligations as an Occupying Power under the Fourth Geneva Convention. The deliberate actions of the Israeli forces and the declared policies of the Government indicate the intention to inflict collective punishment on the people of the Gaza Strip.”The Freedom Flotilla, organized by the Free Gaza Movement, aimed to “raise awareness about the prison-like closure of the Gaza Strip” and to send a statement that through peaceful means and through the strong will and action of nations, if not governments, justice can be established and the people of Gaza can be freed.

Israel, which was once again confronted by the international will, not the will of governments but of nations, decided to answer peace with violence and taint a peaceful movement for freedom, justice and preservation of human dignity, with the blood and incarceration of civilian activists.
The action of the Israeli military, which has received the “full backing” of the Israeli prime minister, and is yet to be condemned by Israel’s guardian and patron, the United States, is also a statement, it is a statement of violence, disregard for human life, disregard for international law and the absence of any desire for peace. It is yet another statement that the international legal tools to ensure accountability do not apply to Israel. Israel has been granted immunity by an international community, led by the United States, that has been passive to its policy of “collective punishment” in the Gaza Strip over the past years.

Israel launched Monday’s raid knowing from experience that it will once more be protected by the United States and that it will not face UN Security Council resolutions or sanctions for its breach of international laws.

The Israeli actions have fueled western and Muslim outrage as governments across Europe summoned Israeli ambassadors and demanded clarifications over the incident.
In the Muslim world, the Arab League is expected to hold an emergency meeting on Tuesday to discuss the raid. Muslim governments slammed the attack as “state terrorism” and an “act of piracy” as Egypt summoned the Israeli ambassador and Jordan “handed the Israeli charge d’affaire a protest note”, according to an AFP report. Other Middle Eastern states such as Syria and Lebanon, warned that Israel’s actions “threaten to pull the Middle East into a war whose consequences will not be limited to the region” while Iran stated that the raid is “in contravention of human values, [international] law and justice,” and called for a “decisive resolution” by the security council to stop Israeli crimes; further, Saudi Arabia called on the international community to take action.

The most consequential reaction for Israel was that of Israel’s regional ally, Turkey, whose president accused it of practicing “state terrorism” while the Turkish foreign minister warned that the attack could have “irrevocable ramifications” on bilateral ties. In the meantime, the Turkish government said it withdrew its ambassador to Israel and canceled three military maneuvers with Israel. It remains to be seen what steps the Turkish military and government will take in protest to the Israeli actions. Most of the nine activists who were killed were Turkish. However, what is needed is a strong response by Turkey particularly in the pursuit of an independent inquiry into the incident.

European Union ambassadors in a statement “condemned the use of violence” and demanded “an immediate, full and impartial inquiry into the events and the circumstances surrounding it”. It said that the EU “does not accept the continued policy of closure, it is unacceptable and politically counterproductive, we need to urgently achieve a durable solution to the situation in Gaza”.

For its part, the UN Security Council called for an impartial inquiry into the raid after a ten-hour emergency session, which was requested by Turkey and Lebanon. In its statement, the Security Council called for “a full investigation into the matter and it calls for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards”. It stressed that “the situation in Gaza is not sustainable” and reiterated the Council’s “grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza”.

In the face of such a storm, Israel defended its actions and adhered to its policy of continuing the siege on Gaza. Netanyahu called the incident “regrettable” but justified the attack as a “clear case of self-defense” awarding his “full support” to the Israeli military.

The first step, which must be taken, is to place pressure on Israel to lift its unproductive siege on Gaza. Further, in line with the international community’s call for an inquiry into the killings on board of the Mavi Marmara, it is of utmost importance that the inquiry is independent, particularly as “Israel’s system of investigation and prosecution of serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law, in particular of suspected war crimes and crimes against humanity, has major structural flaws that make the system inconsistent with international standards.” (United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict). Such an investigation is particularly important in the context of the Middle East peace process. The immunity extended by the US and her allies to Israel is the greatest barrier to the establishment of just peace in the Middle East.

Such international leniency is demonstrated by Israel’s disregard for international law, its violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Security Council resolutions, its continued blockade of Gaza, its construction of illegal settlements on Palestinian Territories, its rhetoric of war against its neighbors and its use of violence, as demonstrated once more on Monday.
In light of the international community’s unchanged policy toward Israel, it will not feel compelled to act as a cooperative partner in peace negotiations. Israel’s past and present actions show that it has no interest in peace. None of the Israeli ceasefires, be it in the case of the Occupied Palestinian Territories or Lebanon, or withdrawals from occupied territories have been the result of an Israeli desire for peace. They have been a tactic, in which Israel, after using “disproportionate force” against its targets and achieving its military and political objectives, withdraws or calls for a ceasefire in order to recuperate and allow for the public outrage of its actions to subside only to strike once more. Israel’s long-term strategy has been to create a climate of fear and violence in the region marked by periods of calm.

The behavior of Israel is not only the foremost barrier to peace in the Middle East but it directly affects the security of the US and her allies, and the situation faced by American and NATO troops across the Muslim lands. There is need for a shift in the behavior of the West towards Israel, whereby Israel, like any other state is held accountable for its actions by legal tools such as UN Security Council resolutions, sanctions and trade and arms embargoes. This policy shift, which would mark an end to policy of double standards employed by the US and her allies in the Middle East, will directly result in a behavioral change in Israel. In the absence of a policy of impunity for its crimes and breaches, Israel will have to respect its obligations under international humanitarian treaties. This is one of the preconditions for successful peace negotiations, and it is a first step to ensure the establishment of a just peace in the Middle East.

The attack on the Freedom Flotilla was also an attack on citizens of more than a dozen countries including the United States, Britain, Australia, Greece, Canada, Malaysia, Algeria, Serbia, Belgium, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Kuwait and Turkey, as it took place in international waters. The raid offers an opportunity for the international community to move away from the policy of complacency towards Israel. An important result of this policy shift would be the message that it would send to the Muslim world that the rule of law will be applied equally upon all parties in the conflict, and that “change” is more than an empty promise.

Israel’s attempted diversion of the Flotilla’s was certain to end in tears for Israel, whilst it was a public relations triumph for Hamas. Even though the ships never made it to Gaza, the point of the exercise was to provoke Israel into a military reaction and to discredit her on camera. It was inevitable that the Israelis would stop the “humanitarian” Flotillas heading towards Gaza by sea. The Israelis had offered to transfer the supplies from the Flotilla to Gaza from the port in Ashdod through official channels. However this offer was rejected in favour of a guaranteed confrontation. The outcome has been international condemnation, criticism and further isolation of Israel.

In the first few hours of reporting of this incident, the damage has already been done (Israel is still recovering from the international beating it received from allegations of committing war crimes during the 2009 Gaza offensive). Turkey, traditionally Israel’s strongest Muslim ally, immediately withdrew its ambassador to the country and the UN Security Council has also condemned the raid. More concerning is the impact this raid will have on the renewed proximity talks between Israel and Palestine.

This incident has succeeded in defining the global image of Israel. It has divided Israel and Western governments by shifting public opinion against Israel. Israel’s enemies will argue that Israel prefers bloodshed to reasonable accommodation (allowing the ships to go to Gaza and offload). The concern is that as Western public opinion shifts against Israel, Western political leaders will adopt the same thinking.

Given the size of Israel, it is not large enough to withstand extended international isolation. The implications of this raid have profound geopolitical implications, as mentioned above.

Israel’s attempted diversion of the Flotilla’s was certain to end in tears for Israel, whilst it was a public relations triumph for Hamas. Even though the ships never made it to Gaza, the point of the exercise was to provoke Israel into a military reaction and to discredit her on camera. It was inevitable that the Israelis would stop the “humanitarian” Flotillas heading towards Gaza by sea. The Israelis had offered to transfer the supplies from the Flotilla to Gaza from the port in Ashdod through official channels. However this offer was rejected in favour of a guaranteed confrontation. The outcome has been international condemnation, criticism and further isolation of Israel.


In the first few hours of reporting of this incident, the damage has already been done (Israel is still recovering from the international beating it received from allegations of committing war crimes during the 2009 Gaza offensive). Turkey, traditionally Israel’s strongest Muslim ally, immediately withdrew its ambassador to the country and the UN Security Council has also condemned the raid. More concerning is the impact this raid will have on the renewed proximity talks between Israel and Palestine.

This incident has succeeded in defining the global image of Israel. It has divided Israel and Western governments by shifting public opinion against Israel. Israel’s enemies will argue that Israel prefers bloodshed to reasonable accommodation (allowing the ships to go to Gaza and offload). The concern is that as Western public opinion shifts against Israel, Western political leaders will adopt the same thinking.

Given the size of Israel, it is not large enough to withstand extended international isolation. The implications of this raid have profound geopolitical implications, as mentioned above.

The International Media Council Awards of the Next Century Foundation were presented at a ceremony on 8 May 2010 at the Oxford and Cambridge Club, Pall Mall. The following prizes were awarded to Israeli and Palestinian journalists.

1. The Peace Through Media Awards

The Peace Through Media Awards are given to journalists or broadcasters of outstanding calibre. They are selected because their work is of such quality that it has helped to foster a climate of peace and understanding.

AKIVA ELDAR - the Chief Political Columnist for Haaretz. His columns also regularly appear in the Haaretz-Herald Tribune edition and the Japanese daily Mainichi. Before taking up his current role, Mr. Eldar lectured at the School of Journalism in Tel Aviv, as well as working as Haaretz US Bureau Chief and Washington correspondent, covering the peace process, US-Israel relations, American issues and Israel-Diaspora relations. Prior to this, he spent ten years as Diplomatic Correspondent. Mr. Eldar is the co-author of two books; a biography of Shimon Peres and Lords of the Land: The War Over Israel's Settlements in the Occupied Territories.

2. The Cutting Edge Awards

The Cutting Edge Awards are an acknowledgement of the work of media professionals who have risen to prominence through the outstanding quality of their work and their balanced and considered coverage.

MOEEN EL HILOU - currently Gaza Producer for Israel's Channel 10 TV, as well as being a director for the Hebrew News Department at Palestine TV. Fluent in Arabic and Hebrew, he has had an eventful career as a journalist, covering all interviews between the late Yasser Arafat and Israeli officials, as well as himself interviewing important Israeli figures including Ehud Olmert (when he was Sharon's Deputy Prime Minister) and Shimon Peres.

ITAI ANGHEL - senior correspondent for the weekly current affairs program "UVDA" on Israel's Channel 2 television, the Israeli equivalent to BBC's "Panorama" or CBS's "60 Minutes". Beginning his career as a foreign correspondent, and later Chief Editor of Foreign Affairs, for the GLZ radio station during the pivotal years of 1987-93, Mr. Anghel covered conflicts in former Yugoslavia and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Since his move to Channel 2 in 1993, he has covered numerous significant conflicts and political events, including the first post-apartheid elections in South Africa, the Rwandan genocide, the aftermath of September 11th in the United States, an Israeli exclusive on the funeral of Yasser Arafat and the Second Lebanon War. Mr. Anghel has become known for his objectivity in reporting, and his determination to make the voices of all sides heard. He has also been actively involved in humanitarian work, setting up the Humanitarian - Israelis for Congo organisation and bringing concerts and medical delegations to the country.

MOSSI RAZ - Israel Coordinator for All For Peace Radio, a joint Israeli-Arab radio station which seeks to bring the accumulated experience and expertise of both the Jewish-Arab Centre for Peace and the Palestinian Biladi organisation to bear through the mass media, creating hope and finding common ground between the neighbouring peoples. He is a well-known peace activist in Israel and was elected to the Knesset for the liberal Meretz party in 2000, serving for three years. He is also the director of the non-profit Ir Shalom co-existence program, bringing together various volunteer professionals from the field of town planning and construction to create an equitable planning model for the Palestinian community.

MAYSA SINIORA - Palestine Coordinator for All For Peace Radio, a joint Israeli-Arab radio station which seeks to bring the accumulated experience and expertise of both the Jewish-Arab Centre for Peace and the Palestinian Biladi organisation to bear through the mass media, creating hope and finding common ground between the neighbouring peoples. Maysa began her political activism in London, heading the London Palestinian student organisation. After returning to Jerusalem in 1996, she became a reporter on Biladi's Jerusalem Times and was recently named by Haaretz's Marker business magazine as one of the top 40 women in the country for "making a difference". Throughout her career, she has sought to involve "people on the street," rather than concentrating on Palestinian or Israeli politicians.

The inexhorable drift to the right in Israel seems unstoppable. In student polls the results at universities are astonishing - showing that most of the young generation are more right wing than their parents and back Lieberman. David sent us the following from Jews for Justice:

May 2nd, 2010
A mixed bag… The worst news is that the rightward drift in Israel continues apace with a bill before the Knesset to outlaw NGOs that provide evidence of human-rights violations. But there is the hope that protest about the Sheikh Jarrar evictions might see the emergence of a new Israeli left. (See also Bradley Burston's moving analysis of the situation.) Ten Israel Prize laureates and more than 50 academics and intellectuals wrote to the Israeli Defence Minister protesting against Israel’s sweeping ban on Palestinian students from Gaza studying in the West Bank. And Al Jazeera’s Jacky Rowland reports on the differences in access to central Jerusalem for residents of the illegal settlements and Palestinians from Shuafat and Beit Hanina. In Europe there is a liberal Zionist move to launch a new Jewish peace movement under the name of J Call on 3rd May in Brussels. On the Palestinian side: Rachel Shabi assesses the attempt of the Palestinian Authority to reinvent itself as a popular movement but suggests it is skin-deep; there is a new International Crisis Group report on the changing strategy of the PLO; and the fifth Bil’in International Conference on the Popular Struggle committed itself to establishing legal accountability, promoting a BDS strategy and building an international network in support of Palestinian popular non-violent resistance. In the US the most high-profile campaign yet to organise divestment from companies profiting from the occupation has been temporarily halted at Berkeley. But there is no doubt that the divesters won both the argument and majority support, and the issue will no doubt return to the agenda soon. (See also the essay by refusenik Joathan Ben Artzi on taking sides.) In the States, too, Elie Wiesel’s call for Jerusalem to be taken out of current political discussions did not receive the response he wanted from the Obama government. In South Africa in the barred-mitzah-gate saga, Justice Richard Goldstone, author of the UN report on Gaza, was effectively barred from attending his grandson’s forthcoming barmitzvah by the Zionist and Orthodox Jewish establishment. Howls of outrage have forced a reversal… Alan Dershowitz, scourge of Norman Finkelstein and other critics of Israel, has now turned his attentions to Richard Goldstone and to JStreet which he accuses of having “gone over to the dark side”. Some other interesting essays and analytical pieces that appeared this week: Stephen Maher on the Israel lobby thesis that “does little to explain US foreign policy in the Middle East”; Noam Chomsky provides an overview of recent history of Gaza, of the settlements and of Washington’s changing responses to Israel; and a special issue of the Badil Resource Centre journal al-Majdal devoted to the Jewish National Fund was published.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

David Sasson drew our attention to this. Interesting - he's right - Palestine has been cantonised:

By Noam Chomsky


The fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange. For many of the world’s conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement. In this case, it is not only possible, but there is near universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized (pre-June 1967) borders -- with “minor and mutual modifications,” to adopt official U.S. terminology before Washington departed from the international community in the mid-1970s.

The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (who go on to call for full normalization of relations), the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran ), and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas). A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the U.N. Security Council in January 1976 by the major Arab states. Israel refused to attend the session. The U.S. vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980. The record at the General Assembly since is similar.

There was one important and revealing break in U.S.-Israeli rejectionism. After the failed Camp David agreements in 2000, President Clinton recognized that the terms he and Israel had proposed were unacceptable to any Palestinians. That December, he proposed his “parameters”: imprecise, but more forthcoming. He then stated that both sides had accepted the parameters, while expressing reservations.

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met in Taba , Egypt , in January 2001 to resolve the differences and were making considerable progress. In their final press conference, they reported that, with a little more time, they could probably have reached full agreement. Israel called off the negotiations prematurely, however, and official progress then terminated, though informal discussions at a high level continued leading to the Geneva Accord, rejected by Israel and ignored by the U.S.

A good deal has happened since, but a settlement along those lines is still not out of reach -- if, of course, Washington is once again willing to accept it. Unfortunately, there is little sign of that.

Substantial mythology has been created about the entire record, but the basic facts are clear enough and quite well documented.

The U.S. and Israel have been acting in tandem to extend and deepen the occupation. In 2005, recognizing that it was pointless to subsidize a few thousand Israeli settlers in Gaza , who were appropriating substantial resources and protected by a large part of the Israeli army, the government of Ariel Sharon decided to move them to the much more valuable West Bank and Golan Heights .

Instead of carrying out the operation straightforwardly, as would have been easy enough, the government decided to stage a “national trauma,” which virtually duplicated the farce accompanying the withdrawal from the Sinai desert after the Camp David agreements of 1978-79. In each case, the withdrawal permitted the cry of “Never Again,” which meant in practice: we cannot abandon an inch of the Palestinian territories that we want to take in violation of international law. This farce played very well in the West, though it was ridiculed by more astute Israeli commentators, among them that country’s prominent sociologist the late Baruch Kimmerling.

After its formal withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, Israel never actually relinquished its total control over the territory, often described realistically as “the world’s largest prison.” In January 2006, a few months after the withdrawal, Palestine had an election that was recognized as free and fair by international observers. Palestinians, however, voted “the wrong way,” electing Hamas. Instantly, the U.S. and Israel intensified their assault against Gazans as punishment for this misdeed. The facts and the reasoning were not concealed; rather, they were openly published alongside reverential commentary on Washington ’s sincere dedication to democracy. The U.S.-backed Israeli assault against the Gazans has only been intensified since, thanks to violence and economic strangulation, increasingly savage.

Meanwhile in the West Bank, always with firm U.S. backing, Israel has been carrying forward longstanding programs to take the valuable land and resources of the Palestinians and leave them in unviable cantons, mostly out of sight. Israeli commentators frankly refer to these goals as “neocolonial.” Ariel Sharon, the main architect of the settlement programs, called these cantons “Bantustans,” though the term is misleading: South Africa needed the majority black work force, while Israel would be happy if the Palestinians disappeared, and its policies are directed to that end.

Blockading Gaza by Land and Sea

One step towards cantonization and the undermining of hopes for Palestinian national survival is the separation of Gaza from the West Bank . These hopes have been almost entirely consigned to oblivion, an atrocity to which we should not contribute by tacit consent. Israeli journalist Amira Hass, one of the leading specialists on Gaza , writes that “the restrictions on Palestinian movement that Israel introduced in January 1991 reversed a process that had been initiated in June 1967. Back then, and for the first time since 1948, a large portion of the Palestinian people again lived in the open territory of a single country -- to be sure, one that was occupied, but was nevertheless whole.… The total separation of the Gaza Strip from the West Bank is one of the greatest achievements of Israeli politics, whose overarching objective is to prevent a solution based on international decisions and understandings and instead dictate an arrangement based on Israel ’s military superiority.…

“Since January 1991, Israel has bureaucratically and logistically merely perfected the split and the separation: not only between Palestinians in the occupied territories and their brothers in Israel , but also between the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem and those in the rest of the territories and between Gazans and West Bankers/Jerusalemit es. Jews live in this same piece of land within a superior and separate system of privileges, laws, services, physical infrastructure and freedom of movement.”

The leading academic specialist on Gaza , Harvard scholar Sara Roy, adds:

“ Gaza is an example of a society that has been deliberately reduced to a state of abject destitution, its once productive population transformed into one of aid-dependent paupers.… Gaza ’s subjection began long before Israel ’s recent war against it [December 2008]. The Israeli occupation — now largely forgotten or denied by the international community — has devastated Gaza ’s economy and people, especially since 2006…. After Israel ’s December [2008] assault, Gaza ’s already compromised conditions have become virtually unlivable. Livelihoods, homes, and public infrastructure have been damaged or destroyed on a scale that even the Israel Defense Forces admitted was indefensible.

“In Gaza today, there is no private sector to speak of and no industry. 80 percent of Gaza ’s agricultural crops were destroyed and Israel continues to snipe at farmers attempting to plant and tend fields near the well-fenced and patrolled border. Most productive activity has been extinguished.… Today, 96 percent of Gaza ’s population of 1.4 million is dependent on humanitarian aid for basic needs. According to the World Food Programme, the Gaza Strip requires a minimum of 400 trucks of food every day just to meet the basic nutritional needs of the population. Yet, despite a March [22, 2009] decision by the Israeli cabinet to lift all restrictions on foodstuffs entering Gaza, only 653 trucks of food and other supplies were allowed entry during the week of May 10, at best meeting 23 percent of required need. Israel now allows only 30 to 40 commercial items to enter Gaza compared to 4,000 approved products prior to June 2006.”



It cannot be too often stressed that Israel had no credible pretext for its 2008–9 attack on Gaza , with full U.S. support and illegally using U.S. weapons. Near-universal opinion asserts the contrary, claiming that Israel was acting in self-defense. That is utterly unsustainable, in light of Israel ’s flat rejection of peaceful means that were readily available, as Israel and its U.S. partner in crime knew very well. That aside, Israel ’s siege of Gaza is itself an act of war, as Israel of all countries certainly recognizes, having repeatedly justified launching major wars on grounds of partial restrictions on its access to the outside world, though nothing remotely like what it has long imposed on Gaza .

One crucial element of Israel ’s criminal siege, little reported, is the naval blockade. Peter Beaumont reports from Gaza that, “on its coastal littoral, Gaza’s limitations are marked by a different fence where the bars are Israeli gunboats with their huge wakes, scurrying beyond the Palestinian fishing boats and preventing them from going outside a zone imposed by the warships.” According to reports from the scene, the naval siege has been tightened steadily since 2000. Fishing boats have been driven steadily out of Gaza ’s territorial waters and toward the shore by Israeli gunboats, often violently without warning and with many casualties. As a result of these naval actions, Gaza ’s fishing industry has virtually collapsed; fishing is impossible near shore because of the contamination caused by Israel ’s regular attacks, including the destruction of power plants and sewage facilities.

These Israeli naval attacks began shortly after the discovery by the BG (British Gas) Group of what appear to be quite sizeable natural gas fields in Gaza ’s territorial waters. Industry journals report that Israel is already appropriating these Gazan resources for its own use, part of its commitment to shift its economy to natural gas. The standard industry source reports:



“Israel’s finance ministry has given the Israel Electric Corp. (IEC) approval to purchase larger quantities of natural gas from BG than originally agreed upon, according to Israeli government sources [which] said the state-owned utility would be able to negotiate for as much as 1.5 billion cubic meters of natural gas from the Marine field located off the Mediterranean coast of the Palestinian controlled Gaza Strip.

“Last year the Israeli government approved the purchase of 800 million cubic meters of gas from the field by the IEC…. Recently the Israeli government changed its policy and decided the state-owned utility could buy the entire quantity of gas from the Gaza Marine field. Previously the government had said the IEC could buy half the total amount and the remainder would be bought by private power producers.”



The pillage of what could become a major source of income for Gaza is surely known to U.S. authorities. It is only reasonable to suppose that the intention to appropriate these limited resources, either by Israel alone or together with the collaborationist Palestinian Authority, is the motive for preventing Gazan fishing boats from entering Gaza’s territorial waters.

There are some instructive precedents. In 1989, Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans signed a treaty with his Indonesian counterpart Ali Alatas granting Australia rights to the substantial oil reserves in “the Indonesian Province of East Timor .” The Indonesia-Australia Timor Gap Treaty, which offered not a crumb to the people whose oil was being stolen, “is the only legal agreement anywhere in the world that effectively recognises Indonesia ’s right to rule East Timor ,” the Australian press reported.

Asked about his willingness to recognize the Indonesian conquest and to rob the sole resource of the conquered territory, which had been subjected to near-genocidal slaughter by the Indonesian invader with the strong support of Australia (along with the U.S., the U.K., and some others), Evans explained that “there is no binding legal obligation not to recognise the acquisition of territory that was acquired by force,” adding that “the world is a pretty unfair place, littered with examples of acquisition by force.”

It should, then, be unproblematic for Israel to follow suit in Gaza .

A few years later, Evans became the leading figure in the campaign to introduce the concept “responsibility to protect” -- known as R2P -- into international law. R2P is intended to establish an international obligation to protect populations from grave crimes. Evans is the author of a major book on the subject and was co-chair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which issued what is considered the basic document on R2P.

In an article devoted to this “idealistic effort to establish a new humanitarian principle,” the London Economist featured Evans and his “bold but passionate claim on behalf of a three-word expression which (in quite large part thanks to his efforts) now belongs to the language of diplomacy: the ‘responsibility to protect.’” The article is accompanied by a picture of Evans with the caption “Evans: a lifelong passion to protect.” His hand is pressed to his forehead in despair over the difficulties faced by his idealistic effort. The journal chose not to run a different photo that circulates in Australia , depicting Evans and Alatas exuberantly clasping their hands together as they toast the Timor Gap Treaty that they had just signed.

Though a “protected population” under international law, Gazans do not fall under the jurisdiction of the “responsibility to protect,” joining other unfortunates, in accord with the maxim of Thucydides -- that the strong do as they wish, and the weak suffer as they must -- which holds with its customary precision.

Obama and the Settlements

The kinds of restrictions on movement used to destroy Gaza have long been in force in the West Bank as well, less cruelly but with grim effects on life and the economy. The World Bank reports that Israel has established “a complex closure regime that restricts Palestinian access to large areas of the West Bank … The Palestinian economy has remained stagnant, largely because of the sharp downturn in Gaza and Israel ’s continued restrictions on Palestinian trade and movement in the West Bank .”

The World Bank “cited Israeli roadblocks and checkpoints hindering trade and travel, as well as restrictions on Palestinian building in the West Bank , where the Western-backed government of Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas holds sway.” Israel does permit -- indeed encourage -- a privileged existence for elites in Ramallah and sometimes elsewhere, largely relying on European funding, a traditional feature of colonial and neocolonial practice.

All of this constitutes what Israeli activist Jeff Halper calls a “matrix of control” to subdue the colonized population. These systematic programs over more than 40 years aim to establish Defense Minister Moshe Dayan’s recommendation to his colleagues shortly after Israel ’s 1967 conquests that we must tell the Palestinians in the territories: “We have no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave, and we will see where this process leads.”

Turning to the second bone of contention, settlements, there is indeed a confrontation, but it is rather less dramatic than portrayed. Washington ’s position was presented most strongly in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s much-quoted statement rejecting “natural growth exceptions” to the policy opposing new settlements. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, along with President Shimon Peres and, in fact, virtually the whole Israeli political spectrum, insists on permitting “natural growth” within the areas that Israel intends to annex, complaining that the United States is backing down on George W. Bush’s authorization of such expansion within his “vision” of a Palestinian state.

Senior Netanyahu cabinet members have gone further. Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz announced that “the current Israeli government will not accept in any way the freezing of legal settlement activity in Judea and Samaria .” The term “legal” in U.S.-Israeli parlance means “illegal, but authorized by the government of Israel with a wink from Washington .” In this usage, unauthorized outposts are termed “illegal,” though apart from the dictates of the powerful, they are no more illegal than the settlements granted to Israel under Bush’s “vision” and Obama’s scrupulous omission.

The Obama-Clinton “hardball” formulation is not new. It repeats the wording of the Bush administration draft of the 2003 Road Map, which stipulates that in Phase I, “ Israel freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements) .” All sides formally accept the Road Map (modified to drop the phrase “natural growth”) -- consistently overlooking the fact that Israel , with U.S. support, at once added 14 “reservations” that render it inoperable.

If Obama were at all serious about opposing settlement expansion, he could easily proceed with concrete measures by, for example, reducing U.S. aid by the amount devoted to this purpose. That would hardly be a radical or courageous move. The Bush I administration did so (reducing loan guarantees), but after the Oslo accord in 1993, President Clinton left calculations to the government of Israel . Unsurprisingly, there was “no change in the expenditures flowing to the settlements,” the Israeli press reported. “[Prime Minister] Rabin will continue not to dry out the settlements,” the report concludes. “And the Americans? They will understand.”

Obama administration officials informed the press that the Bush I measures are “not under discussion,” and that pressures will be “largely symbolic.” In short, Obama understands, just as Clinton and Bush II did.

American Visionaries

At best, settlement expansion is a side issue, rather like the issue of “illegal outposts” -- namely those that the government of Israel has not authorized. Concentration on these issues diverts attention from the fact that there are no “legal outposts” and that it is the existing settlements that are the primary problem to be faced.

The U.S. press reports that “a partial freeze has been in place for several years, but settlers have found ways around the strictures… [C]onstruction in the settlements has slowed but never stopped, continuing at an annual rate of about 1,500 to 2,000 units over the past three years. If building continues at the 2008 rate, the 46,500 units already approved will be completed in about 20 years.… If Israel built all the housing units already approved in the nation’s overall master plan for settlements, it would almost double the number of settler homes in the West Bank .” Peace Now, which monitors settlement activities, estimates further that the two largest settlements would double in size: Ariel and Ma’aleh Adumim, built mainly during the Oslo years in the salients that subdivide the West Bank into cantons.

“Natural population growth” is largely a myth, Israel ’s leading diplomatic correspondent, Akiva Eldar, points out, citing demographic studies by Colonel (res.) Shaul Arieli, deputy military secretary to former prime minister and incumbent defense minister Ehud Barak. Settlement growth consists largely of Israeli immigrants in violation of the Geneva Conventions, assisted with generous subsidies. Much of it is in direct violation of formal government decisions, but carried out with the authorization of the government, specifically Barak, considered a dove in the Israeli spectrum.

Correspondent Jackson Diehl derides the “long-dormant Palestinian fantasy,” revived by President Abbas, “that the United States will simply force Israel to make critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees.” He does not explain why refusal to participate in Israel ’s illegal expansion -- which, if serious, would “force Israel to make critical concessions” -- would be improper interference in Israel ’s democracy.

Returning to reality, all of these discussions about settlement expansion evade the most crucial issue about settlements: what the United States and Israel have already established in the West Bank . The evasion tacitly concedes that the illegal settlement programs already in place are somehow acceptable (putting aside the Golan Heights, annexed in violation of Security Council orders) -- though the Bush “vision,” apparently accepted by Obama, moves from tacit to explicit support for these violations of law. What is in place already suffices to ensure that there can be no viable Palestinian self-determination. Hence, there is every indication that even on the unlikely assumption that “natural growth” will be ended, U.S.-Israeli rejectionism will persist, blocking the international consensus as before.

Subsequently, Prime Minister Netanyahu declared a 10-month suspension of new construction, with many exemptions, and entirely excluding Greater Jerusalem, where expropriation in Arab areas and construction for Jewish settlers continues at a rapid pace. Hillary Clinton praised these “unprecedented” concessions on (illegal) construction, eliciting anger and ridicule in much of the world.

It might be different if a legitimate “land swap” were under consideration, a solution approached at Taba and spelled out more fully in the Geneva Accord reached in informal high-level Israel-Palestine negotiations. The accord was presented in Geneva in October 2003, welcomed by much of the world, rejected by Israel , and ignored by the United States .

Washington’s “Evenhandedness”

Barack Obama’s June 4, 2009, Cairo address to the Muslim world kept pretty much to his well-honed “blank slate” style -- with little of substance, but presented in a personable manner that allows listeners to write on the slate what they want to hear. CNN captured its spirit in headlining a report “Obama Looks to Reach the Soul of the Muslim World.” Obama had announced the goals of his address in an interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. “‘We have a joke around the White House,’ the president said. ‘We’re just going to keep on telling the truth until it stops working and nowhere is truth-telling more important than the Middle East .’” The White House commitment is most welcome, but it is useful to see how it translates into practice.

Obama admonished his audience that it is easy to “point fingers… but if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.”

Turning from Obama-Friedman Truth to truth, there is a third side, with a decisive role throughout: the United States . But that participant in the conflict Obama omitted. The omission is understood to be normal and appropriate, hence unmentioned: Friedman’s column is headlined “Obama Speech Aimed at Both Arabs and Israelis.” The front-page Wall Street Journal report on Obama’s speech appears under the heading “Obama Chides Israel , Arabs in His Overture to Muslims.” Other reports are the same.

The convention is understandable on the doctrinal principle that though the U.S. government sometimes makes mistakes, its intentions are by definition benign, even noble. In the world of attractive imagery, Washington has always sought desperately to be an honest broker, yearning to advance peace and justice. The doctrine trumps truth, of which there is little hint in the speech or the mainstream coverage of it.

Obama once again echoed Bush’s “vision” of two states, without saying what he meant by the phrase “Palestinian state.” His intentions were clarified not only by the crucial omissions already discussed, but also by his one explicit criticism of Israel : “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.” That is, Israel should live up to Phase I of the 2003 Road Map, rejected at once by Israel with tacit U.S. support, as noted -- though the truth is that Obama has ruled out even steps of the Bush I variety to withdraw from participation in these crimes.

The operative words are “legitimacy” and “continued.” By omission, Obama indicates that he accepts Bush’s vision: the vast existing settlement and infrastructure projects are “legitimate,” thus ensuring that the phrase “Palestinian state” means “fried chicken.”

Always even-handed, Obama also had an admonition for the Arab states: they “must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities.” Plainly, however, it cannot be a meaningful “beginning” if Obama continues to reject its core principles: implementation of the international consensus. To do so, however, is evidently not Washington ’s “responsibility” in Obama’s vision; no explanation given, no notice taken.

On democracy, Obama said that “we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election” -- as in January 2006, when Washington picked the outcome with a vengeance, turning at once to severe punishment of the Palestinians because it did not like the outcome of a peaceful election, all with Obama’s apparent approval judging by his words before, and actions since, taking office.

Obama politely refrained from comment about his host, President Mubarak, one of the most brutal dictators in the region, though he has had some illuminating words about him. As he was about to board a plane to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the two “moderate” Arab states, “Mr. Obama signaled that while he would mention American concerns about human rights in Egypt, he would not challenge Mr. Mubarak too sharply, because he is a ‘force for stability and good’ in the Middle East… Mr. Obama said he did not regard Mr. Mubarak as an authoritarian leader. ‘No, I tend not to use labels for folks,’ Mr. Obama said. The president noted that there had been criticism ‘of the manner in which politics operates in Egypt ,’ but he also said that Mr. Mubarak had been ‘a stalwart ally, in many respects, to the United States .’”

When a politician uses the word “folks,” we should brace ourselves for the deceit, or worse, that is coming. Outside of this context, there are “people,” or often “villains,” and using labels for them is highly meritorious. Obama is right, however, not to have used the word “authoritarian,” which is far too mild a label for his friend.

Just as in the past, support for democracy, and for human rights as well, keeps to the pattern that scholarship has repeatedly discovered, correlating closely with strategic and economic objectives. There should be little difficulty in understanding why those whose eyes are not closed tight shut by rigid doctrine dismiss Obama’s yearning for human rights and democracy as a joke in bad taste.

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor emeritus in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is the author of numerous books, including the New York Times bestsellers Hegemony or Survival and Failed States. His newest book, Hopes and Prospects, is out this week from Haymarket Books