Another Act in a Sad and Sick Comedy

On the face of it, it appears that these guys (Hillary and Bibi and their staffs) do not have anything to do with their time. The “negotiations” between the Israelis and the Americans, designed to convince the Israelis to stop building in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, have reached a critical point. After weeks of jockeying and a seven hour marathon between Hilary and Bibi, the Israelis are supposed to respond to a package of goodies that they will receive if they are so kind and generous to agree to a three month freeze on settlements. If Bibi and his buddies condescend to stop building on Palestinian land, they will receive advanced fighter-bombers and sophisticated weaponry, diplomatic vetoes (when required) and backing in international forums, and even the right to never hear the word freeze again until hell freezes over. These people have lost all sense of decency and go about their protracted negotiations on the fate of the Palestinians as if their combinations and consultations do not concern the Palestinians. Moreover, the Israelis were quick to announce that this US-Israeli deal does not require Palestinian approval.

You would have be a political illiterate to not understand that the US is trying to buy off Bibi by sacrificing Palestinian rights and paying him with Palestinian concessions. Now this was to be expected by all, including most Palestinians. For some indecipherable reason, this Palestinian “leadership” thought that by ingratiating itself with Washington, they could hope for a modicum of fairness. How naïve.

The Americans think that renewed Israeli-Palestinian negotiations will improve their image in the region. Indeed, everyone harbors their own set of illusions to get through the day. Logically, the U.S. should be pressuring both sides. But it does not want to put any real pressure on Israel because Israel is an important ally in the schemes for an attack on Iran. It may be that we have come to the point that it is really hard to pressure Israel because a weakened US administration has become completely scared out of its wits by the ugly AIPAC-Tea Party coalition. So what do you do? You make Palestinian concessions to Netanyahu’s annexationist government.

The Israelis claim that the deal excludes Jerusalem. The Palestinians say that this means that the freeze is non-starter. The only possible conclusion is that Hillary and Bibi believe that they will drag Abbas to the table or that they intend to lay the blame for a new failure to resume talks on Palestinian stubbornness.

This most recent expression of the US-Israeli love fest has reached a new level of perversity. This sliding scale of highly priced ‘freeze-time’ is particularly grotesque. The US, the world’s strongest and uncontested super power, buys ‘freeze time’, measured in days, from Israel in a transaction similar to many a shady bit of business. Give me 100 days of freeze-time and I will give you 20 F-35’s and a bunch of other murderous stuff and I promise never to ask for any more freeze-time and to organize full immunity from all charges and condemnation in all international forums. One can only wonder what would be the price of, say, six months of freeze time. Most curious is the object of Washington’s passion for this rare commodity called ‘freeze time.’ Both Obama and Clinton have recently stated very clearly that construction in the OPT is illegal, and this is still the official US position. Israel cannot “sell” willingness to desist from building in the OPT, because they have no such right. It seems that this is a clear case of the US
buying stolen goods.

Hillary and Bibi worked a bit on wrapping up this new bargain. As part of the deal, the US will do all sorts of things that it does anyhow like arming Israel, pressuring Iran, covering Israel’s “rear” in the UN and the International Atomic Energy Commision. Does anyone believe that US follow-through on this “package” of goodies for Israel depends on Israeli agreement to a three month construction freeze?

There does appear to be a single element of importance in all this yada, yada, yada. This is the proposal to concentrate on the delineation of the borders between Israel and Palestine. Some “brilliant” people figured out that if the borders are clearly marked, then everybody will agree as to where Israel can or cannot build. So the US is talking about the border issue being the main one and the most urgent. But this is just another case of the US maintaining the status-quo while promoting the illusion that some real negotiations are feasible. In fact, the Palestinians and the Israelis are still miles apart on this issue. Israel wants borders based on its annexations and settlements in the entire West Bank, including Jerusalem. No legitimate Palestinian representatives could agree. The US, in a desperate search for new subterfuges, touts the idea that a different, new agenda centering on the territorial issue will jump start the talks. But nobody really believes this. It is like suggesting that changing the language of the discussion will help to overcome or bypass the basic issues in dispute.

Palestinians Are Up a Blind Alley

It seems that the Palestinian leadership of Mahmoud Abbas is laboring under a serious misconception of the ME role of the United States and its ability to make a major contribution to Israeli-Palestinian peace. The US has little or no success in the successful solution of international conflicts. It does, however, have a lot of success, in subverting national and local leaderships. This is done by substituting material assistance (money), and military cooperation (police and special troops) for clear cut, principled political and diplomatic support. As time goes by, national and local leaderships comfort themselves by arguing that there is a lack of any other major power alternatives. The claim is that the U.S. is no better or worse than the other players of the international diplomatic game. The assistance supposedly designed to develop the struggle for real independence, turns out to be valuable in order to repel internal opposition. Meanwhile, the local leadership looses prestige and fractures as it becomes clear that it has “painted itself into a corner.” The connections with the US have become the only option. Even with partial autonomy, bills must be paid as if you are a full fledged sovereign country, even if you could not dream of a sovereign fund.

The most consistent supporters of the Palestinian cause cannot ignore the dangerous dependency of the Palestinian Authority on the United States. It is not only the fact that the US will not or cannot act as an “honest broker” regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Under the pretext of including the Arab world in the negotiations for peace, the Palestinian Authority has requested backing by the Arab states. These turn out to be the narrowing group of pro-US moderates, presently engaged in intensive maneuvering to join the US-Israeli axis of aggression against Iran. Egypt is the major operator in this context. Their diplomats are also involved in suggesting modifications undercutting the Palestinian positions in the negotiations. With friends like these, who needs enemies?



The World’s Worst Play

The extreme right elements in Bibi’s coalition, spearheaded by the settlers, are on the warpath. Bibi’s internal enemies sense blood and are out to prove that Netanyahu is no real leader. A possible agreement for a three months freeze is portrayed as the end of Zionism and the betrayal of its goals. Everyone knows that you can tell Obama where to go, but Bibi reveals his fatal weakness when he has to tell the Hussein Obamites not to mess with Israel.

The US two-faced policy cannot do anything about Israeli lack of consideration for US sensitivities (including those in the entire Arab world) because the first sacred objective is to arm this country to the teeth and to reiterate US commitment to Israeli security. After demonstrating that these bedrock commitments are the cornerstone of US policy and that US support is absolute and unconditional, is it any surprise that a legion of cheap politicos can convince the public that the US can be easily rebuffed if Israel stands pat. The local cynics are not wrong when they argue that US diplomacy might attempt to simulate an occasional bark, but there is no way to hide the fact that there is no real bite. I guess that this is a comedy, but a sad and ugly one.

PACBI – Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel Criticizes the Boycott by Israeli Theater People on Ariel*

As we know, some 60 Israeli theater people came out a few weeks back with a declaration that they will refuse to appear at the Ariel “Culture” Hall located in the occupied territories. It is important to stress that actors-artists are employees subordinate to the administrative and financial owners of the theater who are their employers in every sense. So, we are not speaking only of taking a courageous stand, but an act which puts the actor on a collision course with his boss. And we are not speaking of any kind of profession. An actor, without the theater, cannot work, create or make a living. Therefore, most honest people tend naturally to honor and applaud the brave tens of theater people for their act of protest.

It is also natural that the Israeli theater people received support from abroad. Indeed 150 central cultural figures, mainly from the US and the UK expressed their admiration for the courageous stand of the Israeli theater people.

This chain of events is yet another component in a broad movement in Israel and abroad serving to delegitimize the occupation regime and overall Israeli policies. It is important to note that this movement is itself composed of a variety of various, independent, groups and organizations, each of which has a record of long and difficult struggle against the occupation and its evils.


Boycott in Principle
For quite a while a serious debate has been taking place in our circles and in the broad public as to whether the boycott is an appropriate instrument for our struggle. There are those who argue that any boycott against Israel is unjust, really an act of anti-Semitism. But this is a rather naïve position of those who refuse to recognize the suffering and the deprivation of the Palestinian under Israel occupation. Those who support peace and are struggling against the occupation cannot reject any non violent activity aimed at advancing the struggle against the occupation. It is necessary to add that by virtue of its emotionally charged nature, boycott is never a simple affair. It is always a complex mechanism and should be employed with caution and wisdom. Boycotts should be aimed at a definite goal and should be accompanied with detailed political explanation on the cause and the goals of the boycott.

In general, the left in Israel supports boycott activity that conforms to the aforementioned reservations.


PACBI - The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
Those who follow Palestinian politics know that we are talking about a small and energetic group of activists who have a very explicit political agenda. They see in boycott activity a political instrument with a clear and definite message. This message is revealed in the first statement of their program, which declares the purpose of the boycott: “the elimination of the colonization of all Arab lands.” (see here). This formulation expresses the position of the group, which negates the existence of the state of Israel. In of itself, there is nothing illegitimate about this position. We are talking about leading intellectuals who are members of a nation oppressed by Israel for decades. Difficulties arise on the strategic level. Within the framework of BDS activity, the PACBI people represent a determined line, which demands that boycott activity should conform to their principled position. It is worth being clear on this question from the onset: they do not support activity against the occupation in and of itself because they see such activity as a diversion from the main issue. Their hard-line interpretation that all Israel must be considered territory under occupation brought them into conflict with important leaders of the peace movement such as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein.

I confess that I am not enthused about getting into a critical discussion about PACBI. I have no doubt regarding the noble intentions of members of the group and their devotion to non-violent struggle against the occupation as they perceive it. However, when they decide to deride the brave struggle of Israeli members of the peace movement and at the same time demonstrate their lack of understanding of our conditions, it is necessary to comment on this. Precisely out of concern for the campaign of the Israeli left against the occupation it is necessary to come out clearly against Palestinian friends who desire to insult with callousness and derision courageous and effective protest.


PACBI Against the Theater People and their International Supporters
We cannot know why PACBI issued, in the space of two days, two separate declarations that deal with the Israeli protest action against the “Cultural” Hall in Ariel. We will deal first with the declaration dated 7th of September (see here). There is nowhere in this text a good word about the activity of the Israeli theater people, and the declaration gives us a detailed and lengthy explanation for this. “While we welcome acts of protest against any manifestation of Israel's regime of colonialism and apartheid, we believe that these acts must be both morally consistent and anchored in international law and universal human rights.” These words serve as an introduction to a text in which PACBI explains that the action by the theater people does not meet these criteria.

These are the faults in the behavior of the theater people:
“First, we believe that the exclusive focus on settlement institutions ignores and obscures the complicity of all Israeli academic and cultural institutions in upholding the system of colonial control and apartheid under which Palestinians suffer. PACBI believes there is firm evidence of the collusion of the Israeli academic and cultural establishment with the major oppressive organs of the Israeli state. Focusing solely on obviously complicit institutions, such as cultural centers in a West Bank colony, serves to shield mainstream Israeli institutions from opprobrium or, ultimately, from the growing global boycott movement that consistently targets all complicit institutions. Furthermore, the cherry-picking approach behind targeting a notorious colonial settlement in the heart of the occupied West Bank diverts attention from other institutions built on occupied land. Supporters of this peculiarly selective boycott must be asked: is lecturing or performing at the Hebrew University, whose Mount Scopus campus sits on occupied Palestinian land in East Jerusalem, acceptable?

The PACBI people go on to submit a list of “test questions” to the theater people: why did they refrain from taking a position against the suffocation of Palestinian cultural institutions in conquered Jerusalem? The PACBI people continue the test questions: “If the artists' and intellectuals' role as voices of moral reason is behind this most recent call to boycott Ariel, where were these voices when academic and cultural institutions were wantonly destroyed in Israel's war of aggression on Gaza in 2008-2009?”

In all seriousness, there is no sincerity and no honesty in referring these questions to these people in these circumstances. The theater people under discussion were never a separate and organized movement but only an ad hoc formation. At the same time, among the theater people there are indeed those who protested the war on Gaza, against the occupation of East Jerusalem and the like. In any event, the “cross examination” style is not appropriate here.


The Second Document
As we have noted PACBI published a second declaration on this subject (see here). The second document, issued two days after the first, is different in that it is in the form of an open letter to the American and English cultural figures who cam out in support of the cultural boycott against the Israeli settlement of the West Bank. Their letter praises and commends the theater, film and television people following their declaration of support of those boycotting Ariel. Reasonably, PACBI calls on the artists abroad to deepen and expand their steps for yet a more comprehensive boycott. However, it is a bit strange to praise and to commend people abroad on their declared support for peace-loving Israelis, while the Israeli activity in itself is not considered worthy in PACBI eyes.

The explanation for this is contained in a paragraph which presents a set of “test questions” similar to those addressed to the Israeli theater people. PACBI wants to know why the cultural figures abroad refuse to act in good time: “In light of this inspiring history, we cannot but ask, why haven't you taken your taboo-breaking position in response to appeals by the overwhelming majority of Palestinians, including almost all leading artists? Why did you have to wait for a relatively small number of dissenting Israeli artists and academics to initiate a boycott, a peculiarly selective and morally-inconsistent one at that? Do authentic voices of the oppressed, especially those in the besieged Gaza Strip, incarcerated in the world's largest open-air prison, also count?” PACBI concludes its letter to the artists abroad that they act according to the spirit of its positions.


In Summary
PACBI, as important as it is, is not the only political factor in Palestinian society, but only one of many Palestinian organizations. While all Palestinians support, in principle, actions against the occupation and against Israeli policies, there are discussions and debates all about the vital issue of strategy and tactics. PACBI represents a version that causes unnecessary difficulties for building the unity of all peace loving forces, who support the Palestinian right of self determination. The recent appearance of an important coalition built on the parties of the Palestinian left and on the political initiative of a grouping around Dr. Mustafa Barghouti is of tremendous importance. This group has criticized the defeatism of Abu Mazen and his people while continuing its support for a just peace. And in respect to our concern here it is important that this coalition supports cooperation on the basis of mutual respect between themselves and the democratic and peace forces in Israel. Solidarity can only be constructed on the basis of mutual respect and a deep understanding of the difficulties of the left opposition in both nations.


*This article was written and published originally in Hebrew. I was concerned that its publication in English might needlessly intensify the debate. However, a number of good friends, who are sincerely devoted to BDS activity, requested an English translation, and convinced me of its value.

A New Gimmick - Occupation With Equality

No serious observer of the Israeli political scene ascribes any significance whatsoever to a new highly publicized flurry of publications emanating from right wing circles. For the journalist, ever in search of a new angle, these circles are supposed to represent a sea change in basic attitudes regarding the rights of the Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories. The evidence for this is that a number of right wing politicians came out for a one state solution based on equal rights for the Palestinians. Of course, there is no real program, and not even the semblance of an organization. Just a rather quaint list of right wingers who seem to be willing to make some limited concessions on their way to the imposition of complete, sovereign, control of all of the land of Palestine, the Land of Israel.

The best guess as to the reason for this wave of sensitivity among right wing annexationists for “equal rights for the Palestinians” appears to be linked to the ‘legitimacy crisis”. The existence of such a crisis is now part of the received wisdom of Israeli political discourse. Many semi-official experts (PR people, pollsters, analysts) have joined forces to impress the public that the deligitimization of Israel is the greatest threat, bar none, to the very existence of Israel. This is of course a rather superficial way of looking at matters, but even so, anyone can see that there is some truth to it. Israeli policy and actions have destroyed the last vestiges of sympathy for Israel the whole world over. But official Israel would have Israel’s growing isolation seen as matter of imagery, public relations and unfair coverage.

There are some annexationist politicians intelligent enough to understand that they need some sort of answer to the obvious objection that they meet with regularly. People have asked them what is supposed to happen after the annexation of the territories. Therefore, it has occurred to some of them that they need an answer to the objections against pure Israeli control, and so they came up with the idea of Israeli citizenship for all. None of them see any need to grapple with the fact that they have turned their back on the principles of democracy and equality absolutely essential in addressing the basic rights of the Palestinians. The individuals concerned (a few leading lights of the right, several MK’s and a former minister) reject, without exception, any solution of the Palestinian refugee problem or the inclusion of Gaza and its people as part of the new one state entity. None of these people have ever uttered a word of compassion and regret regarding the imposition of decades of suffering and degradation on the Palestinians under occupation. You do not even have to read the fine print. It’s a gimmick from the beginning to the end and almost all readers’ responses noted that the “plan” is based on the unilateral imposition of a new form of occupation. One can be certain that the inevitable resistance to the ‘approaching unilateral generosity’ will be suppressed with the full might of the Israel Defense Forces.

This being clearly the situation, it was rather strange to see that a number of Palestinians and their friends rose to take the bait. One outstanding example is Ali Abunima*, the editor of the Electronic Intifada. Abunima makes almost every conceivable mistake as he totally misreads the map and the significance of the latest gimmick. Believe it or not, for Abunima, the print splashed on a weekend supplement is, no more and no less than an important sign that the Israeli occupation is crumbling. Not only the occupation, but the entire Zionist edifice is shaking to its foundations.

“This awakening can be likened to what happened among South African whites in the 1980s. By that time it had become clear that the white minority government's effort to "solve" the problem of black disenfranchisement by creating nominally independent homelands -- bantustans -- had failed. Pressure was mounting from internal resistance and the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions.

By the mid-1980s, whites overwhelmingly understood that the apartheid status quo was untenable and they began to consider "reform" proposals that fell very far short of the African National Congress' demands for a universal franchise -- one-person, one-vote in a nonracial South Africa.”*

This attempt at a parallel interpretation of current events and South Africa before the end of Apartheid is so far off base as to almost eliminate any need for rebuttal. First of all, it exhibits a total and complete misunderstanding of Israeli politics and the power structure in the country. Secondly, it shows a strange inability to analyze current reality. The South African ANC was basically united and enjoying international prestige and respect. Unfortunately, the movement for Palestinian national liberation is deeply divided, in a deep crisis and the Palestinian Authority has lost all authority. Part of the Palestinian cause has been literally taken over by the military and economic direct control and influence of the United States, which also acts as a surrogate for Israeli interests. The US and Europe in its wake refuse to impose any genuine curbs on Israeli control and expansion. I could go on and on, but Abumima’s entire conception is obviously dictated by wishful thinking. He is so enthusiastic over the meager incomplete reflections of a handful of chauvinist politicians that he is close to declaring victory. Sadly, he is hopelessly wrong and conceptual narrowness has led him far astray from genuine contact with political reality.

Abunima goes on to define this week end supplement gimmick as a major development furthering the cause of a one state solution.

You see, the Israeli right and the militant Palestinians really want the same thing. It is only a question of terminology.

“The proposals from the Israeli right-wing, however inadequate and indeed offensive they seem in many respects, add a little bit to that hope. They suggest that even those whom Palestinians understandably consider their most implacable foes can stare into the abyss and decide there has to be a radically different way forward.

We should watch how this debate develops and engage and encourage it carefully. In the end it is not what the solution is called that matters, but whether it fulfills the fundamental and inalienable rights of all Palestinians.”

One is left with deep concern that our “one staters” have become the last bulwark of sterile dogmatism. If Abunima sees the statements of this almost random collection of Israeli annexationists as a serious political development, he will be sorely disappointed. One has the impression that his opposition to a two state solution and his dislike of the Zionist left has seriously impaired his critical faculties.


*Ali Abunimah is co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse. This article first appeared on Al-Jazeera English and is republished with permission.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11411.shtml