What are the Israelis up to next?

Amazing article in Ha'aretz today. Check this one out (my comments added in blue):

Defense establishment paper: Golan for Syria peace, plan for Iran strike

By Barak Ravid

A defense establishment paper recommends making contingency plans to attack Iran, reaching an agreement with Syria that includes leaving the Golan Heights and preventing new elections in the Palestinian Authority, even if this means a confrontation with the United States.

The paper will be presented to the cabinet next month as part of the National Security Council's annual situation assessment.

The document warns that in 2009, Israel may find itself facing a nuclear Iran virtually alone, following a rapprochement between the U.S., Iran and the Arab world that would also undermine Israel's military superiority.

Additionally, it warns of a possible collapse of the PA, which would effectively kill the two-state solution (notice the wording here? it *warns* that a two-state solution might be killed by a collapse of the PA. This makes it quite clear that the so-called two-state solution is what *Israel* needs as opposed to an anti-Apartheid struggle for equality within one state, which is, of course, what the Palestinians really need)

"Iran's threat to Israel's survival" is at the top of the paper's list of threats, followed by the "strategic threat" of long-range missiles and rockets owned by various countries in the region.

"Israel faces these threats almost alone," the paper says. "It is imperative to mobilize the international community and obtain regional cooperation. The new American administration is an opportunity to do this." (very honest assessment here: Bush was hated world wide, whereas Obama will present the world with a kind of "Zionism with a human face" which will make is possible for Israel to get more support from the rest of the world)

The paper says Israel has a limited "window" in which to act before Iran obtains nuclear arms and regional hegemony. Israel must therefore establish a military option against Iran, in case other countries abandon the struggle. The defense establishment advises the cabinet to "work discreetly on contingency plans to deal with a nuclear Iran." (nothing new here)

It also recommends close cooperation with the U.S. to prevent a deal between Washington and Tehran that would undermine Israel's interests. (Interesting, no? on one side there is the absolutely clear *need* for the USA to get some kind of deal with Iran over Iraq and the rest of the region, on the other there is the equally clear need of Israel to prevent that from happening. Given the choice between US national interests and Israeli nation interests, which do you expect President Emanuel, excuse me, President Obama to choose?)

The paper warns that after PA President Mahmoud Abbas' term ends on January 9, 2009, he might "disappear" from the political arena. (Yeah? no kidding? The Zio-puppet Abbas who has exactly achieved *nothing* for his people might disappear?!) That could cause the PA to disintegrate, which would increase the risk of the two-state solution being taken off the table. (Amen to that! Not one moment too soon)

Due to this possibility, coupled with the fear that Hamas might win a new election, the paper recommends "preventing elections in the PA, even at the cost of a confrontation with the U.S. and the international community." (No worries here, the so-called "international community" does not given a damn about the Palestinians so the Israelis can merrily continue their little genocide in Gaza or even extend it to the West Bank with no adverse effects on being the "only democracy in the Middle-East").

The paper also advises continued Israeli pressure on Hamas to isolate and weaken it, along with bolstering alternatives to it. "If the truce collapses and conflict is resumed in the Gaza Strip, Israel must act to topple Hamas' rule there," it says. (Nonsense, Hamas is already quite busy toppling itself with is utterly naive negotiations with Mubarak and with its inability to make Israel pay a political price for its genocide in Gaza by, for example, large civil protests).

Regarding Syria, the paper says "an agreement with Syria must be advanced, despite the heavy price Israel would have to pay." The defense establishment believes that removing Syria from the conflict would lead to an agreement with Lebanon as well, thus significantly weakening the radical Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis. (Here the Israelis are kidding themselves: there is not Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis. The only real axis here is an alliance between Iran and Hezbollah which Israel will not be able to disrupt anyway).

The new American administration must be harnessed to support this process, the paper adds (Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Nansi Pelosi, Madeleine Albright, Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, etc. etc. etc. I would say that the "harnessing" part is going very well)

Israel should support moderate factions in Lebanon in next year's scheduled parliamentary elections, but not at the expense of Israel's interests, it continues. At the same time, Israel must strengthen its deterrence against Hezbollah and take "low-profile" action against Hezbollah's arms smuggling. (Translation: stop supporting the Three Stooges - Hariri, Jumblatt and Siniora - in Lebanon and try to blockade Hezbollah)

The paper proposes various steps to strengthen Israel's ties with moderate Sunni Arab countries, and especially Saudi Arabia. "Israel must examine ways to expand its dialogue with Saudi Arabia on various shared interests," the document says. It must also act to neutralize potential risks in Saudi Arabia, such as its development of nuclear capability, its purchase of long-range missiles or its closing of the military gap with Israel. (Of course, this is part of the strategic anti-Shia "redirection" plan followed by US and Israel for a while already: use the Sunni, including the worst Wahabi crackpots, against the Shia).

Jordan, the paper says, is experiencing an acute political and economic crisis. "Jordan feels abandoned in the regional face-off and continues to see Israel and the West as strategic supports," it says. "Strengthening and stabilizing our ties with Jordan is crucial to Israel's security. Economic cooperation with Jordan must be strengthened." (Sure thing: Jordan is the only US-Israeli puppet which is still halfway stable; they better make sure it stays that way)

With regard to the new administration in Washington, the document warns that "the U.S. is interested in setting up a regional and international alignment against Iran (Against Iran?! Really? But I thought that it was a "deal" between Washington and Tehran which was on the agenda. I guess the "redirection" is problematic too since it will strengthen the Wahabis in the region. So which short term solution is better? Use the Sunnis against the Shia and strengthen the Sunnis, or not strengthen the Sunnis too much and loose much of the effects of the "redirection"? I am amazed at how blind and stupid such Israeli policies are, and how mistaken their hope for the usual "divide and conquer" policies is), and Israel is the one that might pay the price." It predicts that Iran and the U.S. will begin talks and warns that Israel must work to prevent any agreement that would be "problematic" from its point of view (Well, since *any* agreement between the US and Iran is "problematic" from the Israeli point of view, Israel will simply need to prevent any and all of them).

The paper recommends persuading the new administration to support the talks with Syria, to which the Bush administration objected. The U.S., for its part, is expected to demand that Israel bolster the moderates in Lebanon by making concessions in Shaba Farms and Ghajar and ending its objection to America's arming of the Lebanese Army (Like any of that will weaken Hezbollah! The Israelis are just so stupid, it always amazes me...)

Israel must also ensure that recommendations prepared by three American generals on Israeli-Palestinian security coordination, which are to be presented to the new administration, correspond with its interests, the paper says (Notice that there is never, ever, a mention of US interests? Israel does not even pretend to give a damn about that. Some "ally" for the USA...)

It also warns that the U.S. is arming moderate Arab states, especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia, "in a way that undermines the Israel Defense Forces' edge, especially in the air." Israel must act to prevent this as much as possible, it says.

The paper also discusses Israel's possible responses to a Hamas provocation in the south or a Hezbollah provocation in the north in 2009. It stresses that Israel must avoid a war of attrition or a two-front conflict, and therefore, it must first try to contain the provocation rather than be dragged into a retaliation that would escalate the situation. Afterward, however, it should send a "firm message of deterrence." (No kidding?! After getting beaten the hell by about 1000 Hezbollah fighters the "invincible Tsahal" has no stomach for another such war? Good. But how that is compatible with a message of "firm deterrence" is unclear. What is clear is that Israel fears Hezbollah whereas Hezbollah fears nobody, least of all Israel)

If the escalation continues, Israel must "consider embarking on a broad confrontation to hit the enemy severely and end the clash within a short time, and with as clear a result as possible," it adds. (Translation: attacking the Lebanese civilians with even more brutality than in 2006. Makes sense. After all, that's all that Israel is good at).

Tractatus Logico Palestinicus

by Gilad Atzmon for Palestine Think Tank

Atzmon tries to lift the Palestinian Discourse where Wittgenstein left it…

1 “What can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about, we must pass over in silence.” (Ludwig Wittgenstein 1918)

1.1 Humanism and ethics are ends worth fighting for.

1.2 Western politics and political discourse (on the other hand) are concerned with power and hegemony.

1.3 Hence, humanism and ethics are foreign to the Western political discourse and vice versa.

2 The Palestinian liberation struggle is grounded on humanist and ethical arguments since it is based on moral rights, namely ‘the right of return’ and ‘liberation’.

2.1 Since the Palestinian liberation struggle is a humanist cause, Western politicians and political discourse are foreign to the Palestinian struggle.

2.11 As a result Western politics left, right and centre were not able to provide for the Palestinian people and their struggle over the period of decades of Zionist abuse.

2.12 This is unfortunately a true reading of the colossal failure of the left in helping the Palestinian people. Being a political discourse, the left is concerned with power and hegemony. Consequently it had been exploiting the Palestinian discourse in order to maintain its own political relevance (or rather irrelevance) within its imaginary universe.

2.121 Palestinians have learned their lesson. Their liberation movement has matured and abandoned the utopian dream that was misleading and foreign to their national cause.

2.1211 Since the Palestinian struggle is a geographically orientated, ethnic and national struggle, proletarian, cosmopolitan ideologies better revise accordingly.

2.122 However, truth must be said. Western leftist campaigners were very effective in producing solidarity culture, whether these are badges, scarves and placards, which they circulated among themselves and to close family members.

2.123 And yet, badges, placards and flyers didn’t save a single Palestinian kid from being shelled by an Israeli tank.

2.2 The Palestinian people will have to liberate themselves.

2.21 And the solidarity activists had better learn to listen.

3 Since ‘humanism and ethics are worth fighting for’ (1.1),

3.1 And the Palestinian struggle is a human cause (2.1),

3.2 We must support the Palestinians for what they are and their (democratic) choice.

4 There is an inherent difficulty within the heart of the Palestinian solidarity discourse that must be addressed:

Zionism (ideology), Judaism (religion), Jewishness (identity) and the Jews (people) are closely related, confusing terms. Consequently, any form of pro-Palestinian activism is curtailed by the fear of accusations of sustaining ideas that may be considered by some as racism.

4.01 At the same time, the vast majority of the Palestinians and solidarity activists realise that Israel, Jewish lobbies, Jewish pressure groups and any other form of Jewish tribal activism are often indistinguishable.

4.1 The question that comes to mind is: how can we say what we believe to be the truth and still regard ourselves as humanists?

4.12 How can we talk openly about the Jewish state, Jewish lobbying, Judaism and Jewishness and still maintain an anti-racist humanist and ethical stand?

4.2 The answer is simple. We can do so only if we manage to categorically dismantle the traces of any racial argument. We must refrain from talking about the people yet attacking any form of Zionism, Jewish political tribalism and Jewishness. We must attack it as an ideology and as a dogmatic credo.

4.3 We are entitled to do so as humanists due to the simple reason that every form of Jewish tribal politics is racially orientated and exclusivist. We are entitled to refer to Jewish political tribalism as a non-humanist and anti-universalist worldview.

4.4 Consequently, dismantling Jewish ideology and political tribalism is a humanist task.

4.5 Fighting Jewish tribal politics is a humanist and ethical act because it aims toward peace, universalism and inclusiveness (as opposed to war, tribalism and exclusiveness).

5 “What can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about, we must pass over in silence.”

The definition of occupation

By Abdelnasser Rashid, April 15, 2006, 11th Grade student, PALESTINE

Occupied, terrorized, genocide
while the whole world is hypnotized,
Sixty years, incessant tears
no day passes by without countless fears
For our lives, our wives, our children cry
yet the world turns away, and our spirits die.
For my land, I do stand
but I remain hopeless without a helping hand,
Oppression, suppression, depression
of every aspect of my life, you’ve taken possession,
Our weapons are stones, to protect our homes
but your bulldozers win and terror roams,
Yours are tanks, helicopters, and military jeeps
to kill the young man, as his mother weeps,
You control our electricity, you control our seas
you control our streets, and uproot our trees,
You close our schools, our children can’t learn
you deny the refugees their right to return,
Suffering orphans, under your persecution
when they rise up, they face execution,
Families are separated, and farmers (merely) recall
the land they lost by your Apartheid Wall,
Through your diplomacy and your foreign relations
you attempt to justify and give credence to your occupations,
Palestine is my land, and I won’t let you take it
and while you put the world to sleep, I try to wake it.

(souce: Palestine Think Tank)

Bush's idea of an appropriate speed for withdrawal

(click on image for a better view)

Reflections on the Israel-Hezbollah Prisoner Swap Deal

by Khalid Amayreh for Palestine Think Tank

The latest prisoner swap deal between Israel and Hezbollah is a healthy indicator that at least some Arabs are beginning to understand the depraved Zionist mentality, and act accordingly. Such mentality is based on arrogance, insolence, and religious and ethnic superiority.

Israel, a country whose collective mindset views non-Jews as virtual animals or at least lesser human beings, had to face a new enemy, an enemy that will not be scared by overwhelming brutality, but one that will meet Israel’s state terror with toughness, resilience, valor and defiance.

This is a new reality that Israelis, especially Israeli leaders, have yet to come to terms with, especially psychologically.

This explains the deep frustration that is apparent in the tone of Israeli leaders reacting to the latest swap deal, especially the fact that Israel has been forced to release the Lebanese guerilla Samir Kuntar.

Israel, utterly ignoring her own countless murderous sins, has come to view Kuntar as the prototype of the ultimate terrorist - as if the tens of thousands of Jewish murderers and terrorists who have enormous amounts of innocent blood on their hands were the Lord’s angels of love and mercy.

Indeed, if Israel were a normal state, and its people a normal people, it would have adopted an honest and just approach toward its neighbors, an approach that would not discriminate between “blood and blood” and “life and life.”

Undoubtedly, such an approach would have saved thousands of lives, Jewish and Arab, and spared the region and its peoples decades of pain and suffering.

But then Zionism would be losing its face, mind and heart, and would morph into something entirely different.

Unfortunately, it is probably futile to preach morality to Zionism, a manifestly demonic movement which experience shows is not capable of behaving morally and humanely.

Well, let us examine some of the statements and remarks Zionist leaders have been making with regard to the latest swap deal with Hezbollah.

Shimon Peres, the hero of the Qana massacre of 1996, who is now Israel’s President, has been quoted as saying that “We don’t want murderers to go free, but we have a moral obligation to bring home soldiers whom we sent to defend their country.”

Peres also reportedly said that “my heart is torn over the decision to pardon Kuntar,” adding that his decision to that effect “in no way constituted forgiveness.”

Certainly no one, Arab or otherwise, is particularly infatuated with what Kuntar did in 1979, although the Israeli army then was at least partially responsible for the killing by the Lebanese guerilla of three Israelis, including a paramilitary policeman, a man and his daughter.

The three lives, like numerous other victims, Arab and Jewish, would have been spared had the insolent Israeli military establishment behaved wisely.

After all, Kuntar, and his friends who were killed in that rescue operation, didn’t come to Israel to kill and shed blood but to force Israel to release Arab prisoners.

Nonetheless, one is prompted to ask difficult questions, questions that most Israelis don’t like to hear - let alone answer, but when confronted with them, they either seek to evade or prevaricate and quibble in their answers.

Who has killed more innocent people, Shimon Peres or Samir Kuntar? Who has more blood, including children’s blood, on his hands, Shimon Peres or Samir Kuntar? Who has inflicted more terror, suffering and death upon innocent people, Shimon Peres or Samir Kuntar?

If honesty is to be the ultimate arbiter among men, then one can’t escape the inescapable conclusion that it is mass murderers like Peres, Ariel Sharon and other Israeli leaders, dead or living, who really need forgiveness for their horrible crimes against humanity.

In fact, Israelis should be reminded on this occasion that a Presidential post, a business suit with a necktie, and the ability to speak eloquent sound-bites in several languages and have audience with statesmen and VIPs from around the world, doesn’t really transform a criminal into a true human being.

A criminal is a criminal especially if he refuses to come to terms with his crimes and if he refuses to apologize to his victims. Needless to say, Peres has done neither.

But then criminals are not concerned about their sins.

One elderly Israeli woman interviewed by the Ha’aretz newspaper lashed out at Hezbollah for having refused until the very last moment to tell if the two Israeli prisoners were dead or alive.

“It’s the saddest day for Israel. They kept us waiting until the last second to learn the fate of our sons,” the woman was quoted as saying.

I certainly sympathize with the woman at the personal level. However, I would want to ask the Jewish lady why she thought that Jewish lives were worth more than non-Jewish lives?

I also would like to ask her what she would tell the mothers, families and relatives of thousands of Arab prisoners who have been languishing in Israel’s dark, underground dungeons since 1967?

We are talking about POWs and MIAs and other ordinary people whose families have no way of knowing if their beloved ones are dead or alive. Aren’t these “forgotten prisoners” human beings, too? Are they children of a lesser God?

Unfortunately, most Israelis, thoroughly self-absorbed and self-centered, don’t like to be asked such questions lest their superiority complexes and collective psychosis be exposed.

Finally, the latest prisoner swap shows that Israel only understands the language of cold realpolitik which is by definition immoral and coercive.

For Palestinians, who have more than 10,000 of their beloved ones languishing in Israeli concentration camps, the message is very clear: If you want to get Israel to release your beloved ones, take Israeli hostages and swap them for the Palestinian captives.

Khalid Amayreh is a journalist based in the Occupied Palestinian town of Dura.

Israel's dead end

(thanks to Mari for this interesting contribution)

Zionist dreams of clearing "Greater Israel" of all Palestinians continue to be played out via insidious and violent means, but they won't be realized, writes Jonathan Cook in Al-Ahram Weekly.

In 1895, Theodor Herzl, Zionism's chief prophet, confided in his diary that he did not favour sharing Palestine with the natives. Better, he wrote, to "try to spirit the penniless [Palestinian] population across the border by denying it any employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."

He was proposing a programme of Palestinian emigration enforced through a policy of strict separation between Jewish immigrants and the indigenous population. In simple terms, he hoped that, once Zionist organisations had bought up large areas of Palestine and owned the main sectors of the economy, Palestinians could be made to leave by denying them rights to work the land or labour in the Jewish-run economy. His vision was one of transfer, or ethnic cleansing, through ethnic separation.

Herzl was suggesting that two possible Zionist solutions to the problem of a Palestinian majority living in Palestine -- separation and transfer -- were not necessarily alternatives but rather could be mutually reinforcing. Not only that: he believed, if they were used together, the process of ethnic cleansing could be made to appear voluntary, the choice of the victims. It may be that this was both his most enduring legacy and his major innovation to settler colonialism.

In recent years, with the Palestinian population under Israeli rule about to reach parity with the Jewish population, the threat of a Palestinian majority has loomed large again for the Zionists. Not surprisingly, debates about which of these two Zionist solutions to pursue, separation or transfer, have resurfaced.

Today these solutions are ostensibly promoted by two ideological camps loosely associated with Israel's centre-left (Labour and Kadima) and right (Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu). The modern political arguments between them turn on differing visions of the nature of a Jewish state originally put forward by Labour and Revisionist Zionists.

To make sense of current political debates, and events, taking place inside Israel and in the West Bank and Gaza, let us first examine the history of these two principles in Zionist thinking.

During the early waves of Jewish immigration to Palestine, the dominant Labour Zionist movement and its leader David Ben Gurion advanced policies much in line with Herzl's goal. In particular, they promoted the twin principles of "Redemption of the Land" and "Hebrew Labour", which took as their premise the idea that Jews needed to separate themselves from the native population in working the land and employing only other Jews. By being entirely self- reliant in Palestine, Jews could both "cure" themselves of their tainted Diaspora natures and deprive the Palestinians of the opportunity to subsist in their own homeland.

At the forefront of this drive was the Zionist trade union federation, the Histadrut, which denied membership to Palestinians and, for many years after the establishment of the Jewish state, even to the remnants of the Palestinian population who became Israeli citizens.

But if separation was the official policy of Labour Zionism, behind the scenes Ben Gurion and his officials increasingly appreciated that it would not be enough in itself to achieve their goal of a pure ethnic state. Land sales remained low, at about six per cent of the territory, and the Jewish-owned parts of the economy relied on cheap Palestinian labour.

Instead, the Labour Zionists secretly began working on a programme of ethnic cleansing. After 1937 and Britain's Peel Report proposing partition of Palestine, Ben Gurion was more open about transfer, recognising that a Jewish state would be impossible unless most of the indigenous population was cleared from within its borders.

Israel's new historians have acknowledged Ben Gurion's commitment to transfer. As Benny Morris notes, for example, Ben Gurion "understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst". The Israeli leadership therefore developed a plan for ethnic cleansing under cover of war, compiling detailed dossiers on the communities that needed to be driven out and then passing on the order, in Plan Dalet, to commanders in the field. During the 1948 war the new state of Israel was emptied of at least 80 per cent of its indigenous population.

In physically expelling the Palestinian population, Ben Gurion responded to the political opportunities of the day and recalibrated the Labour Zionism of Herzl. In particular he achieved the goal of displacement desired by Herzl while also largely persuading the world through a campaign of propaganda that the exodus of the refugees was mostly voluntary. In one of the most enduring Zionist myths, convincingly rebutted by modern historians, we are still told that the refugees left because they were told to do so by the Arab leadership.

The other camp, the Revisionists, had a far more ambivalent attitude to the native Palestinian population. Paradoxically, given their uncompromising claim to a Greater Israel embracing both banks of the Jordan River (thereby including not only Palestine but also the modern state of Jordan), they were more prepared than the Labour Zionists to allow natives to remain where they were.

Vladimir Jabotinsky, the leader of Revisionism, observed in 1938 -- possibly in a rebuff to Ben Gurion's espousal of transfer -- that, "it must be hateful for any Jew to think that the rebirth of a Jewish state should ever be linked with such an odious suggestion as the removal of non-Jewish citizens". The Revisionists, it seems, were resigned to the fact that the enlarged territory they desired would inevitably include a majority of Arabs. They were therefore less concerned with removing the natives than finding a way to make them accept Jewish rule.

In 1923, Jabotinsky formulated his answer, one that implicitly included the notion of separation but not necessarily transfer: an "iron wall" of unremitting force to cow the natives into submission. In his words, the agreement of the Palestinians to their subjugation could be reached only "through the iron wall, that is to say, the establishment in Palestine of a force that will in no way be influenced by Arab pressure".

An enthusiast of British imperial rule, Jabotinsky envisioned the future Jewish state in simple colonial terms, as a European elite ruling over the native population.

Inside Revisionism, however, there was a shift from the idea of separation to transfer that mirrored developments inside Labour Zionism. This change was perhaps more opportunistic than ideological, and was particularly apparent as the Revisionists sensed Ben Gurion's success in forging a Jewish state through transfer.

One of Jabotinsky disciples, Menachem Begin, who would later become a Likud prime minister, was leader in 1948 of the Irgun militia that committed one of the worst atrocities of the war. He led his fighters into the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin where they massacred over 100 inhabitants, including women and children.

Savage enough though these events were, Begin and his followers consciously inflated the death toll to more than 250 through the pages of The New York Times. Their goal was to spread terror among the wider Palestinian population and encourage them to flee. He happily noted later: "Arabs throughout the country, induced to believe wild tales of 'Irgun butchery', were seized with limitless panic and started to flee for their lives. This mass flight soon developed into a maddened, uncontrollable stampede."

Subsequently, other prominent figures on the right openly espoused ethnic cleansing, including the late General Rehavam Zeevi, whose Moledet Party campaigned in elections under the symbol of the Hebrew character "tet", for transfer. His successor, Benny Elon, a settler leader and rabbi, adopted a similar platform: "Only population transfer can bring peace".

The intensity of the separation versus transfer debate subsided after 1948 and the ethnic cleansing campaign that removed most of the native Palestinian population from the Jewish state. The Palestinian minority left behind -- a fifth of the population but a group, it was widely assumed, that would soon be swamped by Jewish immigration -- was seen as an irritation but not yet as a threat. It was placed under a military government for nearly two decades, a system designed to enforce separation between Palestinians and Jews inside Israel. Such separation -- in education, employment and residence -- exists to this day, even if in a less extreme form.

The separation-transfer debate was chiefly revived by Israel's war on the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. With Israel's erasure of the Green Line, and the effective erosion of the distinction between Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories, the problem of a Palestinian majority again loomed large for the Zionists.

Cabinet debates from 1967 show the quandary faced by the government. Almost alone, Moshe Dayan favoured annexation of both the newly captured territories and the Palestinian population there. Others believed that such a move would be seen as transparently colonialist and rapidly degenerate into an apartheid system of Jewish citizens and Palestinian non-citizens. In their minds, Jabotinsky's solution of an iron wall was no longer viable.

But equally, in a more media-saturated era, which at least paid lip-service to human rights, the government could see no way to expel the Palestinian population and annex the land, as Ben Gurion had done earlier. Also possibly, they could see no way of persuading the world that such expulsions should be characterised as voluntary.

Israel therefore declined to move decisively in either direction, neither fully carrying out a transfer programme nor enforcing strict separation. Instead it opted for an apartheid model that accommodated Dayan's suggestion of a "creeping annexation" of the occupied territories that he rightly believed would go largely unnoticed by the West.

The separation embodied in South African apartheid differed from Herzl's notion of separation in one important respect: in apartheid, the "other" population was a necessary, even if much abused, component of the political arrangement. As the exiled Palestinian thinker Azmi Bishara has noted, in South Africa "racial segregation was not absolute. It took place within a framework of political unity. The racist regime saw blacks as part of the system, an ingredient of the whole. The whites created a racist hierarchy within the unity."

In other words, the self-reliance, or unilateralism, implicit in Herzl's concept of separation was ignored for many years of Israel's occupation. The Palestinian labour force was exploited by Israel just as black workers were by South Africa. This view of the Palestinians was formalised in the Oslo Accords, which were predicated on the kind of separation needed to create a captive labour force.

However, Yitzhak Rabin's version of apartheid embodied by the Oslo process, and Binyamin Netanyahu's opposition in upholding Jabotinsky's vision of Greater Israel, both deviated from Herzl's model of transfer through separation. This is largely why both political currents have been subsumed within the recent but more powerful trend towards "unilateral separation".

Not surprisingly, the policy of "unilateral separation" emerged from among the Labour Zionists, advocated primarily by Ehud Barak. However, it was soon adopted by many members of Likud also. Ultimately its success derived from the conversion to its cause of Greater Israel's arch-exponent, Ariel Sharon. He realised the chief manifestations of unilateral separation, the West Bank wall and the Gaza disengagement, as well as breaking up Israel's right wing to create a new consensus party, Kadima.

In the new consensus, the transfer of Palestinians could be achieved through imposed and absolute separation -- just as Herzl had once hoped. After the Gaza disengagement, the next stage was promoted by Sharon's successor, Ehud Olmert. His plan for convergence, limited withdrawals from the West Bank in which most settlers would remain in place, has been dropped, though its infrastructure -- the annexation wall -- continues to be built.

But how will modern Zionists convert unilateral separation into transfer? How will Herzl's original vision of ethnic cleansing enforced through strict ethnic separation be realised in today's world?

The current siege of Gaza offers the template. After disengagement, Israel has been able to cut off at will Gazans' access to aid, food, fuel and humanitarian services. Normality has been further eroded by sonic booms, random Israeli air attacks, and repeated small-scale invasions that have inflicted a large toll of casualties, particularly among civilians.

Gaza's imprisonment has stopped being a metaphor and become a daily reality. In fact, Gaza's condition is far worse than imprisonment: prisoners, even of war, expect to have their humanity respected and to be properly sheltered, cared for, fed and clothed. Gazans can no longer rely on these staples of life.

The ultimate goal of this extreme form of separation is patently clear: transfer. By depriving Palestinians of the basic conditions of a normal life, it is assumed that they will eventually choose to leave in what can once again be sold to the world as a voluntary exodus. And if Palestinians choose to abandon their homeland, then in Zionist thinking they have forfeited their right to it -- just as earlier generations of Zionists believed the Palestinian refugees had done by supposedly fleeing during the 1948 and 1967 wars.

Is this process of transfer inevitable? I think not. The success of a modern policy of "transfer through separation" faces severe limitations.

First, it depends on continuing US global hegemony and blind support for Israel. Such support is likely to be undermined by current American misadventures in the Middle East, and a gradual shift in the balance of power to China, Russia and India.

Second, it requires a Zionist worldview that departs starkly not only from international law but also from the values upheld by most societies and ideologies. The nature of Zionist ambitions is likely to be ever harder to conceal, as is evident from the tide of opinion polls showing that Western publics, if not their governments, believe Israel to be one of the biggest threats to world peace.

And third, it assumes that the Palestinians will remain passive during their slow eradication. The historical evidence most certainly shows that they will not.

Jonathan Cook is a journalist based in Nazareth. His latest book is Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East . The above text is taken from a talk delivered at the Conference for the Right of Return and the Secular Democratic State, held in Haifa 21 June.

Palestinian Think Tank born today!

Haitham Sabbah, Mary Rizzo and Gilad Atzmon are very pleased to announce their new site. Palestine Think Tank. It is a site containing news, analysis, art and more to further the cause of justice for Palestinians. It concentrates on many aspects of the resistance, but also focuses on the issues affecting the entire Middle East. Please visit us at www.palestinethinktank.com, share this news with those who might be interested, and if you have a blog or site, consider linking to us. We also have a forum for those interested in interactive communication.

Together with us are some of the most insightful and talented writers, activists and artists around. Contributors include Khalid Amayreh, Ramzy Baroud, Adib Kawar, Ernesto Paramo, Wael Al Saad, Nadia Hasan, Iqbal Tamimi, Richard Jones, Nahida Izzat, Razan Al Ghazzawi, Khaled Islaih, Steve Amsel, Ben Heine and many more. www.palestinethinktank.com contains both original material and material from other sources that we believe deserves to be considered.

We are people from different backgrounds who live in different countries. We speak different languages and believe in different religions, or even believe in no religion at all.

These differences are not a problem to any of us.

Differences are what makes the world a wonderful place because everyone is unique. It allows us the possibility to learn more about the world and gain insights we would never have access to otherwise.

Celebrating our differences, we understand that there is a belief that unites us and unites all the people involved in creating this website. It is the belief that Zionism is wrong. Zionism is racism. For Zionism to happen, it means the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people of the land of Palestine. We accept nothing about Zionism as being positive, yet we believe there are some people who don’t know exactly what Zionism is, and therefore assume it is something different than an ideology, and therefore, is beyond criticism.

We wish to educate those who don’t know what Zionism is so that they are able to see how damaging it is and how it is a just cause to stop it. We hope www.palestinethinktank.com will be a space for free discussion and wide-ranging analysis.

We believe that the just struggle of the Palestinian people is the greatest liberation struggle of our times, and we aim to render service to their cause through presenting as many aspects of their history, culture and struggle as we can. We intend to give space to many Arab voices as well, since the full realisation of the potential of people in the entire Arab world has been hindered for far too long by the “International Community”. It is far easier to promote an idea of “the Arab” that cleanses Israel and the West from all responsibility for the instability and lack of progress that in some cases is evident than to listen to the complex arguments and reasoning that people from these countries and who understand the history of the Arab World are able to present.

We hope to be able to provide a site full of valid content that is at the service of the Palestinian people especially. Their steadfastness is an inspiration to all mankind, and to those of us in particular who feel close to their cause or are Palestinian, it is a message of love, hope and humanity that we hope we are worthy of.

Content of www.palestinethinktank.com is intellectual property of the authors. All material that does not appear in this site as the original source will always be credited for authors and source.

The material here may be reproduced elsewhere, but we request that you kindly cite our source and post a link to the page on www.palestinethinktank.com from where it was taken. We will also build up our links and community as time develops, so that we can all work towards our goal with the energy and imagination required.

www.palestinethinktank.com contains a forum, which is a space to discuss arguments related to the Middle East. We hope that it will allow all of us to broaden our horizons, engage in constructive debate and present a social network that will be useful to all of us.

www.palestinethinktank.com will be in two languages, in English predominantly, and Arabic.

We accept original articles as well as suggestions for material published elsewhere.

Saker interview with the Palestinian Pundit

It is a great honour and long awaited pleasure for me to interview a real expert on Palestine and the rest of the Middle-East: Tony, the author of what is definitely one of the best Palestinian blogs - Palestinian Pundit, a "must visit daily" for anybody interested in the Palestinian drama.

I have been reading Tony's posts for quite a while already (many thanks to datta for drawing my attention to it) and I had planned to interview Tony for several months already, but the situation in Palestine took such a turn for the worse that neither Tony nor I had any time left to work on an interview. Things have not improved, Palestinians are still being murdered on a daily basis by the Israeli occupation forces, and since things are only likely to get worse, I have decided not to wait any further and ask Tony for his insight about the current situation and its likely development.

I am deeply grateful to Tony for taking the time to answer my questions. I know that he is immensely busy in his professional life and that, on top of that, he still manages to be a (quasi) full time "blogging machine" (as datta once put it to me) on his 'free' time.

-------

Tony, please introduce yourself to our readers and tell us under what circumstances you decided to start a blog which became one of the most informative and interesting blogs among all the Palestinian blogs. For the sake of full disclosure, how would you define your political sympathies in the Palestinian context.

I am a Palestinian who was born in Jaffa Palestine in 1945; the family was expelled from there in 1948 when Israel was established and about 800,000 Palestinians became refugees. Grew up as a refugee in Gaza; went to college in Cairo, Egypt; came to California to do graduate work in 1967 (right after the so-called 6-day war), and stayed here since.

I have been, like many Palestinians, an outspoken defendant of Palestinian rights and I do what I can to expose Israeli crimes against the Palestinians and the US full complicity in these crimes.

Actually, I did not set up the blog. I used to frequently visit the blog of professor As’ad Abu Khalil (Angry Arab) and make various comments. I guess I was outspoken enough and made enough noise that one of the regular visitors, who happened to be Jewish but a supporter of the Palestinians, told me to start a blog. I told her that I was not interested and I had no time! She, on her own, set up the blog, and chose the name. In the beginning she used to contribute to the blog but she opted out later on. The blog was started in July 2006.

My political sympathies in the Palestinian context are secular, nationalist, pan-Arab and leftist. I am not opposed to nationalist, progressive anti-imperialist Islamic forces as long as they concentrate on fighting occupation and defend their own people from foreign intervention and domination.

Could you please outline your view of the situation in Palestine and, in particular, the situation in the West Bank about which so little is written. How strong and stable do you believe the power of Fatah to be there? Do you see a replacement of Abbas by either one of the Barghoutis (Mohammad or Marwan) something which could salvage Fatah's power in the West Bank? Does Hamas still operate as an organization in the West Bank or is it totally underground?

The situation in the West Bank is that of tightly controlled occupation with rapidly expanding colonization. The goal is to imprison the remaining Palestinians (after squeezing out as many as possible, through very repressive policies of arrests, confiscation, home demolitions, control of movement, outright terror by Zionist colonizers, etc) in a few cantons or reservations if you will.

The so-called Palestinian Authority (PA) has been fully inducted as a collaborating quisling entity which fully coordinates with the Israeli occupiers the hunting down, arrests, disarming and killing of Palestinian resistance elements. Through the so-called Oslo-process, ensuring the security of Israel is considered the key role of the PA. For that purpose the US, through its designated coordinator of security General Keith Dayton, arms, finances and trains puppet PA forces to assist the Israeli occupation. The policies of the PA in the W.B. have been very repressive, where journalists have been arrested, demonstrations and public opposition banned by lethal force, and key figures of the opposition arrested and tortured, some to death. Corruption is rampant in order to buy the loyalties of the few. The PA in the W.B. has best been described as a police state without a state.

Fatah is very fragmented and weak and many observers doubt if it will survive. The collaboration of its leadership with the occupation and their participation in the siege and starvation of fellow Palestinians in Gaza have totally discredited Fatah in the eyes of most Palestinians.

Since the Oslo ”process” and its Annapolis sequel have accomplished absolutely nothing, Abbas, the PA and Fatah who placed all their bets on negotiations only, are living their worst nightmares. Many observers believe that the PA is on the verge of collapse. Israel and the US might decide to keep some rump quisling entity as a replacement, but who knows. If the PA faces collapse, USrael will seek to find some younger “leader” who could be sold to the Palestinians as their new “leader.” I believe that Marwan Barghouti, who is in Israeli jail serving more than one life sentence will be that figure. Some Israeli leaders have been calling for his release; why now?

Hamas is openly fought in the W.B. by the PA, and even charities and orphanages have been closed down and their assets confiscated. There is still a lot of support for Hamas in the W.B. but the armed elements remaining had to go underground to survive.

The Hamas operation of bringing down the Wall was nothing short of brilliant and, for a while, it looked that it would be impossible to bring it back up and that Mubarak would risk his own political future if he tried to do this. Alas, he did bring it right back with and without any visible Hamas response. Why is this? Why did Hamas not fight as hard as can be to keep the Wall down? Has the Hamas leadership been corrupted/coopted by the Empire?

As you said toppling the wall with Egypt was brilliant and the jail break was breathtaking and unprecedented. Why was the momentum not maintained? One can speculate:

1. Egypt made some promises to buy time and I think that some within Hamas were a bit naive and bought those promises. After gaining the needed time to re-close the border, Egypt reneged on the promises.
2. The people in Gaza, Hamas included, are exhausted not just by the siege but by the relentless Israeli attacks which lately killed over 130 Palestinians in less than a week. So, Hamas needed a respite.
3. The US has asked Egypt to play a role in order to calm the situation between Hamas and Israel a bit. There was a concern that with the images of slaughtered Palestinians being shown day after day by Al-Jazeera, among others, that there was some risk of boiling over in the Arab street. The US wants to line up the Arab street behind its plans to attack Iran. So, Hamas was playing the game through Egypt of trying to arrange a calming down with Israel. Therefore, Hamas could not confront Egypt at the same time that Egypt was “mediating.”
4. Part of the agreement involved in a possible ceasefire with Israel is the re-opening of the Rafah crossing. This has been a Hamas demand. There has been talk of a trial opening soon with the crossing operating 3 days a week. It remains to be seen, if it is another empty promise.
5. Hamas can mobilize the people and storm the new barrier again, if all of these maneuvers lead to nothing. I don’t believe that Hamas has been corrupted or coopted. One of Hamas’ strengths is its collective leadership and decision making.

What is Hamas' game plan? What does Hamas hope to achieve with the continuing Qassam attacks on Sderot? Why is Hamas willing to risk an Israeli invasion of Gaza (and the inevitable arrest, torture and mass-murder of Hamas officials by Fatah thugs) for the sake of rocketing Sderot, but is not willing to openly engage Mubarak's forces to keep the Wall down?

There is a big difference between Hamas shelling Israeli targets and Hamas fighting the Egyptian forces. The first has contributed to the support that Hamas is receiving as the main party leading the fight against the occupation. The second would do just the opposite: it would discredit Hamas in the Arab street and be a gift to those who want to portray Hamas as agent of Iran and who is fighting fellow Arabs rather than Israel; Hamas would never do that.

Hamas, on a smaller scale is trying to copy Hizbullah through the use of simple rockets. In time, the hope is that these would become more effective. Hamas is not using the rockets without a plan. When Israel scales down its attacks, so does Hamas. Hamas is trying, by using the rockets, to deter Israel to the extent possible.

Whether Israel fully invades Gaza is a decision independent of the issue of Qassams. The Qassams are just an excuse. The problem of invading Gaza is what to do next? Israel occupied Gaza before and it could not control the situation. Now it will be much harder. Also, Israel does not want to be responsible for feeding 1.5 million Palestinians, and wants to maintain the illusion that the occupation has ended.

Do you think the Israelis will invade Gaza and what do you predict will be the consequences of such an invasion?

I think that a full scale invasion and occupation of Gaza is directly linked to a bigger question: that of the US and Israeli plans towards Iran, Syria and Hizbullah. If and when a decision is made to attack Iran, which has to be preceded by an attempt to eliminate Hizbullah in Lebanon, then it would be the time to fully invade Gaza. Until that time, the American plan is to keep the Arab street focused on Iran and not on Israeli slaughtering of Palestinians. But after the attack on Iran/Hizbullah/Syria is underway, then a full invasion of Gaza is quite likely.

After such invasion and occupation of Gaza, USrael is likely to set up some NATO/UN force in Gaza so that Israeli forces would withdraw. Similar to what happened in south Lebanon. In such an invasion, total elimination of Hamas and its leadership would likely to be a key objective. For Hamas to survive, and it will, it will go underground. By doing so, Hamas could actually become more effective.

What do you know about the situation among half a million plus Palestinians with Israeli citizenship living inside Israel proper? Are they sympathies with Fatah or Hamas? Why is there no visible resistance or show of solidarity on their part with their fellow-Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank? Do you believe that Hamas can establish itself among these Israeli Palestinians as an organization capable of organizing any type of resistance?

The situation of the Palestinians within Israel itself (so-called Israeli Arabs), who actually number about a million (20%), is quite complicated. It is not the arena for either Hamas or Fatah to operate in, for obvious reasons. There is an independent and separate Islamic organization that seeks to speak for those Palestinians and to defend their rights. They have to walk a very narrow path lest the Israeli government accuse them of treason and to try them or expel them, as happened with Knesset member Azmi Bishara.

The best contribution of these Palestinians is to struggle for their own rights as equal citizens in a secular, democratic state for all of its citizens. Ultimately, the Palestinians in the occupied areas will find themselves in the same boat, with the demise of the two-state solution, as the Palestinian citizens of Israel. Then the struggle becomes one for both groups which is the struggle for one secular, democratic state for all of its citizens, Jewish and Arab.

The Palestinians in Israel do what they can to help the Palestinians in the occupied areas. They demonstrate in solidarity and speak out. They have organized some medical and other relief for Gaza recently as well as for the W.B. before. They challenge Israel’s courts and defend Palestinians in the occupied territories. However, within the racist state of Israel there is a limit of what they can do.

It is out of the question for Israel to allow Hamas to organize and operate among the Palestinian citizens of Israel.

How do you assess the current prospects for war in the rest of the Middle-East? The Israelis have openly bombed Syria, they have murdered Mughniyeh (whether with or without Syrian help), Lebanon is at the edge of another civil war, the USA is arming the Sunnis in Iraq and Admiral Fallon has been retired due to his opposition to an attack on Iran. What does all this mean for the Palestinian people? Do they see risks or opportunities here? What do you expect Hamas to do, if anything, in case of a war involving Israel?

I personally believe that Israel wants to attack Iran and to eliminate Hizbullah and Hamas as viable organizations. Within the US there are those who share this goal and a few (like Fallon) who do not. Israel will likely get its way and drag the US into such an attack. Hizbullah will be attacked first because it represents a first strike capability for Iran. There is a question mark about Syria. So far, Syria has avoided engaging the Israelis militarily; even when a Syrian site was bombed recently. That was humiliating for Syria. A similar thing happened in the summer of 2006 when scores of Syrian workers were killed by Israeli aircraft bombing Lebanon, very close to the Syrian border. Again, Syria did nothing. So there is a question of whether Syria would again stay out if a bigger attack on Hizbullah is attempted this time.

Hizbullah will retaliate for Mughniyeh, for sure. Whether this will trigger the USraeli attack on Hizbullah is a good question. Some believe that the assassination itself was a provocation to trigger such a war.

Iran would not be involved directly if the attack focuses on Hizbullah alone. However, an incident will be created to implicate Iran and trigger a US attack on Iran. I am convinced that Israeli leaders do not want to see Iran as a competing regional power.

How does Hamas fare in all of this? As I said earlier, the USraeli objective is to eliminate any resistance and to kill the very idea of resistance. Besides the Iraqi resistance, Hizbullah and Hamas represent the only other resistance. To finalize the total dispossession of the Palestinians an attempt to eliminate Hamas will have to be made.

Hamas and the Palestinians see the solution for the Palestinians dependent on the larger Arab context. In other words the Palestinian struggle combines with the resistance in Lebanon and in Iraq, because the enemy is the same. Hamas resists but also is buying time; it is not suicidal. The dynamics in the area will bring changes we can’t clearly see now. For example the situation in Egypt is precarious, with bread riots breaking out and a lot of discontent with the regime’s oppression of its opponents, especially the Muslim Brothers. The situation in Jordan is not much better with rampant inflation, high unemployment and open collaboration by the puppet king. Opposition forces (again mostly Muslim Brothers) have been demanding the closure of the Israeli embassy and abrogation of the treaty with Israel. So, a new large scale war involving Iran/Syria/Hizbullah/Hamas has many possible repercussions.

Why does Hamas persist in holding Gilad Shalit? What can be gained by a detention which is clearly illegal whether under the terms of the law of war (which apply during an international conflict) or human rights law (which apply during an internal conflict). Would a release of Gilat Shalit not serve to give Hamas the moral high ground? Is such a detention legal under Islamic law?

Shalit was a captured Israeli soldier. His unit was involved in shelling Gaza at that time. So, he is a clear prisoner of war. In contrast, Israel holds about 11,000 Palestinians, most of them are civilians kidnapped in the middle of the night. That includes 46 Palestinian MPs!

How can you say that holding Shalit is illegal, or un-Islamic? This is not true at all. As I said he is a prisoner of war, to be exchanged for Palestinian prisoners if and when Israel agrees to negotiate terms. Releasing him without release of at least some Palestinian prisoners would amount to treason on the part of Hamas, in my opinion, not taking the high moral ground, as you put it.

Hamas is a majority Sunni organization. Have the ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood or Saudi Salafism penetrated into the Hamas worldview and policies? What is Hamas' position concerning Shia Muslims or, probably more relevant in the Palestinian context, Arab Christians? Does Hamas share the strong hostility towards the Shia and the Christians which is so obvious among the followers of Sayyid Qutb or Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab at-Tamimi ? Are there Christians inside Hamas and, if yes, what is their status?

Hamas’ roots and connections are to the Muslim Brotherhood and not Saudi Salafis. Hamas has a view that all Palestinians are in this together, including Christians. Hamas has gone out of its way to protect Christians and their churches and properties in Gaza. I do believe that Hamas’s leadership is enlightened and inclusive. I don’t think that there are Christians in Hamas, but in the last PLC elections, Hamas supported at least one independent, Christian candidate.

Hamas does not play on the Sunni-Shia divide; to the contrary it believes that all Arabs and Muslims should pool their resources and efforts to fight the common enemy and not each other. Hamas has excellent relations with the Shiite Hizbullah and has received at least some support from Iran. Hamas welcomes support from all those willing to help.

The debate on the "One State" versus "Two State" solution has recently heated up with Micheal Neumann, Jonathan Cook and others weighing in. Has Hamas taken a clear stand on this issue and, if yes, what is it? What about yourself, which side of this debate do you support?

Without using labels, I interpret Hamas’ position as supporting both solutions. While that sounds contradictory, it is not. What Hamas is saying is that it would accept a long term Hudna (truce) during which time a two-state solution, with a real independent Palestinian state, would be acceptable. After that, Hamas is calling for ultimately dismantling the racist, Zionist state, paving the way for one democratic state for all, including Palestinian Jews willing to live as equal in one Palestine.

While a one state solution is being advocated more and more, it is meaningless without dismantling Zionism. That dismantling is going to take time, and it would be unreasonable to expect the Palestinians to endure under the present horrible conditions. So, if a two-state solution can emerge in the interim, then that would be more just and humane for the Palestinians, but not as a permanent and just solution. That would not solve the problems of the refugees and their right of return nor would it address the status of Palestinians within Israel. Those issues can only be resolved within a one-state solution that would evolve after dismantling Zionism. This is my view.

Gilad Atzmon - The Right to Self-Determination - A Fake Exercise in Universalism

Originally published on the (excellent) blog PeacePalestine, reprinted with the kind permission of thecutter

In the picture, a visual explanation of Jewish Self-Determination

The right to self-determination is a luxurious approach at conservation of power reserved for the rich, strong and privileged. Since Zionists hold the reigns on international political power through their influence in important positions as well as the military might to maintain their ‘right to self-determination’, any current political debate on the legitimacy of this concept would lead inevitably to a dismissal of what we have come to accept as the Palestinian right of self-determination. Yet, instead of demanding this right, which is currently impractical, we should fight for the Palestinian and Arab right to rebel against the Jewish State and against global Zionist imperialism. Instead of wasting our time on rhetorical fantasies, we better expose Jewish tribal politics and praxis for what it is. To support Palestine is to be courageous enough to say what we think and to admit what we see.

A Citizen of the World, A Cosmopolitan and an Atheist

Last year in a little community church in Aspen, Colorado, at the question time following my talk, a middle-aged person at the back of the room stood up, presenting himself as follows:

“I am a citizen of the world, I am a cosmopolitan and an atheist. I would like to ask you something Mr Atzmon…”

“Hang on,” I stopped him, “please do not be offended by me asking, but are you by any chance a Jew?”

The person froze for a second, he couldn’t stop his face from blushing, everyone in the room turned around. Maybe they were curious enough to want to see what a 21st century self-loving cosmopolitan looks like. I, on my part, felt a bit guilty about it all, I didn’t have any intention to embarrass the man. However, it took him a few good seconds before he could get his act together.

“Yes Gilad, I am a Jew, but how did you know?”

“I obviously didn’t know,” I said, “I was actually guessing. You see, whenever I come across people who call themselves ‘cosmopolitans’, ‘atheists’ and a ‘citizens of the world’, they somehow always happen to be ‘Jews’ of the so-called ‘progressive’ assimilated type. I can only assume that ‘non-Jews’ tend to live in peace with whoever they happen to be. If they are born Catholic and decide to move on at a certain stage, they just dump the church behind. If they do not love their country as much as others do, they probably pack a few things and pick another country to live in. Somehow ‘non-Jews’, and this is far from being a scientific law, do not need to hide behind some vague universal banners and some artificial righteous value system. However, what was your question?”

No question followed. The ‘cosmopolitan, atheist and citizen of the world’, couldn’t remember what his question was. I assume that following the tradition of post-emancipated Jews he was there to celebrate his right to ‘self-determination’ in public. The man was using question time to tell his Aspen neighbours and friends what a great human being he was. Unlike them, local patriotic believers and proud Americans, he was an advanced humanist, a man beyond nationhood, a godless non-patriotic subject. He was the ultimate ‘self determined’ rational product of enlightenment. He was the son of Voltaire and the French revolution.

Self-determination is a modern Jewish political and social epidemic. The disappearance of the Ghetto and its maternal qualities led towards an identity crisis within the largely assimilated Jewish society. Seemingly, all post-emancipated Jewish political, spiritual and social schools of thought, left, right and centre were inherently concerned with issues to do with the ‘right to self-determination’. The Zionists would demand the right to national self-determination in the land of Zion. The Bund would demand national and cultural self-determination within the East European proletarian discourse. Matzpen and the ultra Israeli leftists would demand the right to self-determination for the ‘Israeli Jewish nation’ in the ‘liberated Arab East’, Anti Zionist Jews would insist upon the right to engage in an esoteric Jewish discourse within the Palestinian solidarity movement. But what does that very right to self-determination stand for? Why is it that every modern Jewish political thought is grounded on that right? Why is it that some ‘progressive’ assimilated Jews feel the need to become citizens of the world rather than just ordinary citizens of Britain or France or Russia?

The Pretence of Authenticity

It should be said that though identity search and self-determination are there to convey the pretence of a final march towards an authentic redemption, the direct result of Identity politics and self-determinative affairs is the complete opposite. Those who have to self-determine who they are, are those who are far removed from any authentic realisation to start with. Those who are determined to be seen as ‘cosmopolitans’ and ‘secular humanists’ are those who fail to see that human brotherhood needs neither an introduction nor a declaration. All it really takes is a genuine love for one another. Those who initiate and sign humanist manifestos are those who insist upon being seen as humanists while at the same time spreading some Zionist tribal evil around. Clearly, real genuine cosmopolitans do not have the need to declare their abstract commitment to humanism. Real citizens of the world, similarly, just live in an open world with no boundaries and borders.

I am surrounded, for instance, by jazz musicians of all colours and ethnic origins. People who live on the road, people who sleep every night in a different continent, people who make a living out of their love of beauty. Yet, I have never seen a Jazz artist who calls himself or herself either a citizen of the world or a cosmopolitan or even a beauty merchant. I have never met a Jazz artist who adopts an air of egalitarian importance. I have never met a Jazz musician who celebrates his or her right to self-determination. The reason is simple, authentic beings do not need to self determine who they are, they just let themselves and others be.

The right to self-determination

The right to self-determination is often cited as the acknowledgment that "all peoples have the right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” This very principle is often seen as a moral and legal right. It is also well embedded in the philosophy of the United Nations. The term self-determination was used in the UN Charter and has been defined in various declarations and covenants.

Though we all tend to believe that every human is entitled to celebrate his or her symptoms, the right to self-determination is in fact significantly meaningful only within the Western liberal discourse which accepts such a right and premises it on the notion of enlightened individualism. Moreover, the right to self-determination can be celebrated only by the privileged who can mobilize enough political power or military might to make this right into a practical reality.
However, it must be mentioned that even within the Western liberal discourse, it is only Jews who premise their political power on the ‘right to be like others’. The reason is simple, though liberated Jews insist upon being ‘like others’, it is rather clear that others prefer actually to be ‘like themselves’. This obviously means that the Jewish demand to be like others is futile and doomed to failure.

It must be mentioned also that within oppressed societies, the right to self-determination is often replaced with the right to rebel. For a Palestinian in the occupied territories, the right for self-determination means very little. He doesn’t need to self-determine himself as a Palestinian for the obvious reason that he knows who he is. And just in case he happens to forget, an Israeli soldier in the next roadblock would remind him. For the Palestinian, self-determination is a product of negation. It is actually the daily confrontation with the Zionist denial of the Palestinian right of self-determination. For the Palestinian, it is the right to fight against oppression, against those who starve him and expel him from his land in the name of the Jewish rather-too-concrete demand to be ‘people like other people’.

As much, as the right to self-determination presents itself as a universal liberating political value, in many cases it is utilised as a divisive mechanism that leads towards direct abuse of others. As we happen to learn, modern Jewish demand for the right to self-determination is rather too often celebrated at the expense of others whether these are Palestinians, Arab leaders, Russian proletariats or British and American soldiers who fight the last pocket of Israeli enemies in the Middle East. As much as the right to self-determination is occasionally presented has a ‘universal value’, scrutinising the pragmatic sinister utilization of the very right within the Jewish political discourse reveals that in practical terms, it is there to serve the Jewish tribal interests while denying and even dismissing other people’s elementary rights.

The Bund and Lenin’s Criticism

It would be right to say that the Bund and the Zionists were the first to eloquently insist upon the Jewish right to self-determination. The Bund was the General Jewish Workers' Union of East Europe. Like the Zionist movement, it was formally founded in 1897. It maintained that Jews in Russia deserved the right to cultural and national self-determination within the Soviet future revolution.

Probably, the first to elaborate on the absurdity in Jewish demand for self-determination was Lenin in his famous attack on the Bund at the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (1903). “March with us” was Lenin’s reply to the Bund, rejecting their demand for a special autonomous ethnic status amongst the Russian workers. Lenin obviously spotted the tribally divisive agenda within the Bund philosophy. “We reject,” said Lenin, “all obligatory partitions that serve to divide us”. As much as Lenin supported “the right of nations to self-determination”, he was clearly dismissive of such a Jewish right which he correctly identified as divisive and reactionary. Lenin supported the right of oppressed nations to build their national entities, however he resisted any bigoted, narrow nationalist spirit.

Lenin raised three main reasons against the Bund and its demand of cultural self-determination:

First. Raising the slogan of cultural-national autonomy leads to splitting the nations apart, and therefore destroying the unity of the proletariat within them.

Second. Lenin saw that the intermingling of nations and their amalgamation was a progressive step, while turning away from that is a step backwards. He criticized those who "cry out to heaven against assimilation."

Third. Lenin did not regard the ‘non-territorial cultural independence’ advocated by the Bund and the other Jewish parties as advantageous, practical, or practicable.

Lenin’s approach to the Bund is rather significant and should be reflected upon. Using his sharp political common sense, Lenin doubted the ethical and political grounds of the right of Jews to self-determination, as much as the Bund demanded that Jews should be treated as a national identity like all other nationals. Lenin’s answer was strictly simple: “Sorry guys, but you aren’t. You are not a national minority just for the reason that you are not attached to a piece of geography.”

Matzpen and Wolfowitz

“The solution of the national and social problems of this region can come about only through a socialist revolution in this region, which will overthrow all its existing regimes and will replace them by a political union of the region, ruled by the toilers. In this united and liberated Arab East, recognition will be granted to the right of self-determination (including the right to a separate state) of each of the non-Arab nationalities living in the region, including the Israeli-Jewish nation” (Matzpen Principles http://www.matzpen.org/index.asp?p=principles)

Seemingly, Lenin’s criticism has never been properly internalised by Jewish so-called ‘progressive’ ideologists. Abuse of others and dismissal of elementary rights has become inherent to Jewish ‘progressive’ political thinking. Reading the principle document of Matzpen, the legendary ultra leftist Israeli group may leave one perplexed.

Already in 1962 Jewish Matzpenists had a plan to ‘liberate’ the Arab world. According to Matzpen’s principles, all you have to do is “overthrow all (Arab) existing regimes” so “recognition will be granted to the right of self-determination of each of the non-Arab nationalities living in the region, including (of course) the Israeli-Jewish nation.”

It doesn’t take a genius to grasp that at least categorically, Matzpen’s principles are no different from Wolfowitz’s Neocon mantra. Matzpen had a plan to ‘overthrow’ all Arabs regimes in the name of ‘socialism’ so Jews can ‘self-determine’ who they are. Wolfowitz would do exactly the same in the name of ‘democracy’. If you take Matzpen’s Judeo-centric ‘progressive’ text and replace the word ‘Socialist’ with ‘Democratic’ you end up with a devastating Neocon text and it reads as follows:

“The solution of the national and social problems of this region, can come about only through a democratic revolution in this region, which will overthrow all its existing regimes and will replace them by a political union of the region …Recognition will be granted to the right of self-determination of each of the non-Arab nationalities living in the region, including the Israeli-Jewish nation.”

Seemingly, both the ‘legendary’ progressive Matzpen and the reactionary despised Neocons use a similar abstract concept with some pretence of universality to rationally justify the Jewish right to self-determination and the destruction of Arab-grown regional power. Seemingly, both Neocons and Matzpen know what liberation may mean for Arabs. For the Matzpenist, to liberate Arabs is to turn them into Bolsheviks. The Neocon is actually slightly more modest, all he wants is for Arabs to drink Coca Cola in a westernised democratic society. Both Judeo-centric philosophies are doomed to failure because the notion of self-determination is overwhelmingly Euro-centric. Both philosophies are premised on an enlightened notion of rationality. Both philosophies have very little to offer to the oppressed, instead they are there to rationalise and provide the colonialist with some fake ‘universal’ legitimacy.

Clearly, Matzpen has never had any political power, it never had any political significance since it has never been in any proximity to Arab people, not to say Arab masses. Consequently, Matzpen could never affect Arab people’s lives nor could it destroy their regimes. However, Matzpen is seen by Jewish Leftists around the world as a significant chapter in the Israeli left. It is seen as a singular moment of Israeli ethical awakening. Thus, it is actually embarrassing or even devastating to find out that the most enlightening and refined moment of Israeli-left moral awakening produced a political insight that is no different categorically to George Bush’s infamous attempt at Liberating the Iraqi people. It should be clear beyond doubt that Jewish ultra leftists (a la Matzpen) and Zionised Anglo-American interventionism (a la Neocons) are in fact two sides of the same coin or may I allow myself to say two sides of the very same Shekel. They are very close theoretically, ideologically and pragmatically. Both political thoughts are Judeo-centric to the bone yet, they both pretend to premise themselves on universalism and aim towards ‘liberation’ and ‘freedom’. But at the end of the day they aim toward Jewish self-determination at the expense of others.

The Right to be Like Others -The Zionist Logic

The following is a collection of extracts taken from a document submitted to the United Nations COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS in 2005.

It was composed by the Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations (CBJO) and B'nai B'rith. It helps to grasp how Jewish organisations implement political power around the claim for self-determination.

As a point of historical departure of its statement, the CBJO chooses the ‘end of the Holocaust’ and the creation of the UN. The link is rather clear and intentional. The role of the UN is set as one that will save the Jews from any further genocidal attempts.

“As the world marks the 60th anniversaries of the end of the Holocaust and the creation of the United Nations this year, we in the human rights community have the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to the principles contained in the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other foundation documents of the international human rights regime. One of the most fundamental of these rights is that of self-determination. This right guarantees other human rights, such as the right to life, liberty and security of person, preservation of honor, equality under the law.”

It can be seen that at this stage the right to self-determination is conveyed in universal terms. But do not let yourself be misled just yet. It won’t take long before the Zio-centric twist will reveal itself.

“The events revealed sixty years ago when Allied forces entered and liberated the Nazi concentration camps could have been prevented if only the Jewish people's right to self-determination had been protected and fostered…. As the history of the Jewish people in the 20th century demonstrates, without a State of their own – the fulfillment of the right to self-determination – the Jewish people were at risk of discrimination, isolation, and ultimately, extermination.”

Slowly but surely, we can now see the shift from the universal ethical approach to a Judeo-centric self-centred argumentation. However, it is crucial to mention that prior to the big war western and American Jews were emancipated and enjoyed rights to self-determination, yet not many Jews thought that such a right should be celebrated in Palestine at the expense of the Palestinian people. Moreover, thinking in retrospective terms makes it rather clear that the ‘Jewish right to self-determination’ has brought Holocaust on the Palestinian people. In other words, the Jewish right to self-determination has very limited positive impact on humanity and human reality. Something the UN Human Rights Commission better take into account.

“As we reflect on this history, we must note the resurgence of anti-Semitism, and its new manifestation – anti-Zionism. In various intellectual circles, on university campuses and in the media, the Jewish people’s basic human right to self-determination is being eroded on a daily basis through misrepresentations and false equations. These anti-Zionists portray the Jewish people’s self-determination as excluding Palestinian self-determination. Some wish to turn back the clock of history by advancing a "one-state” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a proposal that was rejected by the General Assembly in 1947 precisely because it would have denied the Jewish people their right of self-determination…. Anti-Zionism is a dangerous path, for it hinges on the destruction of the Jewish State. As such it runs counter to the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights….”

Interestingly enough, the gifted people at the CBJO do realise that sooner or later someone is about to question the ethical validity of the ‘Jewish right to self-determination’. In fact this is exactly what I myself plan to do within a page or two. Zionists are clever enough to grasp the possibility that their ‘carte blanche’ to ruin millions of lives in the Middle East in the name of fake universal concept may expire one day.

However, the CBJO are aiming towards an optimistic resolution of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. This is at least what they want us to believe:

“Today, we see remarkable progress in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinian people have elected a government – one that has pledged to reject terrorism as a political weapon in favor of democracy and peace. This path of promoting peaceful co-existence with the Jewish people marks an important turning point from the Palestinian policy of violence. …All resolutions passed by this body under this agenda item should seek to affirm the right to self-determination for the Jewish people alongside that of other peoples…. Only then will the Commission on Human Rights be true to its founding principles. Only then will the CHR be part of the solution, instead of exacerbating the problem. Only then will this body demonstrate that it has retained the lessons that should have been learned 60 years ago, upholding and defending the basic right of the Jewish people to self-determination alongside a democratic Palestinian State.”

As we can see, the CBJO is there to tell the Palestinians who they are and what they should be. i.e., democratic and secular. Wrongly enough, the right-wing CBJO is no different to the legendary ‘progressive’ Matzpen and the implications must be clear from now on. There is no left and right within modern secular Jewish politics but rather self-centric tribal orientation which produces fake images of political diversity for obvious reasons.

One State, Two States or Just a State Of All Its Citizens

Not many Palestinians and Arab intellectuals take part in the One State/Two State debate. The reason is pretty obvious, Palestinians and Arabs do realise very well that issues to do with the future of the region are not to be determined by academic institutes or Palestinian solidarity conferences but rather on the ground. The impact of a single Qassam rocket hitting in the Western Negev is far greater than any form of intellectual conclusive discussion to do with ‘conflict resolution’. As it seems, the demand for ‘one State’, be it secular, democratic or Islamic is theoretical and rhetorical and has no implication whatsoever on the Israelis who still possess the political power and military might to maintain the Jews-only State.

As much as the notion of self-determination has zero significance on Palestinian people, the same is so for the verbal demand for one State. At a time of starvation in Gaza and genocidal plans announced by the Israeli Government, debates regarding the future of the region seem to be a luxurious endeavour explored by the privileged.

If anything, the debate over the one State solution is there to maintain the Israeli and Jewish hegemony within the Palestinian solidarity discourse. The reason is pretty simple, every discussion that aims at political resolution naturally takes into account the ‘Jewish right to self-determination’. This would be the case forever unless we allow ourselves to introduce a radical political and intellectual shift into the discourse. Like Lenin in 1903, we must call into question the true validity of the notion of the right to self-determination. Following Lenin, we should allow ourselves to admit the possibility that the Jewish right to self-determination is actually divisive or may even be a false call. It is there to be celebrated by the rich and colonial and the privileged at the expense of the weak and the oppressed.

We should stand up and ask openly why exactly Jews or anyone else deserves a right to self-determination. Isn’t it true that the right to self-determination always comes at the expense of someone else? We should stand up and ask, what moral right entitles a Brooklyn Jew to self-determine oneself as a Zionist and a future occupier of Palestine? We should openly ask what exactly entitles an Israeli born Jew the right to dwell on Palestinian land at the expense of the indigenous Palestinian? Am I entitled to demand the right to self-determine myself as a NASA Astronaut, or alternatively as a heart surgeon? Would you let me fix your heart based on my false self-inflicted recognition as a heart surgeon?

These questions are far from being easy to answer. Yet, we shouldn’t stop ourselves from raising them. Like Lenin, I tend to dismiss the Jewish legitimacy of the right to self-determination as a false divisive call. Instead, I would suggest an alternative ethical approach, which I borrowed from Ex MK Azmi Bishara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azmi Bishara), the Palestinian intellectual who had to run for his life from Israel in spite of being a Parliament member. Bishara moved beyond the one State/ two State debate or the Judeo-centric right to self-determination. He coined a brilliant political notion, namely ‘a State of all its Citizens’. Rather than a State of the Jews, Bishara suggested to make it into a State of the people who dwell in it.

Azmi Bishara is a vigorous intellectual and a well-known critic of the Israeli State. In numerous writings and public appearances, he has maintained that the Israeli State's self-definition as ‘Jewish and democratic’ is discriminatory. Bishara calls for an Israel that would be a ‘State of all its citizens.’ Bishara has openly pointed to a direct conflict between the Jewish majority and the Palestinian minority over the definition of nationality in Israel. He articulates a trend among the Arab-Palestinian minority that poses a demand for socio-economic and political equality not only in formal law, but in civic citizenship and nationality. It would be right to say that Bishara’s approach is a political exercise in the Palestinian right to self-determination. Consequently, however, it didn’t take long before Bishara had to run for his life and search for a shelter out of Israel.

As we have seen, the right to self-determination is a luxurious approach at conservation of power. It is not going to be celebrated by any group but those who are already rich, strong and privileged. Zionists can boast all these qualities, as well as possessing the necessary power and military might to maintain their ‘right to self-determination’. However, given the reality on the ground, instead of demanding some rhetorical rights, we should fight for the Palestinian and Arab right to rebel against the Jewish State and against global Zionist imperialism. Instead of wasting our time on rhetorical fantasies and academic exchange, we better expose Jewish tribal politics and praxis. To support Palestine is to be courageous enough to say what we think and to admit what we see.