From: Francis Feeley <Francis.Feeley@u-grenoble3.fr>
Subject: Edward Herman: Part
2 of 3.
7 April 2002
Grenoble, France
Message from the Center for the Advanced
Study of American Institutions and Social Movements,
Université de Grenoble-3
F. Feeley, directeur de recherches
===========================
ISRAEL'S APPROVED ETHNIC CLEANSING:
PART 2
U.S. OFFICIAL PROTECTION
by Edward S. Herman
When Milosevic
dealt brutally with Kosovo Albanians, the United
States claimed to find such actions
so intolerable as to justify a
war against the villain and his
people and an occupation of Kosovo
to terminate the process. Returning
expelled Kosovo Albanians to
their homes was an urgent priority--after
NATO policy itself had
produced the expulsions.
In sharp contrast,
as described in Part 1, Israel has been able
to establish and maintain a "Jewish"
state--hence a racist state--
and systematically "redeem" the
land from the large indigenous
Palestinian population--that is,
engage in large-scale ethnic
cleansing--because in this case
the United States found ethnic
cleansing not only tolerable but
worthy of aggressive support. An
international consensus has condemned
the Israeli occupation for
decades, and huge majorities in
the UN have periodically called for
an Israeli exit (e.g., 144-2 on
Resolution 242 in December 1990),
but the United States and Israel
have said "nyet," so nyet it has
been.
Official Protection: The Orwellian Processes
Thus, instead
of having to leave the occupied territories Israel
continues to push out the locals
by force, uproot their trees,
steal their water, beggar them by
"closures" and endless
restrictions, and it suffers no
penalties because it has U.S.
approval, protection, and active
assistance (see below). The
partners also deny Palestinians
any right to return to land from
which they were expelled, so 140+
contrary UN votes, and two
Security Council Resolutions--both
vetoed by the United States--
have no effect; and in a remarkable
Orwellian process of
doublethink--and double morality--Israel
is free to expel more
Palestinians in the same time frame
in which their protector spent
billions and great moral energy
in a campaign to return worthy
victims in Kosovo. (On the lying
and non-humanitarian root and
effects of the Nato war, see Chomsky's
New Military Humanism;
Herman and Peterson, "The Nato-Media
Lie Machine," Z Magazine, May
2000; Herman and Peterson, "Kosovo
One Year Later: From Serb
Repression to NATO-Sponsored Ethnic
Cleansing," ZNet Commentary,
June 26,2000.)
Another remarkable
Orwellian process is this: the abused and
beggared Palestinian people periodically
rebel as their conditions
deteriorate and more land is taken,
homes are demolished, and they
are treated with great ruthlessness
and discrimination. Many are
among the hundreds of thousands
expelled earlier, or who have still
not forgotten their relatives killed
and injured by Israeli
violence over many years--and Palestinian
deaths by Israeli arms
almost surely exceed Israeli deaths
from "terrorism" by better than
15 to 1 (see Herman and O'Sullivan,
The "Terrorism" Industry, pp.
29-33). Judith Stone, a frequent
visitor to Palestine, says that "I
have yet to meet a Palestinian who
hasn't lost a member of their
family to the Israeli Shoah, nor
a Palestinian who cannot name a
relative or friend languishing under
inhumane conditions in an
Israeli prison" ("Quest for Justice,"
http://www.facts4peace.com/article/stone.htm).
And after this long
history of expulsion and murder
they are still under assault. In
this context, if they rise up in
revolt at their oppressors this is
not "freedom fighters" or a "national
liberation movement" in
action, it is "irrational violence"
and a return to "terrorism,"
and both Israeli and U.S. officials
(and therefore the mainstream
U.S. media) agree that the first
order of business is to stop this
terrorism.
Back at the time of
the first Intifada, U.S. Ambassador Robert
Pelletreau was explicit that the
"riots" in the occupied
territories "we view as terrorist
acts against Israel."
Correspondingly, U.S. policy was
to put no pressure on Israel to
curb its repression or alter its
policies, essentially giving
Israel carte blanche to use "harsh
military and economic pressure"
till "in the end, they will be broken"
(Yitzak Rabin). In the
second Intifada, once again there
is absolutely no U.S. pressure on
Israel to change its policies. Arms
aid and training programs to
Israel have been stepped up--35
Black Hawk military helicopters
supplied in October, 2000 and nine
Apache attack helicopters bought
from Boeing in February 2001; U.S.
training in urban counter-
insurgency tactics that would help
Israel to take control of
Palestinian urban centers, provided
in mid-September 2000; and
joint U.S.-Israeli military exercises
along with the redeployment
of Patriot missiles from Germany
to Israel in February 2001--and as
in the past all UN resolutions of
condemnation and calls for an
international presence in the occupied
territories have been
ignored or vetoed by the United
States on behalf of its ethnic-
cleansing client.
This of course makes
the process self-fulfilling. A people under
continuous oppression and a long
process of "redemption of the
land" at their expense is given
no peaceful recourse by Israel and
its patron--Oslo was an agreement
confirming all Palestinian
losses, with no right of return
or compensation promised, no ending
of expropriations and expulsions
in the occupied territories, and
with any benefits to the victims
dependent on future negotiations.
But that future never came: since
1993 the Palestinians have been
ground down further, and Israel
has continued its steady
encroachment and increased its brutalization
(the more recent
Barak-Clinton Bantustan offer is
discussed in Part 3 under
"Apologetic Frames"). In consequence,
the Palestinians periodically
burst forth with bombings involving
the self-immolation of
desperate men, and with mass upheavals,
as in the two Intifadas.
But in the definitional
system of oppressor and patron this is
TERRORISM, horrifying and intolerable.
What Israel has done making
this people desperate is not
terror. As State Department PR man
James Rubin explained after another
spate of Israeli demolitions of
Palestinian houses, this was "a
wrong signal" for a delicate stage
in peace talks (NYT, June 23, 1998).
Not bad in themselves and a
violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention,
just a wrong signal.
Madeleine Albright called on the
Israelis to refrain from "what
Palestinians see as the provocative
expansion of settlements, land
confiscation, house demolitions
and confiscation of IDs" (NYT, Oct.
15, 1997). Only "the Palestinians"
see these actions as
"provocative;" Albright does not
find them objectionable in
themselves or illegal. In fact,
under Clinton the United States
finally rejected the international
law and almost universal
consensus on the occupation, declaring
the territories not
"occupied Palestinian lands" but
"disputed territories" (Albright).
By U.S. fiat Palestinian lands became
open to settlement by force
by the ethnic cleanser who the United
States has armed to the
teeth, and who has aggressively
brutalized while creating "facts on
the ground" during the "dispute,"
which will not be settled until
the victims end their terrorism.
And Albright
has stressed that there is "No moral equivalency
between suicide bombers and bulldozers"
(Newsweek, Aug. 18, 1997).
Clinton, standing next to Israeli
Prime Minister Shimon Peres as
the latter defended a blockade of
the Palestinians that was adding
to their misery, put the blame on
Hamas who were allegedly "trying
to make the Palestinians as miserable
as possible" (Phila.
Inquirer, March 15, 1996). There
was not the slightest hint that
Israel was contributing to Palestinian
misery despite massive
expropriations and 300 devastating
"closures" after 1993.
So it is not Israeli
policy, which amounts to a continuous and
illegal assault on and displacement
of the Palestinians, that is
ultimately at fault and that must
be changed to resolve this
conflict. Albright can't recognize
that decades of "bulldozers"
necessarily produce suicide bombers,
although she was quick to find
that much less repression in Kosovo
produced "freedom fighters;"
nor can she distinguish between
systematic policy (i.e., bull-
dozers) and uncontrollable outbursts
from victims that do NOT
constitute policy. The inability
of these U.S. officials to see
Israel's hugely discriminatory and
brutal expulsions, demolitions,
mistreatment and plain exploitation
as seriously wrong in
themselves, illegal, or causal manifests
a complete identification
with and apologetic for the ethnic
cleansers. Five years ago a
senior Clinton White House official
declared that "We are not going
to second-guess Israel" (PI, March
15, 1996), and on March 19,
2001, Colin Powell assured the Jewish
lobbying group AIPAC that "We
are dedicated to preserving this
special relationship with Israel
and the Israeli people...[and] a
secure Israel with
internationally-recognized borders
remains a cornerstone of the
United States foreign policy." In
short, now as in the past, and
with only rare exceptions, as in
the case of the unauthorized
Israeli attack on Egypt in 1956,
Israel will get strong U.S.
support for whatever it does, and
the ethnic cleansing of its
unworthy victims can proceed as
required.
One of
the triumphs of Oslo was its buying off of Arafat,
making him into a second class client
and an enforcer of the
pathetic "settlement," with U.S.
and Israeli funds and training
exchanged for his commitment to
keep his people in line and control
"terrorism." (For a compelling account,
with full background,
Chomsky, World Orders Old and New
[1994], chap. 3.) The formula for
the wholesale terrorists (Israel)
has always been: whatever
violence we perpetrate is "retaliation"
and it is up to the retail
terrorists (Palestinians) to stop
terrorizing and then we might
"negotiate" with them in a "peace
process." Israeli leaders say
"You can't ask us to stop expanding
existing settlements, which are
living organisms" (Netanyahu), as
if this were not in violation of
UN resolutions, the Fourth Geneva
Convention, and even the 1993
Oslo agreement itself. (Note also
the spiritual affinity with
another great ethnic cleanser, who
said: "One only possesses a land
when even the last inhabitant of
this territory belongs to his own
people." [Heinrich Himmler])
U.S. officials can
never bring themselves to say that what Israel
is doing is wrong--at worst it may
send "a wrong signal," etc. And
they follow closely the Israeli
party line that "terrorism"
(Palestinian, not Israeli) must
be stopped first, so that the
"peace process" can be put back
on track. For Albright, "security"
is primary, and she told Arafat
that "she needed a commitment and
action on the subject of security"
before she could make a credible
approach to Israel on other issues
(WP, Sept 12, 1997). "Security"
always means Israeli security, not
Palestinian, for Albright--or
for Colin Powell--just as for Israeli
officials. Here as elsewhere
these high U.S. officials internalize
the Israeli perspective and
the idea of "security" for the unworthy
victims doesn't arise, any
more than the notion that Israeli
insecurity arises from the much
greater Palestinian insecurity that
inevitably results from Israeli
policies. In his visit to Jerusalem
in March 1996, Clinton spoke of
"the awful persistence of fear"--but
only in reference to Israelis,
not to Palestinians (PI, March 15,
1996). This is an internalized
racist bias that has characterized
U.S. official statements and
media and expert opinion here for
decades.
Reasons For and Modalities of Support
Why does the United
States support Israel's ethnic cleansing?
Broadly speaking, the reasons boil
down to two factors. One is
Israel's role as a U.S. proxy in
the Middle East and its
integration into the U.S. security
system, which encompasses not
only keeping the Arab world in line,
but also providing services
like supplying arms to the Somoza
regime in Nicaragua, the Pinochet
government of Chile, Mobutu, Idi
Amin, apartheid South Africa, and
the Guatemalan and Argentinian terror
states. Because of these
services, Israel's victims are not
merely unworthy, they also
become "terrorists" and part of
the "Islamic threat" for the U.S.
political elite and mainstream media.
The second factor
is the exceptional power of the pro-Israel
lobby, which for many years has
bought and bullied politicians and
the media, so that they all vie
with one another in genuflections
to the holy state. This bullying
is especially strong and effective
in Canada and the United States,
but it applies widely, and the
distinguished British reporter Robert
Fisk, describing the abuse he
has suffered in reporting on the
Middle East, says that "the
attempt to force the media to obey
Israel's rules is now
international" ("I Am Being Vilified
For Telling the Truth About
Palestinians," The Independent,
Dec. 13, 2000). (For fuller
analyses of "why" see my "The Pro-Israel
Lobby," Z Magazine, July-
August 1994; and especially Chomsky's
The Fateful Triangle, Updated
Edition, 1999, Preface and chapter
2.)
These factors feed
into the intellectual and media culture in
complex ways that institutionalize
the huge bias, with pro-Israeli
and anti-Palestinian perspectives
internalized and/or made
obligatory by potential flak and
pressure from above and without.
This is extremely important, as
there is no reason to believe that
the U.S. public would support a
massive and brutal ethnic cleansing
program if they were given even
a modest quantum of the ugly facts,
if the main victims rather than
the ethnic cleansers were
humanized, and if the media's frames
of reference were not designed
to apologize for Israeli expropriation
and violence. However, the
ongoing media and intellectual biases
do very effectively
complement the national policy of
support for the ethnic cleansing
state, just as they helped cover
up national policy supporting
Indonesia's murderous occupation
of East Timor, and just as they
roused the public to a pitch of
frenzy over the unapproved Yugoslav
violence in Kosovo.
(con'd. in Bullletin #10)