FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Attacking Humanitarian Aid

On May 31 Israel attacked a humanitarian aid convoy bound for Gaza in international waters. Was this an act of self-defense, a stupid miscalculation, or a strategic (albeit costly) necessity?

Israel, of course, argues for the legitimacy of the attack: a Nobel peace laureate, a retired American ambassador, a Holocaust survivor, an American student, etc., all morph into terrorists, and an act of war in international waters is transmuted into a legal exercise in self-defense. Only determined apologists for Israel give any credence to this predictably Orwellian account. Sadly, the U.S. Congress is numbered among them.

“What were they thinking?” sums up the attitude of the many commentators, like Harvard’s Stephen Walt, who see the attack as both misguided and over-reaching.

A partial explanation can be found in the Israeli state of mind that perceives every event through the lens of Holocaust memory – an obsession that distorts and constrains both political and popular thinking, as Avraham Burg has noted. So pervasive is the Holocaust discourse that even those who deplore it go on using it. Uri Avnery, for example, compares the raid on the Mavi Marmara to the 1947 British assault on the Exodus in order to argue that the aggressor “live[s] in a bubble, in a kind of mental ghetto, which … prevents us from seeing another reality, the one perceived by the rest of the world.”

Many Israeli critics, in turn, lament that the United States acts as an enabler to this madness. Instead of restraining Israel and turning its actions into more appropriate paths, the U.S. provides weapons, money, and diplomatic cover at the United Nations. Noam Chomsky argues: “Israel assumes that it can commit such crimes with impunity because the United States tolerates them and Europe generally follows the U.S.’s lead.” And indeed, the speed with which Obama’s mildly expressed reservations about the raid were undercut by Congressional endorsement of it proves Chomsky’s point.

American complicity notwithstanding, the “what-were-they-thinking” commentary is surely correct that, from the Israeli point of view, the attack was more costly than anticipated in terms of public opinion backlash and, likely, less successful than hoped for in suppressing dissent from Israeli policies, especially the blockade of Gaza.

Nevertheless, even a strategy that is more costly and less successful than anticipated is not necessarily a mistake or miscalculation on the part of the aggressor. On the contrary, there is every reason to suppose that the attack, clearly planned and premeditated, represents an immoral but not a stupid calculation by Israeli leaders of their country’s best interests.

First, the Obama administration really is putting pressure on Israel to stop settlement construction, ease the Gaza blockade, and create a two state solution. Most people committed to a just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are impatient and skeptical since Obama’s demands seem to be largely rhetorical. Even so, for Netanyahu, the Obama administration represents a dramatic departure from Bush’s carte blanche. Faced with the threat of peace, the necessity of withdrawing at least a few token settlers, and the possibility of ceding control over parts of the West Bank, Israelis are doing what they have done before: they are making every effort to provoke Palestinian violence. If Netanyahu could just get another Intifada started, he could put off concessions indefinitely. Recall Sharon shouldering his way into the Temple Mount at a similarly strategic moment and triggering the second Intifada. Were it not for Palestinian political discipline, the attack on the Gaza flotilla, like last year’s Cast Lead massacre, might well have achieved the same results.

Second, Americans are, once again, in an election year. At the same time, the Obama administration seems willing to entertain a conversation about Israel as a strategic liability for the U.S. – surely the single most dreaded conversation from Israel’s point of view. Under these circumstances, any Israeli government would feel that it had a stake in helping the Republicans in the bi-elections. To this structural incentive, we can add individual inclination: Netanyahu is closely linked to Richard Perle, his former foreign policy advisor, and through Perle, to Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney. Thus personal sympathies and political expediency entwine to create a unique environment for the attack on the Gaza flotilla: should Democrats object, they will be taking enormous risks in losing Jewish votes to the Republicans; should they fail to object, the carte blanche of the Bush years will have been renewed, however reluctantly.

Most importantly, Israel’s need to silence its critics has deep historical roots, well beyond the events of the moment. Israel has always been committed to “judaizing” the land under its control – a project that requires the expulsion of Palestinians and, as a corollary, the suppression of dissent from such policies. Once Zionism rejected the notion of a Jewish homeland in a multi-ethnic Palestine in favor of an exclusively Jewish state, ethnic cleansing became an ugly but necessary part of its agenda. Current events are only the latest chapter of a story that began when the leaders of the first Zionist Congress were told by a party of explorers sent to assess the suitability of Palestine for Jewish settlement that “[t]he bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man.” From that day to the present, the object of the Zionism has been to bring all of the land of Palestine under Israeli control while expelling all of the indigenous Palestinians.

Early Zionist settlers hoped that their British colonial rulers would complete the “transfer” for them. When this did not happen, Israeli settlers, before and after the creation of the state of Israel, took matters into their own hands and perpetrated the Nakba, the Catastrophe, that saw the expulsion of about two-thirds of the Palestinian population and the destruction of three-quarters of all their villages in conjunction with the founding of the state of Israel.

The expulsions did not end there. They continued in later wars, in military rule over Palestinians left inside Israel, in the occupation of all Palestinian lands beginning in 1967 and their administration through sociocidal policies designed to induce “voluntary” Palestinian emigration, in the construction of settlements, settler-only roads, and a separation wall, in strategic control over aquifers, and the planting of Jewish National Fund trees over the ruins of Palestinian villages to ensure their erasure from history.

Today, Israeli citizens of Palestinian ancestry constitute 20% of the population of Israel but are confined to 3% of its land. Similarly, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, half a million Israeli settlers are expanding their control over land every day, leaving little more than 10% of historic Palestine as the site of a possible Palestinian state. Against this backdrop, the virulent suppression of militant leadership in Gaza, including the assault on humanitarian aid, is simply the logical next step.

Some predict that the end point will resemble the American system of Indian reservations, with Palestinians penned up, out of sight and out of mind. Others predict that the reservations or Bantustans will be maintained only as long as the Arab states have oil, and that once Arab oil reserves have been depleted, Israel will complete the “transfer” of all Palestinians out of Palestine.

Whichever of these predictions proves more accurate, it is clear that ethnic cleansing stands at the heart of the Zionist project and that suppression of challenges to it represents a clear (if sometimes costly) necessity, not a public relations error on the part of the Israeli state.

Unless and until Americans recognize the connection between Zionism and ethnic cleansing, we cannot act on the hopes of Israeli dissidents to provide “tough love” to Israel, nor can we be honest brokers to all 11 million people who live between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. We cannot evaluate or own strategic national interests, protect the integrity of our domestic politics, nor can we realize our own most cherished values while we continue to deny the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

EVE SPANGLER is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Boston College and a founding member of American Jews for a Just Peace.

The author is indebted to Dr. Elizabeth Sherman and Toufic Haddad for some of the ideas expressed in this essay.

 

WORDS THAT STICK

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Atwood
Peace or Armageddon: Take Your Pick
Paul Street
No Liberal Rallies Yet for the Children of Yemen
Nick Pemberton
The Bipartisan War on Central and South American Women
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Are You Putin Me On?
Andrew Levine
Sovereignty: What Is It Good For? 
Brian Cloughley
The Trump/NATO Debacle and the Profit Motive
David Rosen
Trump’s Supreme Pick Escalates America’s War on Sex 
Melvin Goodman
Montenegro and the “Manchurian Candidate”
Salvador   Rangel
“These Are Not Our Kids”: The Racial Capitalism of Caging Children at the Border
Matthew Stevenson
Going Home Again to Trump’s America
Louis Proyect
Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and the Dilemmas of the Left
Patrick Cockburn
Iraqi Protests: “Bad Government, Bad Roads, Bad Weather, Bad People”
Robert Fantina
Has It Really Come to This?
Russell Mokhiber
Kristin Lawless on the Corporate Takeover of the American Kitchen
John W. Whitehead
It’s All Fake: Reality TV That Masquerades as American Politics
Patrick Bobilin
In Your Period Piece, I Would be the Help
Ramzy Baroud
The Massacre of Inn Din: How Rohingya Are Lynched and Held Responsible
Robert Fisk
How Weapons Made in Bosnia Fueled Syria’s Bleak Civil War
Gary Leupp
Trump’s Helsinki Press Conference and Public Disgrace
Josh Hoxie
Our Missing $10 Trillion
Martha Rosenberg
Pharma “Screening” Is a Ploy to Seize More Patients
Basav Sen
Brett Kavanaugh Would be a Disaster for the Climate
David Lau
The Origins of Local AFT 4400: a Profile of Julie Olsen Edwards
Rohullah Naderi
The Elusive Pursuit of Peace by Afghanistan
Binoy Kampmark
Shaking Establishments: The Ocasio-Cortez Effect
John Laforge
18 Protesters Cut Into German Air Base to Protest US Nuclear Weapons Deployment
Christopher Brauchli
Trump and the Swedish Question
Chia-Chia Wang
Local Police Shouldn’t Collaborate With ICE
Paul Lyons
YouTube’s Content ID – A Case Study
Jill Richardson
Soon You Won’t be Able to Use Food Stamps at Farmers’ Markets, But That’s Not the Half of It
Kevin MacKay
Climate Change is Proving Worse Than We Imagined, So Why Aren’t We Confronting its Root Cause?
Thomas Knapp
Elections: More than Half of Americans Believe Fairy Tales are Real
Ralph Nader
Warner Slack—Doctor for the People Forever
Lee Ballinger
Soccer, Baseball and Immigration
Louis Yako
Celebrating the Wounds of Exile with Poetry
Ron Jacobs
Working Class Fiction—Not Just Surplus Value
Perry Hoberman
You Can’t Vote Out Fascism… You Have to Drive It From Power!
Robert Koehler
Guns and Racism, on the Rocks
Nyla Ali Khan
Kashmir: Implementation with Integrity and Will to Resolve
Justin Anderson
Elon Musk vs. the Media
Graham Peebles
A Time of Hope for Ethiopia
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Homophobia in the Service of Anti-Trumpism is Still Homophobic (Even When it’s the New York Times)
Martin Billheimer
Childhood, Ferocious Sleep
David Yearsley
The Glories of the Grammophone
Tom Clark
Gameplanning the Patriotic Retributive Attack on Montenegro
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail