|
CounterPunch
January
11, 2003
Palestinian
Solidarity Activists:
Driving a Wedge
in Consensus Reality
By DAVID BLOOM and
BILL WEINBERG
The editors of World
War 3 Report talk to two Palestine Solidarity activists,
Steve Quester from Jews
Against the Occupation and Zaid Khalil, of Stop
US Tax-Funded Aid to Israel Now (SUSTAIN), groups that
calls for the full right of return for Palestinian refugees,
and an end to all US aid to Israel. Quester and Khalil talk about
their entry into solidarity work, their experiences in Palestine
with the International
Solidarity Movement and the challenges currently facing
Palestine activism.
WW3R: Let's start with your backgrounds.
How did you get from point A to point B, where you come from,
your folks.
ZK: My name is Zaid Khalil, I'm an American
national of Palestinian ethnicity. I describe myself that way
because Palestine is not a sovereign state, and I was born in
the US, so culturally I'm more American that anything else, whatever
that means. I was born in South Jersey, God help me, in a fairly
racist town. I've been to occupied Palestine six times, I just
recently got back Oct. 17 from a two month trip there. I've been
there twice this year.
WW3R: Six times your whole life?
ZK: Yeah, first time I went there was
'86, went back in '88, went back in '92, '98, Apr. '02, during
operation Defensive Shield, and Aug. 17 to Oct. 17.
WW3R: And your parents?
ZK: My parents were born in a village
called Al-Mazra'a Ash-Sharqiya, which is 13 km northeast of Ramallah,.
My mother was granted American citizenship from my grandfather,
who came to the United States in 1913, fought in the first world
war for the United States, gained citizenship, went back there,
married. My mom was born, and my mother and father married and
emigrated here in 1957.
WW3R: You wouldn't call yourself a Palestinian-American?
ZK: Well, the reason I identify myself
that way is because I really want people to understand that when
I go over there, I'm an American. For instance, when I go to
a checkpoint, I hand them my American passport, and I'm allowed
to pass through. Through the gun sights of a sniper I'm a Palestinian,
because of the way I look.
WW3R: What about to the Palestinians?
ZK: To Palestinians, I'm both and neither.
On one level I'm American, because just culturally I share characteristics
of Americans. But on another level, people do identify me as
a Palestinian. So for instance, I notice how quickly I'm able
to form relationships with people in the West Bank, like really
quickly.
SQ: I remember people always asking you,
the minute you started speaking Arabic, even though you have
an American accent, "OK, where are you from?", and
what they wanted to know is, Al-Mazra'a Ash-Sharqiya -- like
they needed to place you in a Palestinian context and localize
you. They didn't care where you were from in the US.
WW3R: So how many times have you been
back since the current Intifada began?
ZK: All together, two and half months,
but the first period, when I was there in April, can't be measured
in days, because I would say I was awake almost the equivalent
of the month in the second trip, because it was so incredibly
dangerous, it was so crazy, just awake all the time. Whereas
the second period was very, very different. I mean, much more
institutionalized, the oppression. Much more depressing, in my
opinion.
WW3R: This would be after re-occupation
began in June?
ZK: Yeah. I mean the occupation always
been there, it's been occupied for 35 years. What Palestinians
call "inside 1948," has been occupied since 1948. Palestinians
still refer to Israel very much as occupied territory too, but
they also recognize that it's Israel at the same time.
WW3R: When you say that they know it's
Israel, what does that mean exactly?
ZK: In the American-Israel lexicon, people
talk about recognizing Israel as a state, or recognizing the
existence of Israel. [The Palestinians] can't help to know Israel
exists. It's in their face every day. So Israel exists. They
refer to people as Israelis, or actually, they refer to people
as Jews. The Palestinians don't usually use the term "Israelis."
But that's also because Israelis identify themselves as Jews,
too, which is pretty horrific, if you really think about it.
Because, number one, Judaism is a religion that has existed for
three thousand years. Zionism is not. They've co-opted Judaism
and put it on the side of tanks, you know, the symbol of Jews,
the Star of David on the side of tanks. And F-16's.
WW3R: Sometimes without the flag, it's
just the star, right?
ZK: Yeah. They'll graffiti it, they literally
graffiti it in a way that you can imagine Nazis graffitiing the
swastika.
WW3R: Graffitying on walls and stuff?
ZK: Yeah, so for instance, after they
went through and demolished the whole entire social structure,
all these NGO's and ministries, like the health and education,
after they defecated on the floors and trashed the whole entire
place, looted it, they would put the Star of David on a mirror,
in lipstick
WW3R: So they are using they are using
the star as a symbol of
ZK: Power, dominance. I mean, that you
can't escape. So when Palestinians say Israel exists, they say
it exists as a reality. Only in the mind of a complete narcissist
would people constantly question that. But at the same time there
is this collective memory of Palestine that has not been erased.
And actually, it very much has formed through the Zionist movement.
Because during the Turkish period, you know, there was a certain
amount of autonomy. When people had allegiances, it was local.
The whole idea of the nation state had a devastating effect.
WW3R: Steve, tell me about your background.
SQ: I'm Jewish, I was raised in a not-very-religious
Reform household with liberal and Zionist politics, but the Zionist
thing was not very strong. I was the one that took that ball
and decided to run with it, you know, chose to spend my summers
between junior and senior years in high school in Israel. Spent
a year of college there, and two years there after college. The
story of my political life throughout my adult and teenage years,
is trying to reconcile an anti-racist, anti-imperialist world
view with what I was supposed to think as a Jew about the Middle
East, and it took a long time to work through that. I used to
think I was a traitor, for thinking the things I thought about
Palestine. I'm way over that now.
WW3R: When did you think that?
SQ: When I was in my 20's, I started
looking around me, really thinking through stuff, and reading,
meeting Palestinians and talking to them
WW3R: When you say that you took Zionism
and ran with it, what did Zionism meant to you then, how did
you define it?
SQ: Well, that Jews owed loyalty to Israel,
that Jews automatically have a connection to Israel, that it's
a good thing for Jews to emigrate to Israelthat's what I mean.
I was gonna do it, I was considering the army, the whole nine
yards
WW3R: So was there a decisive turning
point?
SQ: No, everyone wants to know the big
turning point. There was no decisive turning point. It was a
gradual process over many years.
WW3R: You've said that being gay led
you to deal more with the margins when you were in Israel, that
you drifted more towards Arab groups when you were a student.
Can you talk about that?
SQ, Well, I think that being queer, I
think you have a different take on conformity, on what you're
supposed to do and who you are supposed to know, and so it was
just very automatic and natural to me to befriend the Palestinian
who was on my dorm floor at Hebrew University.
WW3R: Is that unusual?
SQ: Yeah, I think so.
WW3R: When you say Palestinian, you mean
Palestinian Israeli?
SQ: Yeah.
WW3R: But Hebrew university is supposed
to be a pretty tolerant place, no?
SQ: Yeah, sure, it's tolerant. They tolerate
the Arabs. [Laughs]
WW3R: And what happened when the current
intifada broke out, where would you say you were politically
at that point?
SQ:, Oh, I just, just completely snapped.
I ran out and bought a Palestinian lapel pin to wear. That's
when my focus changed from peace and dialogue to solidarity.
Y'know? There's like this horrible thing happening to millions
of defenseless people, and people of conscience just have to
be in solidarity with them. And Israel is just obviously the
enemy here.
WW3R: And when you say solidarity, that
means in terms of choosing sides?
SQ: Yeah, I've chosen sides, absolutely.
WW3R: Alright, but is solidarity necessarily
mutually exclusive with dialogue?
SQ: You know, those two years after college
that I lived in Israel, I was all about dialogue, I was a volunteer
with Interns for Peace, we did "encounters" between
Israeli Palestinians and Israeli Jews, primarily children and
youth. And I learned a lot, I acquired a lot of very good skills.
But in terms of moving forward an agenda of liberation, it was
a fucking waste of time, you know,? Let's talk about reconciliation
after liberation. This is no time to do it, you know?
WW3R: And what would liberation require?
SQ: The complete withdrawal of all Israeli
forces from all of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and
all of the Gaza Strip, and the unconditional right of return
for any Palestinian who wants it. And then it's time to start
talking about reconciliation, because there will still be deep
and horrible wounds, and you can never get back the lost half
century or more
WW3R: But do you then support just anything
that goes on in the Palestinian liberation struggle?
SQ: No.
WW3R: Where do you draw the line?
SQ: You know, this struggle for Palestine,
since the beginning of Zionism, has always been about targeting
civilians. Zionism by its nature targets civilians, its about
the removal of a civilian population and its replacement by a
militarized colonial population, so I draw the line at targeting
civilians, which is a much, much smaller phenomenon among Palestinians
than it is among Israelis. With the Palestinians, it's desperate
acts, by desperate people. But in no case is it justified or
justifiable, and in no case does it move forward any kind of
agenda of liberation. I think the suicide bombers are Sharon's
best friend.
ZK: For me it's a little bit fuzzy, I
mean, my biggest fundamental problem is--what are settlers? Do
they constitute civilians? And then, the question is, OK, if
they don't constitute civilians, if we take the view that they
are more or less paramilitary--what about their kids? And do
you justify indiscriminate killing?
SQ: For me, I don't. That's on the wrong
side of the line I drew, you know? I don't support untargeted
attacks on settlements, per se. I don't think that moves forward
an agenda of Palestinian liberation.
WW3R: Well, what about what Zaid's saying?
I mean, some of the settlements serve as military bases, they
have surveillance up there, they occupy the heights. There's
armed settler militia, right? In the [November] Hebron attack,
they were killed along with the soldiers.
SQ: Absolutely. The point is, infiltrating
a settlement, walking into a home, and opening fire on anyone
you can get your gun trained on, even if they're all adults in
the room--I don't see that it's either justifiable or practical,
in terms of the end they're trying to achieve. But, you know
what? It's not my main concern. My main concern is Israeli oppression,
Israeli imperialism, and they way the U.S. uses Israel for its
interests in the Middle East. I'm not the one whose going to
decide how Palestinians are going to liberate themselves. I'm
going to decide how I as an American Jew am going to stand with
Palestinians. So, I'm not going to strap bombs on myself and
walk into a mall in Tel Aviv, alright? But it's not where my
focus needs to be.
WW3R: Zaid, is there somewhere where
you disagree with that?
ZK: Well, not necessarily disagree. But,
I think, basically there's two ways of justifying--not necessarily
justifying, but understanding--attacks against civilians. If
you're going to do armed struggle, you do it from a moral perspective,
or you do it from a tactical perspective, OK? So, now the question
is
WW3R: It can be both, no?
ZK: Well, in general, once you go into
the realm of armed struggle, morals go out the window. You can
take an entirely pacifist stance, and say the killing of anyone
is immoral. OK, I can agree with that, to a certain degree, if
you take that stance. So now, we should judge it based on tactics.
And, one of the things you see, is tactically, attacks on civilians
inside of Israel just doesn't work. I mean, it generates fear,
but fear is not necessarily the only thing you want to generate.
But on one level, tactically, it acts as a deterrent. And to
a certain extent, there needs to be some level of deterrence
against settlers who are publicly subsidized to live in these
places. Not only publicly subsidized, but fully armed and backed
the fourth powerful military in the world. There needs to be
some level of deterrent.
WW3R: But this hasn't been the pattern
that's been followed. There have been attacks in Israel proper
as well as the settlements.
ZK: That's right, and part of the reason
is because settlements have been so difficult to penetrate. They
are colonial fortresses, they sit on top of mountains, they're
entirely ringed by a perimeter, with sniper towers, soldiers
with the best equipment American dollars can pay for. But you
don't have that at settlements like Gilo, the Jerusalem settlements,
which are more easily penetrated by going through Jerusalem,
which Palestinians can do. It's not easy, but I've done it two
or three times myself--gone into Jerusalem without having to
travel through a checkpoint.
WW3R: Why did you want to avoid a checkpoint?
ZK: I think I was just going for different
cab fares, you know? It's like, all of a sudden, you're at Qalandia,
someone says, you know, taxi to Jerusalem, and you're like, well,
alright.
SQ: We went around the Qalandia checkpoint
to get from Mizra Ash-Sharqiyyah to Ramallah. It was interesting
because we had to go through this stone quarry, it was also sweet
because we got this ride to Ramallah. You know, the alternative
is to travel the way the Israelis want you to travel, which is
you get a ride to the checkpoint, wait on line--a rather long
time, in the sun--you subject yourself to the authority of the
state, you go through, and then you get another car.
WW3R: You put yourself at considerable
risk, though.
SQ: You know, whatever. [Laughs] I mean,
if I wanted to minimize the risk, I would have stayed here.
I don't agree, about the minute you chose
armed struggle its not about morality. I don't think there is
anything immoral about taking aim at a soldier, at an occupying
soldier walking down your street, or an armed settler walking
down your street, and shooting him. I don't think there's anything
immoral about that at all.
ZK If you take the extreme pacifist point
of view then all forms of violence against military and settlers
is wrong. My point of view is that soldiers are legitimate targets
and you would have to have a strong argument for attacking colonists.
I feel that there is sufficient justification for attacking
adult colonists.
SQ: And I think that it's telling that
principled pacifists, people who live their life that way, people
like Quakers, Christian Peacemaker Teams, are extremely active
in the Palestinian struggle. You know, it's like, if you're a
pacifist, you don't start deciding that other people do not deserve
human rights cause they're not pacifists. That's not how it works.
WW3R: What if you're asked, well, here
you are going to stand in solidarity with these people, and they're
going in and blowing up civilians in Israel--how do you respond
to that?
SQ: Human rights are not a reward for
good behavior.
ZK: What I say is this. First thing,
not all Palestinians actually support suicide bombings. Many
do. Some consider it morally deplorable, and also harmful to
the whole struggle. You get a wide spectrum. And on the other
side of the spectrum, people say, things like, "Neither
ethics nor tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.
First and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political
battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it
has a great part to play in our war against the occupier."
The quote is from Yitzak Shamir from 1943, who later became an
Israeli Prime Minister. The occupier he was referring to was
the British, who facilitated the Zionist colonial enterprise
from settlements to statehood and after. So you can imagine the
level of contempt he had for the indigenous population.
WW3R: He killed a Swedish diplomat
ZK: Yeah, he killed a Swedish diplomat,
Bernadotte.
SQ. The interesting thing about the Stern
Gang, Shamir's group, is that they were the last people in history
who referred to themselves as "terrorists." This is
a term that had existed since the French Revolution, and up till
that point was primarily a term that people applied to themselves,
it was only after World War two, decades later that it became
a term that one applies to the enemy one wants to delegitimize
JATO AND THE ISM
WW3R: In a nutshell, what is JATO?
SQ: JATO is a group of really smart Jews,
who take an uncompromisingly anti-racist anti-imperialist stand
towards the struggle for Palestine, and stand in solidarity with
freedom for Palestinians.
WW3R: What are their demands, what are
their goals?
SQ: Right of return, total withdrawal
from the '67 territories, and restoration of full human and civil
rights on both sides of the green line, and end to economic attacks
on Palestine, and the end of the muddling and confusion between
anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
WW3R: And what is the ISM?
SQ: The International Solidarity Movement
is a Palestinian-led coalition that invites internationals to
come to Palestine to do non-violent direct action alongside Palestinian
activists.
WW3R: And when did you become involved
in that?
SQ: In April. Someone who had been on
the first August and December campaigns came and spoke at the
founding meeting of the Palestine Activist Forum of New York.
I was thrilled. It sounded like a smart idea, and a very good
fit for me.
WW3R : And how long were you there for?
SQ: April I was there a week, in August
I was there three weeks. Planning to spend all of next summer
there, and I'm going to spend my sabbatical year there in 2004.
WW3R: And what did you come away with
from your time there?
SQ: Now I know what occupation looks
like. I have no idea what it's like to live under occupation,
but I know what it's like to visit under occupation, and it's
really scary and horrible. And I've gotten a chance to sit and
talk with Palestinians under occupation, including people who
support attacks on Israeli civilians. I was able to start to
understand where people are coming from, and
WW3R: What is their rationale?
SQ: You know, I didn't really pick away
at it with people, I didn't really interrogate them. There are
a lot of people who just talk about it very matter of factly,
you know? Wearing a martyr picture around their neck, the pendants,
"this is my brother, he was killed in an operation in Netanya,"
you know? It's like, it's an operation, it's a war. Someone at
an internal JATO report-back this summer, after the nine of us
came back, said, "look, whatever you say about these bombings,
and whatever your stance is on them, it's not mysterious why
they happen."
WW3R: Meaning?
SQ: A military occupation this length
of time, and of this severity, is historically unprecedented.
And it's surprising to me that Palestinian civilians aren't just
flinging themselves at the tanks at this point. So how people
continue to go on at all, it's just amazing to me. And that some
of them are not going to go on anymore? I get it. I totally get
it.
WW3R; So what did you hope you could
accomplish by going there? Did you think you could make a difference?
SQ: Yeah, I thought I could. I thought
that I would afford protection to Palestinians immediately around
me for the time I was there, and that's true, I did. That's limited,
you know, it's limited to one's actual presence, but it's something.
And I felt that I could help make non-violent resistance possible,
because non-violent resistance has been so systematically crushed
by the Israeli military for decades. And I succeeded in that
a little bit, just a little bit.
WW3R: The ISM is helpful in that way,
it helps the Palestinians conduct non-violence?
SQ: A little bit. I think the ISM is
most helpful for morale. I get these emails saying, they've re-occupied
Nablus again, please come back. You know, they feel so abandoned,
they have been so completely abandoned by the world, I think
it's important for them to see internationals willing to put
themselves on the line, at least for a little time.
WW3R: Zaid, what do you think of that?
ZK: It's kind of interesting. See, we're
coming in from different perspectives. I thought that to a certain
degree that I could help out. This last trip really solidified
in me the basic fact that I am Palestinian. When it comes down
to it, if I'm walking down the street and there's a tank 200
meters away, I'm Palestinian. The question is, what's my effectiveness.
And in terms of protecting people, I wasn't effective at all.
WW3R: Because they can tell you're Palestinian?
ZK: Yeah, it's right on my face.
WW3R: But what about internationals in
general, international activists in Palestine?
ZK: I think there are a lot of things
that are good about it, a lot of things that Steve addressed,
as far as raising morale. Probably the most important thing that
will come out of this is that when people go over there and directly
experience it, it kind of changes their relationship with regards
to struggle. It makes them an intrinsic part, they've seen it
with their own eyes, it will be something that they won't forget.
And they come back here, really the place where it matters, and
talk about it and work on it and try to build solidarity here.
I think that's one kind of thing that we haven't worked on well
enough. It's kind of strange that I' ve met more activists from
different parts of the United States in Palestine than I have
in the United States. And that's something that we really need
to start working on as we do our activism here.
SQ: I think in terms of moving Palestinian
liberation forward, the most important thing about volunteering
with ISM is what one can then do, back here. You know, even if
we are primarily talking to people who are already sympathetic
to the Palestinian struggle. I think that by speaking, and by
showing images and relating experiences, we can do a great deal
to strengthen the movement, to strengthen people's resolve to
keep struggling, because we have some credibility, from having
been there.
WW3R: But in terms of non-violent action
on the Palestinian side, do you see internationals as being helpful
to that?
ZK: Theoretically, yes. But every demonstration
I've taken part, where there hasn't been Israelis, they've opened
fire on us--internationals, and Palestinians.
WW3R: How many internationals have been
hit?
ZK: People have been hit by shrapnel.
I've been hit by shrapnel, from an M-16 bullet. The thing is,
you don't necessarily need to hit people. You just need to send
a message, that, we're gonna hit you. I mean, tear gas usually
is sufficient. Let me tell you, 20,30 cans of tear gas, and you
ain't gonna stand it.
WW3R: So you've been in demonstrations
where they've fired live ammo at internationals?
ZK: Oh yeah. I mean, I've been in international-only
demonstrations where they fired live ammo.
SQ: It was my impression that after that
incident
on April 1st, the Israeli soldiers were much more careful
when there were internationals around, that they were not hesitant
to use sound grenades, smoke bombs and tear gas, but that they
held off on the live ammo because it was such bad PR for them
when they hit [activist] Sharon and hospitalized her. She was
an Australian, was hit in the belly, with the bullet.
ZK: I actually disagree. I think they'll
shoot, they won't shoot at anyone, but they'll shoot, and that's
enough, usually, cause the thing is, you have to make it look
erratic. So for instance, when I was in Kuffim, and we organized
a demonstration, first they threw sound bombs, then they threw
the tear gas, and then all of a sudden this soldier came up--[makes
a machine gun noise]--and just started shooting. It was over
everyone's head, but everyone's ducking. Let me tell you, if
there's bullets flying, you're ducking. I don't care who you
are. And that included Palestinians. People are smart enough
to know--you're getting shot at, you duck, you hit the ground.
I hit the ground in a second.
WW3R: And is that the end of the demo?
ZK: After a while, yeah. Non-violence
is something you can do only if you're not going to be met by
massive violence. Once you're met with massive violence, there's
not much you can do. A good example is when the Muqata'a [Palestinian
Authroity HQ] was surrounded the last time, and you had demonstrations
spark up--they shot people, they shot and killed people in Tul
karm,. They shot and killed people in Ramallah
SQ: With the exception of young Baha
[Albahsh],who was killed in Nablus, I'm not aware of any Palestinians
who have been shot and killed in the presence of internationals.
ZK: No, there haven't been.
SQ: I think that's significant.
ZK: I think it is significant.
SQ: I mean, Baha was not at a demonstration,
he was walking down the road with an ISM person
ZK: Actually, they were standing still
SQ: And I believe that the Israeli who
shot him made a mistake, was going against orders, because it
hasn't happened before, or since. They don't want to be doing
this with international witnesses, they've plenty of opportunity
to do it when we're not around.
ZK:I don't think it was a mistake, and
most internationals don't interpret it that way.
WW3R: How do they interpret it?
ZK: They interpret it as a message, because
of the situation of how this kid was killed. He was fourteen
years old, he was standing with three clear internationals about
100 to 120 meters from this tank. In Nablus. And the internationals
were asking him for directions, they had walked with him, they
were asking, where is, he had pointed over in some direction,
just like that, you know?
WW3R: I remember reading press accounts.
I mean ,there was just so much activity, I don't know if the
internationals noticed what was happening. I think it was an
APC, actually,
ZK: Yeah, an APC
WW3R: But is sounded, from the account
of Ewa Jasiewics that they thought he'd been deliberately
targeted.
ZK: Yes.
WW3R: And that the soldiers knew who
Baha was.
ZK: Yes, because they had seen him around,
and this particular commanding officer was particularly harsh
to internationals, picking them up off the street, and sending
them out, as happened to one of the JATO members So basically.,
they're a football field away, right? And they shoot this kid,
there's internationals maybe about two of three away on either
side, right? The
kid's pointing, they shoot him, entering here, exiting out [points
at chest] like, clear, shoot to kill. All the internationals
took it as a clear message. A couple of internationals had already
been taken away by the army, sent to a police station, and processed.
One of them went back to Britain after Baha got killed, because
he was so devastated by it.
Yeah, I think it's obviously not the
internationals' fault for not protecting the kid, but what it
does show is that, Israel has cover. They've got cover.
SQ: Really, who outside of our activist
e-mail circles even knows the story of how Baha got killed.
WW3R: Actually, that ended up in the
Guardian, the Telegraph
SQ. Alright, well, outside this suffocating
US media vacuum it was reported..
ZK: It's interesting to see how they
first reported it. First they said he was a bomber. Then they
said he was throwing a Molotov cocktail. Then they said they
would investigate, and that's when it drops off the radar. I'm
actually interested to see when the investigation of the shooting
incident of me comes to a close
SQ: Yeah, right.
WW3R: Was Baha's death a soldier's decision?
Is that an individual soldier's decision?
ZK: I think that was actually from the
regional commander; he'd been seeing us around.
WW3R: I thought that we could talk about
JATO's upcoming campaign.
SQ: The way that our perspective is frozen
out in the organized Jewish majority, you know, it's not like
there's a debate. I phoned my childhood rabbi, someone I have
very good memories of. I said, I was in the West Bank, I was
thinking I could come talk about what I saw--and he launched
into a rant. You know, he just ranted at me for ten minutes,
it was unbelievable. There was no way he was going to let me
near anybody in that congregation where I had been bar mitzvahed.
WW3R: Zaid, how did you find your way
to JATO?
ZK. [Laughs] That's actually a really
interesting question. I didn't start getting active till a year
ago--literally almost a year ago today. There was this Palestine
Activist Forum meeting where I walked in being the one person
who was not involved in activism at all. It was kind of a blank
slate. I was well-read, which helps, and I also had experience,
you know, of being there, so
One of the reasons I actually decided
to actually go into Palestine activism was because I saw for
the first time that Jews were active on the issue. So I saw that
there's clear chance of entering into the American consciousness.
Because I've always said that Jews in particular in this country
have the strongest voice on this issue. A lot of it has to do
with the underlying racism in this country. Namely, that you
can't take a Palestinian or an Arab at his word, you know. And
as I became more active, and started working more closely with
these people, they developed into my friends, which is entirely
kind of normal for me.
WW3R: So you're saying before you met
these folks you didn't have much sense that there were anti-occupation
Jews
ZK: I mean, I saw groups like Jews For
Justice in Palestine, which published that pamphlet, but outside
of a few intellectuals, I didn't know about it. It's entirely,
entirely squashed. Not only within the overall media, and the
way things are framed, but within the context of the way Arabs
view this issue--which is really unfortunate. They view it through
lenses that are similar to the media lenses. Namely, instead
of looking at it from the standpoint of imperialism, they look
at it from the standpoint of Jews controlling--you know, controlling
these imperial powers. So it was that the Jews controlled Britain,
the Jews control the United States.
WW3R: And that's not what it is?
ZK. [Laughs] I mean, that's pretty ridiculous.
One thing I said to Palestinians, is "Let's take a look
at a state that has had lots of cooperation with Israel, let's
take a look at Saudi Arabia. Now, through this logic, would you
extend, and say that King Fahd is a Zionist? To get the technical
sense of what Zionism means, it means, Jews from around the world
emigrate to Israel. Emigrate to Palestine to create a state for
the Jews. I mean do you really think that King Fahd gives a shit?
Do you think that George Bush really cares about Jews emigrating
to Palestine? I mean, he might [Laughs]
SQ: I really don't think he does. I think
he cares about oil profits.
WW3R: We don't know, he may be a Christian
Zionist.
ZK: He may be. I mean, Bush is kind of
on the fringe of religious fanaticism. Let's look at Clinton,
or any other administration that has supported Israel. And what
you see is that you just can't reconcile this vision of the Jews
controlling everything and the overall structure of power, and
the institutions that it serves ..
WW3R: You talked about seeing these Jews
that were involved in this. I assume that meant something to
you.
ZK: Well, I want to clarify. A lot of
that has to do with restructuring my own internal biases. So
for instance when I first entered conversations with people on
this issue, the first thing I would do is, you know, give a whole
slew of Jewish and Israeli intellectuals who argue this perspective.
But I don't necessarily agree with that, I don't want to fall
into those traps of feeding into this form of racism against
Arabs. You know, there are people who are telling the truth,
and it shouldn't matter what their ethnicity was
SQ: I want to support that. I mean part
of what helped with moving my own transformation along was a
decision to read what people had to say about themselves. So
I picked up "The Arabs of Israel" by Sabri Jiryis.
And I started reading Palestinian poetry, et cetera. I think
it's really, really crucial to listen to people speak for themselves.
That's something JATO has made a point of. We'll get invited
to a place to speak, because we're Jewish, and we're pro-Palestinian,
and we'll use that as leverage, but we'll show up with Zaid,
or we'll show up with Nihaya. And we'll be like, OK, "Now
it's time to listen to a Palestinian, helllloooo." So yeah,
I think that's really important.
THE CAMPAIGN
TO END U.S. AID
WW3R: Let's talk about the upcoming JATO
campaign to end US aid to Israel.
SQ: There are a bunch of us in JATO who
think that US aid is root of the problem, that without US aid
to Israel there would be no occupation, because it would be unsustainable.
We don't have any illusions that we're going to end US aid to
Israel. But we think that in order to illuminate what's really
happening internationally and it's implications for Palestinian
people, it's important to focus on US aid, and it's important
to focus on the way that the United States aid package for Israel
is ultimately a subsidy package for well-placed US corporations,
many of them based in Texas.
WW3R: Who are Israel's defense contractors
and so on?
SQ: Exactly.
WW3R: Why does JATO want to end all US
aid?
SQ: Because ending aid would end the
occupation.
WW3R: OK, well, what argument do you
use to people who say "Well, you know, if we end all US
aid to Israel they wont be able to defend themselves, and they're
under attack."
SQ: They're not under attack, they're
attacking, and they are clearly able to defend themselves. The
US aid is not going to self-defense, it's going to oppression
of Palestinians. Israel has an extremely large and well-armed
army that without another penny of US aid could perfectly well
defend from attack.
ZK. I agree with everything you're saying,
but ideologically, I frame it entirely differently. Decision
of where aid is going should be based on need. And Israel is
the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world. They don't need
aid. They'd have a self-sustainable economy, if they didn't spend
40% of their budget on their military, which is aggressive, like
Steve was saying. People actually say, if you cut US aid, you
are being anti-Semitic. There are people on the left who actually
argue that. But you have to look at aid from the framework of
need. Now, granted, that is not how US aid is distributed. From
the PR perspective, that's how it's distributed, but it's nonsense.
Obvious places for need are, you know, sub-Saharan Africa. But
all of sub-Saharan Africa combined doesn't get the aid that Israel
gets.
SQ: All of sub-Saharan Africa plus all
of Latin America minus Colombia combined, does not get the aid
that Israel gets. You know, take the three billion and redirect
it to the global fund on AIDS--you'll be doing something good
with the money.
ZK: Yeah! I mean, when people say "end
us aid to Israel," the logical corollary to that is, "because
they don't need it."
WW3R: The BBC ran a story this week that
the IMF came out and said that Israel doesn't need additional
aid, "special aid" as it's put, to get out of this
recession, which is how it's been billed. So, what's JATO planning
to do?
SQ: There's been talk about doing some
high-profiles "zaps" of pro-aid national figures. Disrupt
a speech by Hillary Clinton, for instance. There's been an idea
floated of putting together a conference in Washington, of various
Palestine activist groups opposed to US aid to Israel, and inviting
politicians, seeing who comes, you know? We ought to see who
our friends are. We don't have a lot of them
WW3R: Might hear nothing but the crickets
chirping
SQ: You know, there's one or two congressmen
who I think might show
WW3R: Who?
SQ: Maxine Waters, John Conyors., you
know? It would be cool if they did, right?
ZK: How about that guy from Texas, Ron
Paul.
SQ: Maybe, could happen. You know, a
lot of the things JATO's gonna do are the things that JATO has
been doing all along, but just connecting it to US aid. Like
we're having a Hannukah action, we're gonna teach you about the
economic strangulation of Palestine, AND we're gonna tell you
that US aid supports all this.
WW3R: JATO has a different approach from
SUSTAIN, right? SUSTAIN'S approach is more incremental.
SQ: JATO has tried to focus itself from
going from just Palestine solidarity as a whole, to ,let's just
focus on US aid. SUSTAIN has gone from, the focus on US aid is
too big, to let's go after caterpillar, and when were done with
them, let's go after someone else, because it can raise awareness.
But, I also get the impression from being on the No Aid to Israel
listserv, which is SUSTAIN"S listserv, for SUSTAIN, ending
aid to Israel is a hook on which to hang Palestine activism.
And that, as individuals what they're really about is the same
thing as people in JATO and people in PAFNY and the people in
Al-Awda, which is Palestine activism, and that, you know, the
ending aid thing even though that seems to be in their name their
raison d'etre, is a hook.
ZK: Personally, I want to form a SUSTAIN
chapter in New York. For the very reason of addressing ending
US aid in particular, to particularly non-Jewish activists, because
I think there's a void in NYC that isn't addressed.
ISRAEL AND
U.S. IMPERIALISM
WW3R: Alright, well here's something
which I've been trying to figure out which I'd like both of your
opinions on. There's different theories as to why the US is sinking
all this money into Israel year after year after year and this
you could sort of call the pork-barrel theory, that it's about
defense contractors who are making money off of the weapons sales
and so on, and then there's what you might call the Jewish conspiracy
theory, which is that America is controlled by Israel, and that
AIPAC is pulling the strings, and then there's what you might
call the Chomsky theory, which I've always bought, which is that
the US needs a proxy force in the middle east as a counter-balance
the Arabs. But it seems to me that since the end of the cold
war, and since operation Desert Storm, that's made a lot less
sense. Because during the cold war, when Nasser was in power,
and so on, the Arab world was closer to the Soviet Union, at
least the radical states in the Arab world were closer to the
Soviet Union. And a lot of the other states were sort of equidistant
between the two powers, and there was this sense that there was
a proxy force that was needed to counterbalance them. Now it's
been more than ten years, there is no more Soviet Union, and
since Desert Storm, when the first Bush built this sort of new
Pax Americana, and actually wooed a lot of the Arab states over
into his camp. I've been a little bit stumped actually as to
why this relationship persists. And why US imperialism still
perceives Israel as a useful proxy.
SQ: I think that the Chomsky theory and
that the pork-barrel theory are inseperable, that the ultimately
it's always been about oil profits. And what's underlying the
Chomsky theory is US craving for oil profits for a very small
segment of Americans, ultimately, and I think that the end of
the Cold War doesn't impact on that need at all, that the United
States and its allies continue to need an unstable, and dependent
Middle East in order to continue to extract oil profits from
it. A middle east in which Arab self-determination is really
consolidated, they way Nasser was trying to do, would put the
end to the outflow of capital from that region to this
WW3R: Right, but antagonizing the Arabs
with this continued massive support for Israel is only going
to hasten the demise of compliant regimes.
SQ: Well, I think the facts on the ground
have not borne you out. That even as United States support for
Israel has become more and more uncritical, and more and more
lavish, the number of illegitmate Arab proxy states for US imperialism
has increased. And the extent to which Arab ruling interest kind
of kow-tow to the United States have increased. I think the sort
of general level of turmoil that exists as long as this irritant
is stuck in the side of the Arab nation, it is a very good thing,
for, for the United States. I think that, to put it crudely,
the Arabs cant get their shit together, as long as they've got
this monster army doing the US' bidding on the eastern shore
of the Mediterranean.
WW3R: How is it preventing them from
getting their shit together?
SQ: Because they're focused on Palestine,
and not on their problems.
WW3R: But that might actually prove a
catalyst to them getting their shit together.
SQ: Hasn't yet. That's what Nasser tried
to do, and he crashed and burned.
ZK. See, I actually disagree with your
interpretation of Chomsky's theory because if I'm correct the
Soviet Union was never in the picture in his theory the whole
idea was that US support for Israel is to diminish-- serve as
a proxy-- to diminish any form of radical nationalism --the kind
of virus --the spreading of the virus of independent states taking
on their own initiatives.
WW3R: Wel,l yes, but the Soviets were
encouraging that. They supported Nassar and they supported Saddam
and Assad
SQ: Yes, but the United States also,
would, supported Saddam. The United States also supported. In
terms of, like for instance Nassar first went to all western
Europe. First they went to the United States to buy arms.
WW3R: Yes
SQ: And this is very similar to
WW3R: But all that changed with '56
SQ: Nicaragua, you know. Nicaragua went
to everywhere but the Soviet Union to defend themselves initially.
Initially. And no one would sell them anything. So it wasn't
the Soviet Union in general regard the Middle East as US territory.
And they didn't really put that much focus. Yes they armed Syria
as you know, as a deterrent against Israel, but Israel was essentially
put in there to be the regional bully. With the help of their
local cops on the beat, Iran and Turkey.
ZK: And the Phalangists.
SQ: Well those were the colonial gendarmes
of Israel. But like also Pakistan was a part of that. The thing
is, is that radical nationalism has been replaced and to a large
extent due to US interference with what's now emerging as a kind
of Islamic form of I guess people like to call it fundamentalism.
But but it's more or less an Islamic form of nationalism. Creating
an Islamic nation. And so now this is this was fairly clear from
the 80s. This kind of transition. From this cold war independent
radical nationalism to now focusing on this type of Islamic nation
that's being borne out. So Israel still plays that role. Because
it can now move into on one level support on another level crush
it
WW3R: Well Israel is not going to crush
Islamist uprising in Saudi Arabia or Egypt. And in fact it can
serve as a provocation for such uprisings.
SQ: That's true. I mean This is
WW3R: I mean I'm trying to figure this
out myself. I'm frankly confused.
SQ: I don't know if support for Israel
is about maintaining credibility.
WW3R: Credibility of what?
SQ: Namely if the US changes its stance
on Israel, well God knows who they're going to change their stance
on next. Israel's like the love of the American elite. They've
been so since '67.
WW3R: Right but why has it persisted
so long. That's what I'm trying to figure out.
ZK: Look at the results. I mean, things
are great for the United States and Egypt. You've got 50 million
people there. Something really independent and anti-imperialist
arose there. Like Nassar tried to do. That would be really bad
for the US. Things are great there now; we've got Mubarak. He's
in firm control. It's been that way for a couple of decades.
That's all about Israel. That's all about all this manipulation
that happened with Carter around Camp David. It's what put Saddam,
Mubarak in where they are as firmly in power as they are. I think
that Israel has played a really, really useful role for the US
in the region. Is the US playing a dangerous game? Sure. Could
US policy spark an Islamist uprising in Saudi Arabia or Egypt?
Sure, but I think that this whole package of alliances, and aid,
and rivalries -- the whole web the US keeps going around Israel
is what would probably cause an Islamist rebellion to fail.
The power and the strength of tyrants like Mubarak and Fahd have
everything to do with the US power in the region that's centered
in Israel.
WW3R: I see that has to do with US power
because the US is certainly providing plenty of aid and petro-dollars
respectively to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but what does it have
to do with Israel?
Zaid: What you're really hitting on are
some really important paradoxes. On one levelm it's so weird
that you're bringing this up because these are real paradoxes
that I'm not exactly sure how to reconcile. On one level you
do see this kind of, things do, it can, it's not that great for
the United States and what indication's that it's not that great
is their current plans. Their current plans of redrawing the
Middle East signifies that something needs to be changed in order
to further this alliance, this kind of re-alliance towards us
, reliance towards us, otherwise known as obedience, more or
less. And now the question is how does it fit in with Israel.
And so on one level I think I'm trying to make it rational, rationalize
it, but then there's serious irrational segments of this administration
that have to be looked at really carefully. So for instance this
is what I was talking to you guys about before You have full
infiltration of super pro-Israeli Likudnik hawks from specifically
the Pentagon. They see it in terms of dual interests. For instance,
JINSA-- which is where a lot of these guys come from, including
Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, the 2002 Henry "Scoop"
Jackson award-- which is the JINSA award in honor of Henry Jackson
who was a US Senator back in the 60s, super pro-Israeli senator
--that was given to Wolfowitz. The previous year was given to
the secretaries of the three armed forces, the Air Force, the
Navy, and the Army. And you know Wolfowitz was part of numerous
position papers calling for regime change in Iraq. JINSA's overall
framework is guarding the security interests of the United States
and Israel. And what I'm wondering is, is this ideologically
driven? Does it extend beyond this rational theme of imperialism
to move into this kind of irrational scheme of just, almost sheer
racism and domination through racism? I mean, Henry Kissinger,
when he formulated his plan of stalemate back in the 1970s, it
was almost entirely based upon racism.
WW3R: What kind of stalemate?
SQ: Stalemate being that at that point
Sadat was trying to basically negotiate with Israel. Calling
for full withdrawal for full peace. And which was actually more
than what was eventually "compromised" in the Camp
David accords in '78. But that was blocked by Kissinger . He
said let's do this process called stalemate. No peace, no negotiations,
only force. And his whole entire framework was that they had
nothing to fear about these Arab armies. These guys don't know
how to operate a gun. This was what the guy was saying. A lot
of this actually can be found inside of "Fateful Triangle."
This disgust. I think there are frameworks of racism --there
is a system of racism inside this kind of framework of thought
that should be addressed that is irrational. I mean I don't know.
I really don't know
SQ: I think that the US for the most
part behaves very rationally in pursuit of its own imperial interests.
Yes, Bush is surrounded by millennial Christian fundamentalists.
But Clinton wasn't, and he tried to, at Camp David, to lock the
key in the Palestinian jail. It doesn't mean that they're going
to succeed. So far I think that, you know, the US ruling class
has been very successful in pursuing their own interests but,
you know, Bismarck was very rational in pursuing German interests
and ultimately failed. So yes they could misstep. Yes, there
could be a disaster. But I think that at the core of their doing
is just rational pursuit of greed.
ZK: It could really just be this same
concept of stalemate playing. Yes. It could really be that. I
mean, why are we insisting on regime change in Iraq? Why is it
that these guys can be so outright in their statements? For instance
Perle and Feith. Feith, Douglas Feith is now, he's director of
Middle East policy for the Pentagon. Why is it that they can
go to the incumbent Netanyahu administration in 1996 and lay
out plans that they're implementing right now? I mean, this administration
is different than the Clinton administration. It's actually different
than the previous Bush administration too. It's much more like
Reagan. And there are marginal differences, namely
SQ: But they're marginal.
ZK: They're marginal but the effects
are not marginal. Like what they pursue in policy may be marginally
different but the overall effects it can have can be fairly dramatic.
SQ: But don't you think that the suffering
that's happening right now all over Palestine isn't that, aren't
Palestinians reaping what Clinton and Barak sowed?
ZK: Yes. But this could only be the beginning.
And that's, I think, when you look at what these lunatics are
planning, which they spelled out in '96
WW3R: Which is what, '96?
ZK: Yeah, '96 when Richard Perle, Douglas
Feith, David Wurmser, they were all inside of the administration
on one level or another.
WW3R: Abrams, too?
ZK: No, Abrams wasn't part of that advisory
group. Abrams, Rumsfeld, bunch of other guys, Wolfowitz
WW3R: All right, so what did they do
in '96?
ZK: They were giving their advice as
to what the Netanyahu administration to do. And the first thing
was supporting regime change in iraq. They said, and I'm quoting,this
is an important strategic asset to Israel in and of itself, because
it neutralizes Syria, Syria's territorial ambitions, meaning
the return of the occupied Golan heights And also, will neutralize
Iran. Michael Ledeen, who is also a contributor, came up with
the concept, along with this whole entire group, envisions this
concept of, what's called, "total war' where its not just,
we must be in permanent war, and we cant lose sight of just Iraq,
but, Iran and Saudi Arabia are to follow. I mean, real lunatics.
And, you can just dismiss this as pure nonsense, if you're a
rational person, it does sound like nonsense. The problem is,
they're all running the show, so you have to take it seriously.
SQ: For me, it's like, imagine that you
drop an inkblot on very porous paper, and you watch it spread.
That's American power in the Middle East. You start with the
Arabian peninsula, most of it, there were some problems in Yemen,
you know, then you had Jordan, but that was kind of unstable,
then you had Israel, it's a good wedge, and over the years, the
power has spread and spread and spread so now we've got Egypt,
we hadn't before, Syria's no longer a problem, used to be a problem.
Jordan is completely entrenched and stable now. Lebanon used
to be a problem, has stopped being a problem. And now we're gonna
take care of Iraq, and just move it out, move it out, you know,
we've got Afghanistan, so then Iran will be surrounded, so they're
next. To me, it looks to me like a progressive march of power;
and it certainly doesn't' seem like Israel has impeded that,
that US support of Israel has impeded that march at all.
WW3R: How has it helped?
SQ: That's-I think it's complex, and
its complex in ways that I don't fully understand. But, I think
that there's something about keeping an irritant in an area you
want to control, that is useful to the empire, because as long
as there's an irritant, as long as there's turmoil, you're in
a better position to play forces against each other.
ZK: also, it's not just the Middle East
region where Israel serves as a strategic client, if the US wants
to do anything nefarious, particularly in South and Central America,
Israel is the channel to go through. Or South Africa. When congress
called for sanctions, the Reagan administration, Reagan and bush,
just re-routed it thru Israel.
SQ: And the United States will always
have a foothold. Let's say that the inkblot theory weren't the
case. Let's say that things go south for US imperial interests;
the Saudi royal family is overthrown, Mubarek is overthrown,
Abdullah is overthrown.. Israel cannot turn against the United
States. A surge of Israeli nationalism only leads to a stronger
alliance with the United States, it's the opposite of every other
country in the region. So, there will always, always be this
strong military foothold. You know, if these calculations fail,
if the attack on Iraq causes this horrible calamity for US imperial
interests, well, you can pick up the pieces and start again.
Start in Tel Aviv, and move on out again. We can never be shut
out of the region.
ZK: I don't know if this is a worry for
US planners, but there's also another scenario, I've forgot what
its called, there's a specific term for it, but it's basically
the madman scenario, the crazy scenario, that the US drops its
support for Israel, that Israel might just nuke the world. In
1982, for instance, Saudi Arabia made a proposal, that is almost
identical to the proposal they made in 2002, and Israel had a
reaction to that. What they did is send a bunch of fighter jets
over the Saudi peninsula. And it was a clear signal. It was a
signal to specifically to the United States. Don't-we're not,
you know, we're running our own agenda here, and you've basically
built up a Sparta, and it might go out of control, so you'd better
stay in line. It's kind of like the tail wagging the dog. I don't
know how significant it is, but it's certainly a possibility.
SQ: There's an interesting parallel from
the cold war. That you know, it was never the Soviet Union, that
dictated what Cuba did, you know, Castro would figure out something
Cuba could do that would be nice for the Soviet Union, and go
to Kruschev or whoever and say, now how much more are you going
to give us. So, I think there is an element of that, in terms
of this is not an obedient client state, but it is a strategic
asset.
THE "APARTHEID
WALL"
WW3R: I want to talk about the fence,
because that's part of the current ISM campaign, to focus on
the fence, right?
ZK: The fence. My God. Alright, what
you have right now, it's just unbelievable. I mean, basically
what's happening is the construction of ghettos, in places like
Qalqilya, Tul Karm, and all the adjacent villages. And
the fence is not a fence, it's a wall, it's a 30 meter wall,
with a sniper tower every half-kilometer. Steve, you've
seen pictures of them.
SQ: Your pictures of that wall freaked
me out. I had no fucking idea till you showed those slides at
the mosque in Long Island. You need to show those slides to EVERYBODY.
ZK: People try to say it's like the Berlin
Wall. It's nothing like the Berlin Wall. It's completely
SQ: It's much bigger.
ZK: It's bigger, it's like, it's much
more, man, it's much more Nazi-like. I swear to God, I don't
use that term loosely. I mean, they're constructing ghettos,
literal ghettos.
WW3R: How so?
ZK: I mean, so for instance, Qalqilya
is surrounded 80% by this wall. And the wall's not on the Green
Line. It's inside the West Bank. And the way they're confiscating
land, they're not putting out the whole map of what they're going
to take. What they do is, they issue orders little by little,
and simultaneously, in different areas, so all of a sudden, they
just see how much they can get away with, and then they take
a little more; see how much they can get away with, and then
take a little more.
SQ: Did you know that there are American
Jewish philanthropists who are financing the building of the
wall in the northern West Bank, because Jews in Afula and that
area have been complaining, how come they don't get a wall? "They
get a wall in Petah Tikva, how come we don't get a wall in Afula?"
WW3R: Afula is where?
SQ: In the north, just north of Jenin,
near Beit She'an
WW3R: I thought the intention of the
wall was to completely encircle the West Bank?
SQ: The intention of the wall is to separate
Palestinian population centers in the West Bank from Jewish population
centers in Israel.
ZK: That's one part of it. But it's also
to further integrate the central Samarian settlements into Israel
permanently. For instance, Ariel. My uncle is a cartographer
that has written a pretty extensive paper on it, and he's expecting
that they're going to incorporate Ariel inside the wall. Ariel
goes all the way past Salfit, which is 20 km inside the Green
Line. But the way it's being done is that it takes more and more.
So Alfe Menashe, and Zufin--these are settlements that are around
the Qalqilya area. Qalqilya marks the beginning of the central
region, the "greater Samaria region"--that's the settlement-colony
term. And so what happens is when you incorporate this through
this wall, what you're essentially doing is disconnecting Palestine
from Palestine, disconnecting the West Bank from itself, you're
instituting cantonization. And when you add on the way the wall's
going to be encircling population centers, like TulKarm and Qalqilya,
you have the creation of a full ghetto.
WW3R: So this wall is not going to go
in a straight line, it's actually going to make circles around
Tul Karm and Qalqilya?
ZK: Oh, yeah. Qalqilya is going to be
encircled about 80%, like this [makes a horseshoe shape with
his hands]. Jayyous, same thing. Jayyous is more extreme than
Qalqilya, because Jayyous lost 70% of it's land in 1948, so they've
been farming on the remaining 30%, and they're losing 90% of
that, about 12,000 dunams. What's going to be left is just the
city. Now, to get to Jayyous, what you have to do is stop in
a roadblock at a town called Azzoun, which is like 5-10 kilometers
away, and grab a taxi. And even that's going to be cut off. So,
in other words, you can't drive to Jayyous from anywhere in the
West Bank. Like, let's suppose you're going to take your car
starting off from Qalqilya--you wouldn't be able to get there.
You can't even leave Qalqilya, because there's a checkpoint.
There's no way to get out. So it's permanent cantonization of
each and every single area. This is South Africa times 20.
WW3R: Now why is the wall circling around
it? Are there settlements on each side?
ZK: Yes. It's entirely surrounded by
settlements. It's also got to do with what land they want to
take. That region is the water-rich region of the West Bank.
In Jayyous alone-- and this is a small village, like 3,000 acres;
not much, right?--there are seven water aquifers. So this is
like, the water rich basin. The type of crops that grow there
are amazing--you have mangoes, you have oranges, you have grapefruits
WW3R: So it's no accident what they're
grabbing?
ZK: Oh no, it was carefully planned.
SQ: It also seems to increase the benefit
of the wall for the Israeli demographic warriors, because you
know, on the Israeli side of the wall, you have a bunch of empty
land, that was Palestinian West Bank land that was confiscated
to build the wall. The wall goes smack up against homes on the
Palestinian side. If the wall is constructed in a way to make
life in those homes unlivable, you can, to an extent, depopulate
the Palestinian side, you can create that empty space on the
other side too.
WW3R: The original intent, I think, [former
Defense Minister] Ben Eliezer's intent, was motivated by security
concerns, right?
ZK: Yeah, and I think they're gonna get
some results from it.
WW3R: Well, There's no doubt they're
going to get results from it, because there haven't been any
suicide attacks from Gaza, which is already walled.
ZK: Yes. Yes, that's correct. That's
exactly what they're doing, Gazafication of West Bank.
WW3R: But at the same time they're using
this fence to grab stuff.
ZK: Yes.
WW3R: Any closing thoughts?
SQ: What is crystal clear, I think, to
an observer from the outside, is that any agreement that does
not include full Israeli withdrawal from all territories occupied
in 1967 will fail. And so, any Israeli politician who's walking
into talks with an idea that full withdrawal from the 1967 occupation
is unacceptable, is going to walk away without an agreement.
ZK: Well, they might have an agreement,
they just won't have peace.
SQ: That's been crystal clear since 1967.
WW3R: Anything else?
SQ: Everything that distracts from an
analysis of imperialism and of corporate manipulation of state
policy is ultimately barking up the wrong tree while the dirty
work carries on.
ZK: Do you think if the organized Jewish
community took an anti-racist stance with regards to US policy
in Israel, do you think they could maintain the same level of
support that they have now?
SQ: I think that JATO can drive a wedge.
What's stopping a lot of Americans, Jewish and not Jewish from
taking an anti-imperialist stance or anti-racist stance is accusations
of anti-Semitism. I think that does play a role in public opinion,
and I think we can short -circuit that. When we did our report-back
at Union Theological Seminary someone said, "You know I
get accused of anti-Semitism by my Jewish friend when I want
to talk about this." I turned to him and said, "Use
us as cover." You know? Don't let them cow you. People need
to hear that.
Bill Weinberg
and David Bloom are co-editors of the e-weekly War
on Terror news compendium World
War 3 Report. They can be reached at feedback@worldwar3report.com.
Jews Against the Occupation can be reached
at jatonyc@yahoo.com
SUSTAIN NYC can be reached through Zaid
Khalil: zaidkhalil@yahoo.com.
The International Solidarity Movement
can be reached at huwaida@palsolidarity.org.
Yesterday's
Features
Anthony Gancarski
What
Does Charlie Want?
Notes on Shared Sacrifice and the Draft
Jason Leopold
Dead
Man Walking in the Pentagon:
Will Rummy Fire Thomas White?
Kurt Nimmo
The
Folly of Total War
Muqtedar Khan
Bush's
Nuclear Policy:
Moral Clarity or Double Standard?
William Hughes
Chutzpahgate:
Is it the End of Sharon?
Bill Christison
Behind
the Power Curve:
Lost in the Folds of Iraq and North Korea
Makeda Mikael
John Malvo: the View from Antiqua
Josh Frank
CEO Bush and the Muddling of American Minds
Dan Ross
A Vietnam Vet on the Way of Peace
Adam Engel
Dual Use for the Weird Uncle Sam Society
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|