Some more Arab-Israeli conflict…

Prof. Chomsky replied to my last email published in a previous post.

This is his (very long) answer:

I will return to your letter below, but first would like to bring up your general charge, and the one that is most important to me: namely, that the panel “DID NOT contribute to find solutions for peace, but rather lacked of any academic spirit of discussion and learning and was purely propaganda (mainly when for every question the panel instead of answering they diminished publicly the student by calling them ‘illiterate’).”

We can first dismiss your claim about “every question” and diminishing the student. It was all videotaped, so you can check, and determine very quickly that your impression is so totally wrong as to suggest that you just couldn’t bring yourself to attend to what was happening. The incident arose exactly once, and it was not a student. It was an older man who shows up at every event and launches into a hysterical diatribe against me, in this case claiming that I supported Hamas rockets and wanted to see Jews killed. My response was that he should try “literacy” and read what I had written about it, which I then quoted. That was the appropriate response to one single disgraceful tantrum. You parenthesis is totally false, and rather surprising. Surely it was the hysterical tantrum that is not conducive to serious debate, and you might want to ask yourself why you derived the incredible picture you report.

But let’s keep to the important part: “the panel “DID NOT contribute to find solutions for peace, but rather lacked of any academic spirit of discussion and learning and was purely propaganda.” Plainly, I anm concerned with this very serious charge, for which you do not attempt to provide a particle of evidence. I’m interested personally since I regularly give talks like this, and want to make sure that they contribute to discussion and understanding and are not propaganda, let alone “pure propaganda.” I have my notes in front of me, and will review briefly what I said in the 20 minutes alloted to me.

I began by reviewing standard, near univeral, assumptions in the mainstream about the nature of the conflict, giving a few examples from major recent articles in the national press — and of course could have added many more: namely, the US has been an honest broker, trying to bring two adversaries to a peaceful settlement, one Israel, which is seeking a partner for peace, the other Arab and Muslim states (Syria, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Turkey), which the US must somehow induce “to take the hard steps to forge a durable peace with Israel.”

I then reviewed the record of diplomacy, including Obama, in a style that could easily have been published in Diplomatic History, showing that the standard picture is exactly the opposite of the truth in every crucial respect. Israel and the US rejected Sadat’s peace proposal in 1971, choosing expansion over peace, leading to the 73 war, after which the US-Israel were slowly brought to accept Sadat’s proposal (in essence) at Camp David. Meanwhile, Palestinian nationalism entered the international agenda, explicitly in 1976, when the US vetoed a Security Council proposal calling for a two-state settlement on the international border, brought by the relevant Arab states. Since then there has been a very broad international consensus (IC) to the same effect. blocked unilaterally by the US and Israel, continuing now with Obama. I also noted that there had been one exception: Taba in January 2001, when the two sides came close to agreement, and expressed their view that they could have with a little more time, but negotiations were terminated prematurely by Barak. Hence, to repeat, the standard picture is completely false. The Arab states (and of course Turkey) long ago “took the hard steps” (and though I didn’t review it, so did the PLO-PNC, as you know), but the IC had been blocked by the US and Israel, now alone, since it is also accepted by Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah.

I then reviewed Israel’s policies, specifically Olmert’s “hitkansut” — expanded farther after the Lebanon war — and gave a few brief and uncontroversial facts about them, pointing out that US-Israel not only reject the IC in words, but far more importantly in their daily deeds, citing also the Peace Now report that was published that morning on the plans to double settlers.

I then reviewed the options for the future: (1) the IC, if the US-Israel will abandon their rejectionism, which need not lead to a civil war, as wrongly assumed, for reasons I discussed; (2) an apartheid state over all of the former Mandate; (3) continuation of the US-Israeli policies. I also reviewed the strong ties between the US-Israel: military, intelligence, high tech investment, shifting of Israeli military production to the US, using Israel as a military base for prepositioning supplies (again during the attack on Gaza), noting that there are no real counterforces, so we can anticipate (3), unless the population of the US organizes to compel the government to drop its rejectionist stance and return to something like Taba and the IC.

Now to my question: what part of this is purely propaganda, DOES NOT contribute to peace, and lacks any spirit of academic discussion and learning? More specifically, given 20 minutes what would you suggest should have been excluded, and what should have replace it, in order to avoid pure propaganda and to contribute to peace in the style of academic discussion and learning?

The discussion afterwards, of course, was controlled by the questioners. During the discussion I refuted some other standard, in fact near universal, claims: that Israel had a right to self-defense in Gaza by force, clearly false for the reasons I gave; that Hamas is responsible for breaking the cease-fire by rocketing, clearly false (as you agree), and a few others. The same questions arise, with regard to the discussion, about your very serious charge, for which you provide no evidence or argument.

I also do not see why Gendzier’s review of early USG documents, mostly unknown, and highly relevant, merits your very serious accusation of being purely propaganda and lacking any spirit of academic discussion.

I’ll now turn to your letter, comments interspersed.

Noam Chomsky

Next the transcript only of his interspersed comments – I will not repeat my email again:

(…)

Your “fact” is plainly irrelevant. What I said was that Hamas supports the IC, that is, a two-state solution. There is no IC on UN 194. On that the documentation is overwhelming. As I wrote, one can certainly say that Hamas’s clear and explicit support for the IC does not go far enough, though that is an odd comment, particularly from an Israeli, since Israel (like the US) flatly rejects the IC altogether, not only words but more importantly in deeds. Your comment, I’m afraid, is not only irrelevant but just an evasion. As I said, Hamas has joined the IC, the US-Israel are blocking it. “That is a fact.”

(…)

I can send you Khamenei’s statement if you like. Your criticism again is very odd, particularly from an Israeli. Again, one may argue that Iran did not go as far as Israel would like, but it has joined the IC, unlike Israel, which rejects it in words and more important in daily deeds. I might add that I am a little surprised that you refer to the “call to wipe Israel off the map.” Surely you know that that is a US-Israeli fabrication, exposed years ago by Juan Cole, who gave the accurate translation: Ahmadinejad quoted a statement of Khomeini’s (from the years when Israel was supporting him) which said that in the end of days Israel will vanish — a position much like that of Hashomer Hatzair pre-1948, as you surely know, having been a member. There was not a word about use of force against anyone. I realize that Israeli hasbara clings to this falsification desperately, but is that a reason for you to do so?

(…)

In that case, you are mistaken, for the reasons I discussed. He did not “put together the peace treaty.” Rather, he was very reluctantly compelled to adopt the peace proposal that Sadat had offered in 1971 (in essence), after the near catastrophe of 1973. He deserves no credit for that, nor for his immediate moves to undermine the spirit of the Camp David agreement by rapidly expanding the illegal settlements in the territories — which he knew were illegal, as I mentioned in the talk.

(…)

To continue, for doing so in 1988. Israel responded immediately by a formal declaration (Peres-Shamir) that there can be “no additional Palestinian state” between Israel and Jordan, and that the future of the territories will be determined by Israeli “guidelines.” To this day Israel has never gone anywhere near as far as the PNC in 1988. And of course Israel does not renounce violence.

(…)

I appreciate your agreeing with what I’ve been writing for 40 years, and repeated at the forum. But, rather strikingly, you say nothing about Israel violence, which has always vastly exceeded Palestinian violence, often without even attempt to provide a credible pretext, as in the bombing of Lebanon in 1975 that I mentioned, or more significantly, in the worst of Israel’s many crimes of violence, the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 (I presume we do not have to go through the fakery about shelling of the Galilee, particularly since the real reasons were conceded at once). A rather surprising omission, don’t you think?

(…)

As you have perhaps forgotten, I brought up the quotes in response to a Hebrew University professor who began reeling off quotes from Hamas, which are utterly irrelevant. And it was quite proper to do so. Outlandish Israeli efforts to undermine peace and to block serious discussion should not go unanswered. As for what Israeli leaders have done for peace, you know as well as I: flatly reject the IC, carry out massive settlement programs to try to ensure that it will never be implemented and that there will be no opportunity for decent Palestinian existence, and resort to large-scale violence. These are rather surprising apologetics, particularly from someone who believes himself to be an Israeli dove.

(…)

I quite agree. That’s why I did not bring up any of them. Your criticism should be addressed to the HU professor who did.

(…)

If that is the reason, the blame falls strictly on Israeli hasbara, specifically, the HU professor who brought this up. I have already commented on the parenthesis, false in every detail.

(…)

Again, if you can give any reasons for your charges, I’ll be glad to pay attention to them. But severe charges without evidence are not very compelling.

I also have some suggestions for you, given your commitment to a two-state agreement, an end to settlement, and civilized discourse about the matter. You are in a very good position to explain to your associates at the K school that the prevailing assumptions are the opposite of the truth; and that there are real opportunities for peace if the US drops its traditional rejectionism, stops lending the decisive support for Israel’s violence and illegal expansion, and if at the very least we are willing to face the simple, uncontroversial, crucial facts of the matter instead of insisting on severe distortions that serve to justify US-Israeli rejectionism.

This is my answer to Prof. Chomsky:

Dear Prof. Chomsky,

As you requested me to acknowledge in a previous email that my “criticism was incorrect” and your “words were precisely accurate”, and I did in my following email, I would have expected also from you to acknowledge your false accusations that I would probably condone Jewish terrorism without any evidence.

I appreciate your long answer. I’m going to address your main concern of the panel being propagandistic and you claim that I have no evidence and then some small comments in your answers to my points.

Before that I want to make clear that English is not my first language, so please it will be more productive if we focus on the bottom line and the general points of my statements, and not the specific wording of them.

In any case, these are the reasons I believe that there was a propagandistic talk:

·    Firstly, the moderator made clear that this was a “balanced” event and “several perspectives” of the conflict would be presented. But not a single speaker was presenting the mainstream Israeli perspective of the conflict. I know, as so I presume you do, there are many interesting scholars in the Boston area that could have happily done that. Don’t you think as an academic that there should have been a more diverse panel on such a controversial issue?

·    The talk was supposed to be about the recent Gaza conflict, but this was not the main focus of the talk de facto. Most of it focused on the legitimacy of Israel, the American Jewish Lobby, the American historical foreign policies with respect to Israel and Palestine among others. I’d at least expected some insights about the current complex political situation in both Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA), such as the challenges for the Palestinian people regarding the split between Hamas and Fatah governments or the possible coalitions of the Israeli government.

·    In your presentation you omitted facts that are important to understand the conflict and, by omitting those, one can get a distorted view of the conflict. In addition you presented statements with no formal evidence. Some examples I remember are:

o    You never mentioned that Israel accepted resolution 242 and 338 when it was passed in UN. But the PLO did not at the time. Moreover, resolution 242 was rejected by the Arab countries in famous “three noes” of the Khartun Summit.

o    You brought quotes of Israeli state men without their respective historic context. You told me that I should direct this criticism to the HU professor, but – even if it was a reply – you did it as well, so I believe it is relevant to raise again my criticism.

o    You stated that the Gaza disengagement plan was “staged”. This is a very serious accusation. Although I don’t agree with the politics of the settlers, I would never say that it was “staged”. I was in my military service at the time and I saw with my own eyes, first hand, the IDF taking those people out of their homes. Please provide on what basis do you make that accusation.

o    You said “Since then (1976) there has been a very broad international consensus (IC) to the same effect. blocked unilaterally by the US and Israel, continuing now with Obama. I also noted that there had been one exception: Taba in January 2001, when the two sides came close to agreement, and expressed their view that they could have with a little more time, but negotiations were terminated prematurely by Barak”. Why did you omit the Camp David negotiations of 2000 or the Oslo process since 1993? Why didn’t you mention the broke of the second intifada after Camp David II that froze the peace process for several years?

o    You said several times that the US and Israel have chosen expansionism over peace. Why do you omit Israel’s withdrawn from Sinai – three times the size of Israel (I believe it was mentioned but in the framework of “staged” withdrawal and not as the fact of the withdrawal per se)? The disengagement was omitted – which not only include Gaza but parts in the northern West Bank? Why do you omit Israel taking down the illegal outpost of the Amona settlement in the West Bank a few years ago? Would you say that one was staged as well? Please give evidence.

o    In your three options for the future, let me refer to the first one: “the IC, if the US-Israel will abandon their rejectionism, which need not lead to a civil war, as wrongly assumed, for reasons I discussed”. You say that Israel (and the US) claim that Hamas acceptance for a two-state solution does not go far enough. I suspect that this state solution is not consistent with a two state for two people solution, because – again – it includes the right of return to Palestinian refugees. So, Prof. Chomsky, given that you ignored this question in my last email, let me ask you again: how do you reconcile a two-state solution – two states for two people – that includes the right of return to Palestinian refugees? Please don’t ignore my question.  Are you maybe claiming that two states solution is IC but two states for two people isn’t? If yes, I believe you are ignoring, not only USA and Israel, but the European Union, Russia, the UN, even Jordan and Egypt and many others actors into your definition of International Consensus.

These are only some examples. Now, back to some comments regarding your answers on my last email:

You ignored my question about asking sources in international press (and not Iranian) on the acceptance of Iran of a two state – again two states for two people – solution. You ignored my request by saying that you can send me the statement – please send me a link to any international news agency or station with that information. The call for the wipe off of Israel is for example reported by the AP in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLDjGdJC0Q. So you can blame Israeli Hasbara but also direct your criticism to the Associated Press and many other international news agencies and stations. However, let’s forget about words, and see deeds instead of words: isn’t so clear that Teheran has no intention at all of recognizing the existence of Israel – and moreover engaging in any kind of peace process – when they not even let their athletes to compete against Israeli teams in the Olympics or ignore Israeli journalist in international press conferences (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDaTM0XXuJc)?

You wrote: “I refuted some other standard, in fact near universal, claims: that Israel had a right to self-defense in Gaza by force, clearly false for the reasons I gave; that Hamas is responsible for breaking the cease-fire by rocketing, clearly false (as you agree), and a few others”. Prof. Chomsky, I did not agree with that – I agreed with you with the fact that Mark Regev said that those Rockets were not launched by Hamas. But the Tahadiyeh also implied from Hamas to hail ALL rockets launching. As you agreed with me, Hamas is not strong enough to control all the factions in Gaza (which means at some extent that there is some kind of anarchy in Gaza), so what would you suggest for  a cease fire? Should Israel sign a cease-fire with every single group that wants to launch rockets to Israel??? I would have expected to have to discuss this in the talk as well.

Thank you again,

Respectfully,

DB

It will continue…