An answer to Binyamin Netahyahu

By

Stuart Yates

"You don’t need to send American troops to defend Israel. We defend ourselves. You’ve been very generous in giving us tools to do the job of defending Israel on our own." "very generous" is a massive understatement. How much is indicated by the sheer size of US aid to Israel over many years. “From 1971 to the present, U.S. aid to Israel has averaged over $2.6 billion per year, two-thirds of which has been military assistance.” Source: US Congressional Research Service report of September 16, 2010. Forty years at $2.6 billion per year comes to $104 billion. The CIA estimates that in 2010 Israel had a $6.2 billion current account balance. The US had a minus $561 billion current account balance. It is probably incorrect to infer from those figures that Israel's positive balance is partly due to American aid and that aid amounts to 20% of America's deficit, but the two figures surely relate in some way. In 2008, the US budget request was for $3.9 billion in military aid for the Middle East: $2.4 billion for Israel, $1.3 billion for Egypt (propping up President Mubarak) and Jordan was scheduled to get just $200 million. The total funding request was for $4.5 billion, of which over half therefore was earmarked for Israel. (FY2008 International Affairs (Function 150) Budget Request). The narrative to these proposals reads: "This program serves to strengthen the security of the United States and to promote peace in general. FMF is allocated strategically within regions with the largest proportion (54%) directed to our sustaining partners (sic)." "partners"? - well, Israel got 53% alone. Just how does this promote peace? It merely allows Binyamin Netanyahu to resist any progress towards peace, safe in the knowledge that Israel is untouchable militarily. The US Congress knows these figures and applauds. How many US citizens know just how much of their money is poured into arming Israel to the teeth, so that Israel can, amongst other atrocities, bomb Beirut and slaughter 1,400 Palestinians in Gaza?

"Courageous Arab protesters, are now struggling to secure these very same rights for their peoples, for their societies. We're proud that over one million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades." Those one million Arab citizens of Israel are those people who regard themselves as Palestinians and who live West of the 1967 borders, in what the rest of the world calls Israel. Binyamin Netanyahu appears to believe that Israel extends to the river Jordan - what the Palestinians call Palestine and what he calls Judea and Samaria. "But let me first say that the connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel has lasted for more than 3500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David and Solomon, and Isaiah and Jeremiah lived, are not alien to us. This is the land of our forefathers." (Speech at Bar-Ilan university, June 14th 2009) Another 2.6 million Palestinians live here. In the same speech he said: "But we must also tell the truth in its entirety: within this homeland lives a large Palestinian community. We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them." So, Judea and Samaria appear to be part of the homeland, 2.6 million Palestinians live there, Binyamin Netanyahu does not want to rule over them, even though Israel has imposed military rule and occupation on those people for more than six decades. He is careful not to state where the borders of Israel should be.

"The tyranny in Tehran brutalizes its own people. It supports attacks against American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. It subjugates Lebanon and Gaza." Israel knows that, thanks to American military aid, no country dare attack her, except Iran, especially an Iran with nuclear weapons to match those nuclear weapons of Israel. That is one reason why Israel has been focussing on Iran, another is the need for an external threat. The national narrative of Israel consists of defying an external threat. In the absence of Lebanon, a quiescent Syria, peace with Egypt and Jordan, an Iraq devastated by US invasion, only Iran is left to oppose. Why would Iran attack Israel? Because of the persecution of the Palestinians, because Israel is a proud ally of the USA and the USA has waged successive invasions of Muslim countries. Yes, the Iranian regime is brutal, as is the regime in Syria, but Israel and the West should look at some of the causes of Islamic extremism. As for Iran subjugating Lebanon and Gaza, I recollect Israel laying Lebanon waste, bombing Beirut far to the North following a border skirmish. Iran does not subjugate Gaza: Israel subjugates Gaza by a pitiless blockade, year after year; slaughtering 1,400 Gazans even though Gaza has no army, no weaponry apart from those which can be hand held.

"I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace." In the absence of any specific "compromises", we have to infer from his text what these might be. Israel is already far bigger than the territory that the international community, via the UN, proposed in 1947 - a proposal which the leaders of the embryonic state of Israel accepted. To their discredit and future regret, the Arab nations, including the Palestinians living in the area, rejected the proposal. If we believe that people and peoples should act according to their own principles and agreements, not just as a reaction to the actions and principles of others, Israel has no right to acquire further land beyond what she agreed to, especially not by force and, by any standards, has no right whatsoever to subjugate the people whose land has been seized and allow/encourage her own people to settle there, displacing the native population. These actions are indeed contrary to Article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention, 1949, ratified by Israel in 1951. It is no compromise to withdraw from lands seized illegally and if it is "painful" it is a pain the Israelis have inflicted on themselves. Would the world see a Chinese withdrawal from Tibet as a "painful compromise"?

"I recognize that in a genuine peace, we will be required to give up parts of the Jewish homeland. In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers." Prime Minister, "foreign occupiers" are exactly what Israelis are in the Palestinian occupied territories. Many if not most Israeli settlers are immigrants to Israel, are not native to Israel - not that native-born Israelis are entitled to live on land already owned by someone else. They are foreigners. The only possible justification for Israelis to live in the occupied territories is their race/religion: they are Jewish. This is simply racist. I can think of no other country which limits immigration by ethnicity and encourages those immigrants allowed in to settle beyond the host state's bordere. Even the definition of Jewishness, via matriarchal descent, has been distorted to enable mass immigration and settlement.

"This is the land of our forefathers, the Land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one God, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace. No distortion of history can deny the four thousand year old bond, between the Jewish people and the Jewish land." All Palestinians (and Jews, and Christians etc) who were born and resident in the area between the sea, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Jordan are or were living in the land or their forefathers. They could trace their direct descent, the ownership of the land, the unbroken residence. So yes, some Israelis are living in the land of their forefathers. All the others are immigrants and almost exclusively Jewish. They are now living in a land in which their very distant forefathers once lived, thousands of years' ago. It is difficult to find authoritative sources, but an independent Israel, as opposed to a land occupied and colonised by succesive invaders, seemed to have existed between 1200 and 922 BCE and between 539 and 332 BCE, a total of less than 500 years, over two relatively short periods. Israel makes much of the "facts on the ground" since 1948, ie settlements, to justify staying in the occupied territories. On that argument, the facts on the ground over thousands of years established rather better claims to the land for those already there in 1948. The overwhelmimg majority of those living there in 1947 were who we now call Palestinians, followed by Jew, Christians coming a poor third.

"The Palestinians share this small land with us. We seek a peace in which they will be neither Israel’s subjects nor its citizens." I interpret this to mean that Israel does not want non-Jews to live in the state which Israel defines for herself. They should live somewhere else.

"We've helped the Palestinian economy by removing hundreds of barriers and roadblocks to the free flow of goods and people. The results have been nothing short of remarkable. The Palestinian economy is booming. It's growing by more than 10% a year. Palestinian cities look very different today than they did just a few years ago. They have shopping malls, movie theaters, restaurants, banks. They even have e-businesses." On the very same day, May 24th, the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator, Valerie Amos, having visited the occupied territories, said: "Freedom of movement is imperative for Palestinians to develop their economy and reduce their dependence on humanitarian assistance. There are parts of the West Bank where, as a result of planning and zoning policies, people are lacking access to basic services and humanitarian agencies need to step in. If a majority of Israelis understood the impact the policies were having on Palestinians on a day to day basis, this is something they themselves would not want to live with. Children’s health and well being are being undermined. I visited one school room with no windows and very few facilities, and where no improvements are permitted because of planning rules." Having visited the West Bank I know which opinion I agree with. Having heard Palestinians describe their life as "living in a prison within a prison" - they cannot leave and cannot move in any way normally within the West Bank - and also say that things are worse than before, then Binyamin Netanyahu is being very economical with the truth. Added to which Israel witholds taxes - the legitimate property of the Palestinians - at a whim and trade with the outside world is wholly controlled by Israel. Hardly "free flow of goods and people" when a Christian family I met could not go to Jerusalem, a few miles away, to celebrate Easter. Israel is not selective in her discrimination against non-Jews, it doesn't matter if you are Muslim, or Christian.It matters only that you are not Jewish. Any growth in the Palestinian economy is due to the efforts of the Palestinians and foreign, non-Israeli assistance, and is in spite of the actions of Israel.

"It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… "I will accept a Jewish state." President Abbas has made it quite clear that he accepts the existence of Israel. He has also made it quite clear that whilst Israel can refer to herself in any way she chooses, the term "Jewish state" is not one he uses or would wish to use. Why? Because employing the term "Jewish" implies acceptance of racial purity in Israel and therefore acceptance of Israel's demands that the Palestinians who were driven out of Israel have no rights to return to their homes and neighbourhoods. Binyamin Netanyahu knows this. He understands this, which is why he makes it a pre-condition for negotiations: a pre-condition that gives away one of the fundamental principles over which the two sides differ. It is demanding that the Palestinians give up, even before negotiations begin, one of their main aims. Behind the demand lies yet another racist aim: that Israel as a "Jewish state" becomes a state purely for Jews: this is inevitable if, as now, only Jews are allowed to enter and settle in Israel. The international community rightly supports the principle that Jews should be able live without fear of persecution. (Anyone like to take up the cause of the Kurds? The Tibetans? etc) I do not believe that the international community supports the aim of Israel being a state barred to non-Jews.

"Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967." Indefensible in terms of what precisely? Not militarily, as he goes on to demand a de-militarized Palestine. Indefensible in terms of control of water? Quite possibly. The separation wall follows the line of the Western aquifer, one way in which Israel controls and half-starves the Palestinians. I have been to Ramallah - even Ramallah: the country areas are even worse off - where you wait days for tankers to supply water, where new wells are forbidden. Meanwhile, immigrant settlers swim in their pools, green their lawns with sprinklers, discharge their waste into the Palestinian olive groves. Water is under Israel's control and I suspect a border acceptable to Israel would perpetuate that control, meaning that any Palestinian state could be denied water at any time of Israels' choosing. Indefensible in terms of giving up settlements? Settlements which are illegal. Settlements which are populated by immigrants who can pass the newly created (since 1948) requirements of demonstrating being an ethnically pure Jew.

"Jews from around the world have a right to immigrate to the Jewish state." This has been referred to several times above, so I will not repeat the inherent racist element of this policy. It is interesting however to note the language "to immigrate to" instead of the usual "right of return". Maybe even Israeli politicians have realised the undefendable proposition that people whose ancestors stopped inhabiting the land now called Israel thousands of years' ago can in any way be described as "returning".

"Palestinians from around the world should have a right to immigrate, if they so choose, to a Palestinian state. This means that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel." Firstly, this is another way of saying: "No non-Jews allowed (back) into Israel". Secondly, how arrogant to say that another state - theoretically independent, but we know independence, genuine independence, is the last thing Israel will accept for the Palestinians - "should" do anything. If Israel and a new Palestinian state "should" allow such immigration, does Binyamin Netanhayu believe all states "should" have such a law? That all Americans of Irish descent should be allowed to emigrate to Ireland? That all people of British descent, in the numerous ex-colonies of Britain, be allowed to emigrate to the UK? Those who have lived for generations in a land are citizens of that land, however it is governed. Of course Israel can allow whomsoever she wishes to settle in Israel, what she does not have the right to do is impose her rules on others and deny immigration on the grounds of race.

"Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel." Jerusalem can be divided into three areas: the old city, West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. In 1947, Jews owned quite a small minority of land in the whole of "Palestine", but let us accept that, if Israel wishes for Jerusalem to be her capital - a view not accepted by the outside world, as foreign embassies are still largely in Tel Aviv - then let that be West Jerusalem. In spite of decades of ethnic cleansing, East Jerusalem in mainly Palestinian. It is reasonable to allow this to be the capital of a future Palestinian state. The old city, a mixture of Jewish, Muslim, Christian and Armenian quarters, was intended by the UN to be a free city under international control, because of the sheer number of sites holy to the different traditions. I see no reason why the original UN plan should not be implementd, ensuring that all faiths and cultures have access to such precious sites. Again, I have been to Jerusalem. It deserves to be free of all political, military and religious interference. In particular, the whole atmosphere of the old city of Jerusalem would be transformed by the absence of young soldiers armed with automatic weapons, whether they be Israeli or Palestinian.

"In recent years, Israel withdrew from South Lebanon and Gaza. But we didn't get peace. Instead, we got 12,000 rockets fired from those areas on our cities, on our children, by Hezbollah and Hamas." It sounds rather a grand gesture, withdrawing from South Lebanon. What Binyamin Netanyahu omits to say is that before that withdrawal the full might of the Israeli army, navy and air force had devastated Lebanon, bombing Beirut in the North, far away from the border skirmish in the South, quite gratuitously. A border skirmish in which three Israeli soldiers died. As usual, Israel wreaks overwhelming vengeance on those whom are deemed to be hostile. Between September 2000 and the end of February 2011, Israeli security forces have killed 1,831 Palestinians in the West Bank. Palestinians have killed 147 members of the Israeli security forces and 207 Israeli civilians in the same period, in the West Bank. In addition, during the same period, Palestinians killed 497 Israeli civilians in Israel (from both Gaza and the West Bank) However, since the start of 2009, just two Israelis have been killed by Palestinians in Israel. Two too many, but in the same period, in the West Bank, 37 Palestinians were killed by the IDF and five killed by Israeli civilians, ie immigrant settlers. As for rockets,a total of 16 Israeli civilians have been killed by rockets fired from Gaza. In that same period, 2004 to 2008, the Israeli Defense Force killed 2,385 Palestinians in Gaza. And this was before the massacre of Operation Cast Lead. (Source: B'tselem)

"So it is therefore absolutely vital for Israel’s security that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized. And it is vital that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River." Here we have an essential component in Israel's strategy. Never mind that one of the basic rights of any state is the ability to defend itself, the ability to determine its own future without fear of armed interference from without. Israel's demand is not only that a future Palestinian state would always be at the mercy of Israel. Israel insists on surrounding a Palestinian state with Israeli military forces, which signifies complete control of movements of any sort to and from Palestine. We have heard in the past how Israel intends that no Palestinian state or territory would have independent seaports, airports, road and rail access. In other words, Israel is demanding that the West Bank agrees to become another Gaza. We have seen how Gaza has been completely and utterly oppressed by Israel. Indeed, when Israel withdrew from Gaza, the blockade was described as not starving the Palestinians but putting them on a diet. Israel clearly intends to treat any Palestinian state in the same contemptuous and contemptible way. A continuation of a giant concentration camp, or, if you prefer, ghetto.

"Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of Al Qaeda." Is there any evidence that Hamas is linked in any way with Al Qaeda? Hamas is an organisation which operates like many such "liberation" organisations. It assiduously looks after its people in order to stay in power (after all, it gained power through elections that international observers declared free and fair) whilst carrying out vicious terrorist atrocities. There are similarities with Ireland, but in Ireland there was a notional division between the political wing (Sinn Fein) and the terrorist wing (the IRA). Nevertheless, the two were effectively one and no-one can doubt that the decision to cease the military wing was a political one. Talking was seen as offering a better future and the talking started long before any weapons were laid down. Former terrorists now hold ministerial positions alongside those bitterly opposed to them for decades. Who would have forecast that Martin McGuiness and the Revd Ian Paisley would not only work together but become friends? Ian Paisley, who bellowed the words "never, never, never" on countless occasions, learned that "never" is not a fruitful word to use and changed his stance. Whether Israel can be as flexible, or be so willing to work for peace, is at present doubtful but if Ian Paisley could then anyone ought to be able to. The world will not forgive Israel easily for being more obdurate than Ian Paisley.

The speech was constructed to play to American sympathies, to appear to be the voice of sweet reason, but behind the words the reality can be discerned. The reality of Israel's aims: keep and gain as much territory as possible; set pre-conditions to delay any progress towards peace; continue to ethnically cleanse East Jerusalem, extend settlements and finally, if a peace process cannot be avoided, seek a solution which creates a Palestinian state which has no independence and which is totally under the control of Israel for any contact with the outside world.

June 2011