Shlaim argues: "Both Sharon and
Netanyahu embody the most aggressive, expansionist, intolerant and
blatantly racist brand of Zionism,".
Prof Avi Shlaim talks to Samira Shackle
exclusively for MEMO
Avi Shlaim, professor of International Relations at Oxford and fellow of
the British Academy, has studied the history of Israel for over 30 years. The
Iraqi-born British/Israeli academic is one of the New Historians, Israeli
scholars who are critical of the history of Zionism and question the official
state version of events. Believing that the "job of a historian is to
judge", he is frequently an outspoken critic of Israeli policy.
Writing in the New Statesman in 2005, he accused Ariel Sharon of waging a
"savage…colonial war" in the Occupied Palestinian
Territories. Is the
current government continuing that trend? "Binyamin Netanyahu is one of
the most hawkish Israeli Prime Ministers since the establishment of the state
in 1948," Shlaim tells me. "He is in direct line of succession to
Ariel Sharon. Since Sharon came to power in
2001, Israel
has shunned negotiations with the Palestinians. If I had to sum up Netenyahu's
objectives in one word, it would be the same word I applied to Sharon. The objective is 'politicide': to
deny the Palestinians an independent existence in Palestine. The real aim of Netanyahu's policy
is to redraw unilaterally the borders of greater Israel."
There is certainly no question that Netanyahu has made little effort to
return to the negotiating table. In 2011, the leaked Palestine Papers, which showed
a Palestinian executive desperately making huge concessions in the face of
continued Israel intransigence, laid bare quite how one-sided compromise has
been. "Both Sharon and Netanyahu embody the most aggressive, expansionist,
intolerant and blatantly racist brand of Zionism," Shlaim argues. This
model has dominated Israeli politics in the last decade, which Shlaim blames
the assumption, spread by Ehud Barak, that there is no Palestinian partner for
peace. "This is clearly not true," says Shlaim. "But most
Israelis, left, right and centre, share Barak's view. If you don't have a
partner for peace, then you don't vote for the Labour Party, which believes in
negotiations with the Palestinians. You vote for someone tough who stands up
for Israel.
It is the mistaken belief that the Palestinians are not committed to a
settlement that explains the prominence of the Israeli right. The current
government is the most right-wing, the most hawkish, the most uncompromising
government in Israel's
entire history."
Indeed, rather than negotiation, the cornerstone of current Israeli policy
appears to be the expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank - not just
of housing units, but of an elaborate infrastructure to serve settlers. Shlaim
has always been a proponent of a two-state solution, believing that an
independent state is the only way to ensure at least a measure of justice for
the Palestinians. But given the reality on the ground - with settlement
building continuing since 1967 under both Labour and Likud governments - he
explains he has revised his view. "There is a solution to this conflict -
a two-state solution - but Israel
has systematically undermined the possibility of a viable Palestinian state.
Today we have reached a point where it is barely conceivable, given the
magnitude of the presence of the Israeli state on the West
Bank. I have shifted therefore to supporting a one-state solution
with equal rights for all the state's citizens. This is not what I would
ideally like."
Some observers have gone so far as to say that there is clear evidence of an
apartheid system, both in Israel
and the West Bank. "Israel, within
its pre-1967 borders, is a flawed democracy, but still a democracy," says
Shlaim. "Israel plus
the Occupied Territories is an ethnocracy in which
one ethnic group is in complete control and there are two classes of citizens.
The real debate is whether Israel
has already become an apartheid state or whether it is on the road to becoming
one." Noting that some contest whether the word 'apartheid' is justified,
he cites two examples. The first is the construction of separate roads for
settlers in the West Bank, which Palestinians
are not allowed to use. The second is the law which bans Palestinians from the Occupied Territories from gaining citizenship,
even if they marry an Israeli citizen. "The facts speak for
themselves," he says. "Looking at the whole spectrum of differential
rights, it seems to me that you have to conclude that Israel has
become an apartheid state."
It is against this backdrop that we are approaching the 19th anniversary of
the Oslo Accords. In 1993, this appeared to be a historic compromise,
symbolised in the handshake between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin. Yet today,
any compromise at all seems like a distant fantasy. Shlaim is adamant that the
deal reached at Oslo
was a good one. Why, then, did it fail? "Netanyahu has repeatedly claimed
that the Oslo Accord was incompatible with Israel's
security and with the historic right of the Jewish people to the whole land of Israel," says Shlaim. Contesting
this official position, he suggests instead that Oslo
was "a modest step in the right direction" that failed to result in a
solution because Israel
reneged on its part of the deal. "I can summarise the reason for the
breakdown of the Oslo
peace process in one word: settlements," he says. "Land-grabbing and
peace-making do not go together."
The Oslo Accords have not resulted in a Palestinian state, that much is
clear. "The American-sponsored peace process has been going on for two decades
and it is all process and no peace," says Shlaim. "It's a charade.
But it's much worse than a charade because the semblance of negotiations gives Israel just the cover it needs to pursue its
aggressive colonial agenda on the West Bank."
What next, then? Is it time to move beyond the US-led peace process, and if so,
how? Last year, Mahmoud Abbas made a bid for Palestinian statehood at the UN.
While some criticised the move as empty diplomacy, grandstanding that did
nothing to help people in Gaza and the West Bank, Shlaim believes it was a significant move.
"It means the Palestinians are cutting their losses with Netanyahu and
Obama," he says, explaining that the Palestinians will not return to the
conference table until there is a complete freeze on settlement activity.
"They will only negotiate on the basis of international legality and UN
resolutions. On 99 per cent of the permanent status issues, international
legality supports the Palestinian position. Today there is a position of
complete deadlock, but the Palestinians have at least adopted a principled
position."
While the Palestinians may be moving beyond dependence on America, Israel
retains its close relationship with the US, its staunchest and most
powerful ally. Indeed, Netanyahu's behaviour over the last few months indicates
that he may have forgotten the boundaries of this alliance. Flouting diplomatic
conventions about staying out of foreign elections, the Israeli Prime Minister
has openly supported presidential candidate Mitt Romney. "He has
intervened in internal American politics in a very direct, overt and crude
manner," says Shlaim. "This strikes me as a high risk strategy. If
Obama, as seems likely, gets a second term, Israel will pay the price for this
anti-Obama campaign." Nor is America the only area of foreign
policy where Netanyahu has acted provocatively. He has been agitating for war
with Iran for months now,
claiming that the country's nuclear programme is an "existential
threat" to Israel.
"The Israeli motivations are partly to do with internal politics. Pointing
to an external threat to Israel
rallies the public behind the government," explains Shlaim. "Another
reason is to deflect attention from the Palestinian issue. At the first meeting
between Netanyahu and Obama nearly four years ago, Obama only wanted to talk
about Palestine,
and Netanyahu only wanted to talk about the Iranian nuclear programme. Obama
said to Netanyahu, yes Iran
is a problem, but Palestine
comes first. At the last meeting, three years on, Palestine was not on the agenda and the
Iranian nuclear programme very firmly was. In other words, Netanyahu has
succeeded in imposing his own agenda."
When discussing Israel's influence on America, it is impossible not to mention the Israel lobby, the subject of increasing scrutiny. Does an equivalent Israel lobby exist in Britain? Shlaim points out that little has been written about these operations, but that certain groups, like BICOM, fulfil the function of speaking up for Israel. He also notes that each of the main parties has a "friends of Israel" group, with around 90 per cent of Conservative backbenchers belonging to theirs. "These different manifestations point to the existence of an Israel lobby in Great Britain," he concludes. Yet the spectrum of opinion within the Jewish community in Britain is different to that in America. "While the majority of American Jews openly and strongly support Israel, Britain Jews have not been so open and have tended to operate behind the scenes," says Shlaim. "In recent years, particularly since the Israeli attack on Gaza in December 2008, more British Jews have become critical of Israel and particularly of the settlements. A small but significant group are now openly critical of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians." He singles out Independent Jewish Voices and Jews for Justice for Palestinians (he is a member of both). "Of course, these and other liberal groups are a minority of British Jewry. The majority are probably still uncritical supporters of Israel and some British Jews are extremely vociferous in their support for Israel and in their criticisms of the liberal groups." Shlaim cites Melanie Philips' description of Jews for Justice for Palestinians as "Jews for Genocide" as evidence of "how strong feelings run and how deep the divisions are within the Jewish community in Britain."
When discussing Israel's influence on America, it is impossible not to mention the Israel lobby, the subject of increasing scrutiny. Does an equivalent Israel lobby exist in Britain? Shlaim points out that little has been written about these operations, but that certain groups, like BICOM, fulfil the function of speaking up for Israel. He also notes that each of the main parties has a "friends of Israel" group, with around 90 per cent of Conservative backbenchers belonging to theirs. "These different manifestations point to the existence of an Israel lobby in Great Britain," he concludes. Yet the spectrum of opinion within the Jewish community in Britain is different to that in America. "While the majority of American Jews openly and strongly support Israel, Britain Jews have not been so open and have tended to operate behind the scenes," says Shlaim. "In recent years, particularly since the Israeli attack on Gaza in December 2008, more British Jews have become critical of Israel and particularly of the settlements. A small but significant group are now openly critical of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians." He singles out Independent Jewish Voices and Jews for Justice for Palestinians (he is a member of both). "Of course, these and other liberal groups are a minority of British Jewry. The majority are probably still uncritical supporters of Israel and some British Jews are extremely vociferous in their support for Israel and in their criticisms of the liberal groups." Shlaim cites Melanie Philips' description of Jews for Justice for Palestinians as "Jews for Genocide" as evidence of "how strong feelings run and how deep the divisions are within the Jewish community in Britain."
Last year's Arab Spring saw huge changes take place across the Middle East. While countries have been focused on
domestic issues, Shlaim believes that these new democracies will soon promote
the Palestinian cause. "The Palestinian record of resistance, the two
intifadas, was an inspiration to the demonstrators which showed them that
people power is possible and that they can make a stand and assert their own
rights." Whether the deadlock in Palestine
ends and these rights are realised remains to be seen.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Say what is on your mind, but observe the rules of debate. No foul language is allowed, no matter how anger-evoking the posted article may be.
Thank you,
TruthSeeker