Noam Chomsky "The Occupation of Palestine: A Short History"

Introduction

Noam Chomsky discusses the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and his stance on a possible diplomatic settlement.

Stance on Diplomatic Settlement

• Chomsky briefly introduces the topic of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

• He mentions that there is a possibility for a diplomatic settlement in accord with international consensus since the mid-1970s.

• Chomsky explains that about two-thirds of the population supports this settlement, but it has no effect on policy due to US opposition.

• He suggests that the most reasonable proposal on the table is the Geneva Accords being discussed in Geneva right now.

Historical Background

Chomsky provides a brief historical background leading up to the current situation in Palestine.

Partition and Occupation

• Chomsky refers to 1949 as a starting point when Israel was settled along an effective international border called Green Line.

• In 1967, Israel invaded Sinai, West Bank, and Golan Heights with US support.

• The occupied territories are currently referred to as West Bank and Gaza Strip.

UN Resolution 242

• In November 1967, UN Security Council accepted resolution UN 242 which called for a settlement on international border (Green Line).

• The resolution was completely rejectionist as it said nothing about Palestinian rights.

Egypt's Offer for Peace Treaty

• In 1971, Egypt offered Israel full peace treaty in return not for withdrawal but for partial withdrawal from Egyptian territory.

• The Egyptian offer said nothing about the West Bank, Gaza Strip, or the Palestinians.

Israel and Egypt Conflict

This section discusses the conflict between Israel and Egypt, including the building of an altruist city called Yum Eat, which led to thousands of farmers being expelled from their homes. The United States' reaction to this conflict is also discussed.

The United States' Reaction

• The United States had an internal debate on how to react to the conflict between Israel and Egypt.

• Henry Kissinger won the debate, and the US government decided to abandon its former position and accept Israel's position.

• President Sadat of Egypt warned repeatedly that if Israel continued expanding into the Sinai with US backing he would go to war.

Camp David Agreements

• In 1978, the Camp David agreements were made in which the US and Israel accepted a harsher version of an offer that was on the table in 1971.

• The offer was that Israel would make peace with Egypt if it withdrew from Egyptian territory Sinai and recognized Palestinian rights.

International Consensus

• In 1976, there was a broad international support for a resolution calling for a political settlement on the international border with a Palestinian state in territories that Israel would evacuate.

• The US vetoed this resolution, which was its first overt step to block international consensus. From then until present day, the US has continued to intervene unilaterally by vetoing Security Council resolutions voting against similar General Assembly resolutions.

The Madrid Conference and the Palestinian Delegation

This section discusses the Madrid conference that was called to institute the US position after the Gulf War. The US assumed it could ram through its own unilateral agreement, but there was a snag when an authentic Palestinian delegation headed by Hyder Abdul Raffi refused to accept the US-Israeli demand for continued Israeli settlement in the occupied territories.

• Hyder Abdul Raffi, a conservative nationalist, headed the Palestinian negotiation team and refused to go along with the US-Israeli demand for continued Israeli settlement.

• The negotiations were blocked due to this demand until they got around it thanks to the Tunis leadership of PLO who decided to undercut the Palestinian negotiating team and agree to a political arrangement which would permit continued Israeli settlement.

• This agreement was called Oslo Agreement and highly praised in America. However, if one reads its terms, it is completely obvious what was happening. It left out all other UN resolutions which called for Palestinian national rights.

• The Declaration of Principles described the permanent settlement as based solely on UN 242 and suffering nothing to Palestinians.

Role of Palestinian Authority

This section discusses how things continued through 1990 with steady Israeli-US backed Israeli settlement and development programs. In 2000, there was another Camp David meeting where proposals were made that were very highly praised in America as extremely magnanimous and generous offers which Palestinians turned down.

• The role of Palestinian Authority was set up so that it could control Palestinians by force, violence, terror or any means necessary as long as they kept them under control.

• They could be brutal or corrupt as they wanted as long as they kept Palestinians under control.

• The Israeli High Court, human rights organizations, mothers and fathers didn't like what was happening but it didn't matter as long as the Palestinian Authority kept Palestinians under control.

• In 2000, there was another Camp David meeting where proposals were made that were very highly praised in America as extremely magnanimous and generous offers which Palestinians turned down.

Territorial Issue

This section discusses how the core of the territorial problem is keeping just of the occupation. There are other problems but keeping just of the occupation is a territorial issue.

• The year 2000 had the highest level of settlement since before Oslo agreements and was continuing steadily and increasing.

• The core has been the territorial problem.

The Separation of Palestinian Territories

This section discusses the separation of Palestinian territories into enclaves, with three in the West Bank and one in Gaza. It also mentions a tentative agreement reached between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in Taba in 2001.

Separation of Territories

• Three enclaves were created in the West Bank, separated from a small part of Jerusalem that is traditionally the center of Palestinian commercial and cultural life.

• The situation was an improvement over the existing one, where Gaza was split into three separate regions and the West Bank was separated into 227 Canton's.

• Negotiations continued after the Intifada broke out shortly after, with informal but high-level negotiations between Palestinian and Israeli negotiators taking place in Taba in 2001.

Tentative Agreement Reached

• A tentative agreement was reached between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators during these talks, which was accepted by both sides.

• The agreement was published in mainstream Israeli press and is available for review.

• While there were still points of disagreement regarding territorial issues, it represented a step towards a more equitable resolution of the problem.

Termination of Negotiations

This section discusses how negotiations were terminated by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak right before the Israeli elections.

Termination of Negotiations

• Negotiations were terminated by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak right before the Israeli elections.

• However, negotiations continued leading up to the Geneva Accords.

• The Geneva Accords could be the basis for a serious political settlement that would at least end the cycle of violence and maybe lay the basis for something better in the future.

The Geneva Accords

This section discusses the Geneva Accords, which represent a realistic possibility for a political settlement.

The Geneva Accords

• The Geneva Accords represent a realistic possibility for a political settlement.

• Israel abandons nothing in the accords, while Palestinians abandon quite a bit, including crucially, representation of refugees.

• While there are criticisms of it in terms of justice, it is probably the only one that has any chance of being implemented in this universe.

• It could be the basis for ending the cycle of violence and laying the foundation for something better in the future.

The Significance of Head Scarves

No overview needed.

US Military Interest in Israel as a Base for Control

• In 1948, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were impressed with Israel's military prowess and saw it as a potential base for US control in the Middle East.

• The US is concerned with controlling the world's major energy resources, particularly oil. The Persian Gulf Resources are described by the State Department as "a stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history."

• The British had previously controlled the region through an Arab facade, which involved establishing weak governments that would control their own populations while being effectively ruled by Britain. After World War II, the US introduced peripheral states or non-Arab states to act as local cops on the beat around the Gulf region.

Israel's Role in US Control

• In 1958, Iraq broke out of the anglo-American condominium and took over its oil resources. This caused deep concern in London and Washington. The only country in the region that offered any support to the US and Britain at that time was Israel.

• By 1958, there was a long step towards making Israel one of these peripheral states or local cops on the beat.

The Role of Israel in the US Power System

This section discusses the role of Israel in the US power system and how it has become a strategic asset for the US.

Israel as a Strategic Asset

• In 1967, after Israel conquered and essentially destroyed Nasser, who was the main concern of the US, Israel became a strategic asset for US power.

• Since then, Israel has been regarded as a strategic asset by US intelligence.

• The region's director of US power is based on a local tripartite alliance between Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran with Turkey right in the background.

• Israeli-Turkish alliance is extremely close. It was founded in 1958 as a military alliance that faithful a year and it's now Israel's strongest alliance after the United States.

Military Power

• Despite being a small country, Israel has extremely powerful military forces. It has hundreds of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

• Its air and armored forces are larger and technologically more advanced than any NATO power outside the US.

• It is tightly linked to the United States in terms of its economy - kind of high-tech military-based economy really closely interlinked with the U.S.

Why Current Geneva Accords Are Better Than Oslo Agreements

This section explains why current Geneva Accords are better than Oslo agreements.

Oslo Agreements

• The Oslo agreements offered Palestinians nothing. They didn't mention Palestinian rights.

• They simply institutionalized Israeli control over the occupied territories.

• They never resolved the issue of Israeli settlements that effectively broke the West Bank into three parts.

Current Geneva Accords

• These proposals offer a resolution that would lead to a territorial division that allows for a degree of independence and subsidiary independence.

• All of these proposals establish what a hoot Barack's chief negotiator aslam have been on me in israeli academic described as the goal of the Oslo Accords and namely a permanent neo-colonial dependency for the Palestinians in one form or another they all have that character.

US Policy Revision

In this section, the speaker discusses the radical revision of US policy and how it is not reported due to extreme public opinion. The speaker also highlights the importance of developing political pressures that could lead to a political settlement.

Radical Revision of US Policy

• The current US policy is a radical revision.

• Public opinion is so extreme on this matter that these facts can't even be reported.

• There is a basis for developing political pressures that could lead to a political settlement.

Alan Dershowitz's Book

In this section, the speaker talks about Alan Dershowitz's book and his comments about him.

Comments on Alan Dershowitz's Book

• The speaker has not read Alan Dershowitz's book.

• He was publicly exposed as a liar and fraud in the Boston Globe.

• It's astonishing what he says about me without reading my work.

Benny Morris Comment

In this section, the speaker talks about Benny Morris and how Alan Dershowitz quoted him out of context.

Quoting Out of Context

• Alan Dershowitz quoted him out of context.

• Quoting from a talk is already childish and ridiculous.

• What he quoted was almost word-for-word paraphrase of what Morris actually said.

Russian Policy in Middle East Diplomacy

In this section, the speaker talks about Russian policy in Middle East diplomacy and how it was no different from Western Europe.

Russian Policy

• Russian policy throughout this period was right in the heart of the international consensus.

• Russia supported the international consensus since the mid 1970s.

• There has been a change in policy but not on the diplomacy of the Middle East.

Comparison of Repression in the Past and Present

No society is perfect, but by comparative standards, the US has improved in terms of internal repression. The programs of internal repression that ran through the Kennedy to Nixon administrations were much more serious than what's happening now. COINTELPRO was theoretically far more severe repression than anything that exists now.

Marginalized Communities and Repression

• Repression is restricted in the United States to highly vulnerable people.

• By comparison with other parts of the world, it's hardly repression.

• For Jews in Israel, it's the same for Palestinians; it's a vicious and harsh military occupation as it's been for 35 years.

Prison Population

• A huge part of the black and Latino population are simply thrown into jail.

• That's mainly what the drug wars are about; it's a device for getting rid of superfluous people by tossing them in jail.

• It certainly should not be tolerated.

COINTELPRO

• COINTELPRO reached the point of literally assassinating black organizers like Fred Hampton.

• Assassinations were no joke, but that's not happening now.

Use of Force in Iraq

• Reports suggest that they're getting Israeli intelligence to help them out with control of the population.

• The US government denies it, but reports are probable that they're interacting.

• A front-page story in The New York Times quoted US military officers as saying "the Arab mind understands only force."

The US and the Arab Mind

In this section, Noam Chomsky discusses the negative stereotypes that exist about Arabs and how they are treated differently than other groups. He also talks about the tactics used by conquerors to control people.

Negative Stereotypes of Arabs

• Negative stereotypes exist about Arabs, such as they are barbarians who only understand force.

• If similar things were said about Jewish people, it would not be acceptable.

• Distinguished Harvard professors have written things not very different from these negative stereotypes.

Tactics Used by Conquerors

• The tactics used by conquerors are familiar and include smashing people in the face to gain control.

• These tactics are second nature to conquerors, so it is possible that the US is getting them from Israel.

• Even if the US secured its own resources, its strategy in the region would remain exactly the same because it has nothing to do with access to those resources.

Control of Resources in the Persian Gulf

In this section, Noam Chomsky discusses why controlling resources in the Persian Gulf is important for world power and how even if renewable energy was used tomorrow, policy would not change.

Importance of Controlling Resources in Persian Gulf

• The United States took over the region after World War II because it was a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.

• Even if renewable energy was used tomorrow, policy would not change because controlling resources in Persian Gulf yields huge profits beyond imagination.

• If you control Gulf energy resources, you pretty much control the world.

Future Projections for Energy Resources

• US intelligence projections predict that the Persian Gulf will provide about two-thirds of world energy resources in the next roughly 15 years.

• The US won't rely on these resources, but instead, it will rely on more stable West Atlantic Basin resources like West Africa.

• The US still wants to control the most stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.

Fragility of World Economy

In this section, Noam Chomsky discusses how the world economy is based on America spending and Asia lending. He also talks about how violence is the only dimension in which the US is overwhelmingly dominant.

World Economy

• The world economy is based on America spending and Asia lending.

• This situation is very fragile because there's only one dimension in which the US is overwhelmingly dominant, namely violence.

• From an economic point of view, Europe is approximately equal to the United States, while Northeast Asia has a greater gross domestic product and holds about half of global foreign exchange.

The Dominance of Military Force and Control Over Energy Resources

In this section, Noam Chomsky discusses the dominance of military force and control over energy resources by the United States.

US Military Force and Technological Advancement

• The US spends as much on military force as the rest of the world combined.

• The UN is currently debating disarmament, but it is underreported in the media.

• The US is preventing efforts to block militarization of space and increase nuclear weapons.

• The Space Command has publicly announced plans for ownership of space, which includes using it for platforms for offensive weapons.

Control Over Energy Resources

• Control over energy resources is a crucial part of the dominance of military force.

• George Kennan pointed out that control over Middle East oil gives the US veto power over everyone else.

• Much maneuvering in the Middle East and Central Asia is about controlling production and transit routes.

• France and Germany are seen as threats because they are at the heartland of Europe, which needs to be under US control.

Democracy vs. Veto Power

In this section, Noam Chomsky discusses how democracy is viewed by those in power.

Punishing Democracy

• Paul Wolfowitz's memo says that Germany and France will not be permitted to take part in Iraq's reconstruction because they took positions against the war.

• This reflects a hatred of democracy by Wolfowitz and others like him who are furious at France and Germany for taking the same position as their populations.

The US Intellectual Community

• It is intriguing that the US intellectual community can support this hatred of democracy.

• Bush's speech about democracy was mostly ridiculed in the Middle East because it had nothing to do with democracy.

Yassir Arafat's Election

Noam Chomsky discusses the election of Yassir Arafat in the region and the Bush administration's response to it.

The Election of Yassir Arafat

• The region elected Yassir Arafat through supervised elections.

• The Bush administration claimed to love democracy but did not like him personally.

• Palestinians should pick their own leadership for negotiations, not Washington or other countries.

• Despite personal opinions, Arafat has been more willing to accept a diplomatic settlement than American or Israeli leaders.

Israel's Invasion of Lebanon

Noam Chomsky talks about Israel's invasion of Lebanon and its motives.

Israel's Invasion of Lebanon

• In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon with US backing to get rid of the PLO.

• Conservative scholar Yehoshua Arad called Arafat's insistence on diplomacy a catastrophe for Israel.

• If someone wants somebody to negotiate for a diplomatic settlement, then there is a choice: the people who Palestinians elected who have been trying to do it since the mid-seventies.

Framing Issues in the Context of War on Terror

Noam Chomsky discusses how framing issues in the context of war on terror affects US government policy.

Framing Issues in the Context of War on Terror

• Since 9/11, Israel has framed its actions as part of the war on terror.

• Every country in the world has done the same thing, including Russia and Indonesia.

• Most countries have instituted some kind of repressive legislation to control their own populations under the pretext of defense against terror.

• Israel's separation wall is leaving a couple hundred thousand Palestinians essentially in limbo.

The Wall in Palestine

No wall can be built inside Israel to protect Israelis from West Bank infiltration. Instead, the wall is built two miles inside Palestinian territory, which is a way of taking over and advancing the US-Israeli program of gradually integrating valuable parts of the territories inside Israel.

Purpose of the Wall

• The wall is not for protection of Israelis but rather for Israeli settlements which are illegal.

• Building a wall inside Palestinian territory inconveniences Israelis who would have to go through gates instead of Palestinians who have to go through gates that are never open.

• The pretext for building the wall is ludicrous and has nothing to do with security.

International Protest

• There has been no international protest against building an impenetrable wall inside the Greenline, even if it's 100 feet high or mined with nuclear weapons.

Potential Shift from Dollar to Euro

The Euro as a currency is becoming more stable and safer than the dollar. Europe doesn't have a huge US trade deficit like Asia does. OPEC might switch to using a basket of currencies including the Euro instead of just relying on the dollar. This could be extremely serious for the fragile US economy.

Shift from Dollar to Euro

• The euro is creeping up on the dollar in terms of value and as a currency that people are willing to rely on.

• Bonds issued used to be overwhelmingly in dollars but now it's close to 50/50 between Europe and America.

• Asia, OPEC, and others may start using a basket of currencies instead of just relying on the dollar. They might shift over to Europe.

• The US wants to ensure control over the region so that OPEC doesn't get any funny ideas.