Drunk With Power
and Out of Shame
________________________________________________________
The Israeli
chief of staff spoke of the Palestinians as a "cancerous demographic
threat" and the world shrugged. So who said “Never Again”?
________________________________________________________
by Irit Katriel
Dissident Voice
September 3,
2002
Commenting on the Israeli government's enthusiastic calls
for the US to attack Iraq [1], Knesset member Zehava Gal'on of Meretz, a member
of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense committee, said "It is hard to
understand the government's fervor. This is an American matter and not one we
should be involving ourselves in. The Europeans are making it clear there is no
coalition, while we are pushing for war. Beyond that, Israel is going to get
hit if there is a war." [2] Iraqi
foreign minister Tareq Aziz, however, thinks that "What Bush the father did
in 1991 was in the interest of America, what his son is planning to do now is
in the interests of Israel and the Zionists." [3]
If Aziz doesn't offer Gal'on the missing link towards
understanding her government and the danger it is putting her in, perhaps she
found the clue in the interview with Israeli chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon in Ha'aretz
last week:
Q: There is something surprising in the fact that you see
the Palestinian threat as an existential threat.
A: The characteristics of that threat are invisible, like
cancer. When you are attacked externally, you see the attack, you are wounded.
Cancer, on the other hand, is something internal. Therefore, I find it more
disturbing, because here the diagnosis is critical. If the diagnosis is wrong
and people say it's not cancer but a headache, then the response is irrelevant.
But I maintain that it is cancer. My professional diagnosis is that there is a
phenomenon here that constitutes an existential threat.
Q: Does that mean that what you are doing now, as chief of
staff, in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, is applying chemotherapy?
A: There are all kinds of solutions to cancerous
manifestations. Some will say it is necessary to amputate organs. But at the
moment, I am applying chemotherapy, yes. [4]
Later in the interview he explains: "they believe that
time is on their side and that, with a combination of terrorism and demography,
they will tire us out and wear us down."
The "demography" part of the threat can only mean
that each and every Palestinian, in his mind, is a cancerous cell to be
eliminated. To be a demographic threat, you don't need to do anything. You only
need to be Palestinian. [5] Prime
minister Sharon backed his words [6], thus placing them in line with government
policy. It is irrelevant, therefore, to speak of the Israeli actions against
the Palestinians as "collective punishment." They are not a
population which is collectively punished for the crimes of a few. Each and
every Palestinian is a target in the Sharon-Ya'alon "war against cancer".
Uri Avnery described everything that Ya'alon said in the
interview as "myths that are taught in Israeli elementary schools instead
of history." [7] This is not true.
Children learn terrible things in school, but three years ago a teacher would
probably be fired for saying that the Palestinians are a demographic cancer
that should be dealt with by chemotherapy and possibly amputation of organs. I
have no doubts about the Avnery's good intentions, but see his reaction as yet
another example of the power of monotonous escalation. What shocked us
yesterday, seems today like something that was always there. What would have
sounded like a Nazi statement three years ago is accepted today as a standard
and familiar rightwing line, eliciting the standard and familiar response.
In November 2000, when the "war against cancer"
had just begun, then deputy chief of staff Ya'alon already made it clear what
this war is about when he said "this is the second half of '48."
[8] The Jerusalem Post
reported last week about an organization that helps Palestinians emigrate. The
president of this organization, who said that its "aim is to empty the
state of Arabs," claims that 380,000 Palestinians have emigrated already
since October 2000. [9]
During the first Intifada, in 1989, I attended a political
gathering of the rightwing Moledet party in a Haifa suburb. The crowd consisted
of about 20 people, half of whom were teenagers in leftist T-shirts like
myself, who came to listen. Rehav'am Ze'evi, who was then the leader of
Moledet, spoke of his "voluntary transfer" plan: cut electricity and
water, shut down universities and deny jobs, and they will leave. At the time,
this was the lunatic fringe. In the second Intifada, Moledet became a member of
the coalition and Ze'evi became tourism minister (he was later assassinated by
the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine). Moledet hired billboards in
Tel Aviv and put up signs saying "only transfer will bring peace."
The "voluntary transfer" is already happening, and the rightwing is
now talking about the next stage, transfer without "voluntary." In
weekly rightwing vigils in Haifa and elsewhere, their banners read "The
Land of Israel for the People of Israel - 'Palestinians' to Jordan!" A
glimpse into the soul of a transfer advocate can be found online. [10] He makes three main points: 1. Transfer is
the way to create a healthy relationship between Israelis and Palestinians. 2.
If you don't agree with this, it proves that you are anti-Jewish. 3. Transfer
will be achieved by extreme measures of state terror.
Sharon and Ya'alon are drunk with power ("Israel is a
regional superpower. It is a military superpower, an economic superpower, a
cultural-spiritual superpower," Ya'alon told a Rabbis' conference last
week [11]). They are selling stories about being prepared for conventional and
non-conventional attacks, while it is obvious that they are willing to
sacrifice many Israelis to achieve their goals (is this what Ya'alon calls
"amputating organs"? It reminds me of Moussolini's view of the nation
as a body that sometimes needs to sacrifice some of its cells for the sake of
the body as a whole). Maybe this is why Israeli radio reported last week that
30,000 coffins were ordered by the state. (Only soldiers are buried in coffins
in Israel. Civilians are buried according to Jewish law in shroud).
Meron Benvenisti, former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, has
warned of a possible “transfer” scenario: "an American assault on Iraq
against Arab and world opposition, and an Israeli involvement, even if only symbolic,
leads to the collapse of the Hashemite regime in Jordan. Israel then executes
the old 'Jordanian option' - expelling hundreds of thousands of Palestinians
across the Jordan River ... Anyone who regards such ethnic cleansing as a
horrible crime must raise their voice now, without any of the 'ifs, ands or
buts' so typical of the response to the punishment already being meted out in
ever more strict steps." [12]
There are also other transfer scenarios in the air -- with a war with
Syria as the cover or an exceptionally murderous terror attack as the pretext.
The Israeli liberals are perhaps in a habit of disregarding
Moledet and their like as a lunatic fringe, and are still hesitant to
acknowledge that they have taken control. There is also the reluctance to speak
about "transfer", in order not to belittle the current horrors of
curfews and starvation, and not to help raise "transfer" to the
status of the "thinkable." But when the chief of staff talks of a
cancerous demographic threat and the prime minister backs his words, it is time
to realize that the rules of the game have changed. The opposition, so much as
it still exists, cannot stop Sharon and Ya'alon by ridiculing them or by
"not understanding their logic." It has to turn outside for help.
Diplomatic isolation and boycotts are by far better than the consequences of
the "war against cancer".
Chancellor Shroeder, when asked if Germany will come to
Israel's aid if it will be attacked by Iraq, replied "when friends are
attacked, it's clear, we help." [13] A real friend will not only call an
ambulance after you crash, but will tell you not to drive when you're drunk.
Irit Katriel is
an Israeli activist, currently living in Germany. Email: iritka@zahav.net.il
NOTES
[1] Ha'aretz,
Aug 16 2002, "PM urging U.S. not to delay strike against Iraq."
[2] Christian
Science Monitor, August 30, 2002, "Israel sees opportunity in
possible
US strike on Iraq".
[3] Albawaba.com,
August 21 2002, (quoting CBS evening news), "Aziz: Bush plans
towards Iraq serve interests of
Israel."
[4] Ha'aretz,
August 30 2002, "The enemy within."
[5] On
the "demographic problem," see my article "Deep Ideological
Crisis",
July 8 2002,
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Katriel_DeepIdeologicalCrisis.htm
[6] Ha'aretz,
August 31 2002, "Sharon backs Ya'alon remarks on 'cancerous
Palestinian threat'."
[7] Uri
Avnery, August 30 2002, "The return of the dinosaurs."
[8] Ha'aretz,
Nov 17 2000, "Truth or consequences." See also Tanya Reinhart, June
10, "'The second half of '48' - The
Sharon-Ya'alon plan,"
http://www.zmag.org/reinsyplan.htm
[9] Jerusalem
Post, Aug 26 2002, "New organization aims 'to empty the state of
Arabs'." The website of this
organization is at http://www.emigrations.net .
[10]
Boris Shusteff, July 3 2002, "The logistics of transfer,"
http://www.gamla.org.il/english/article/2002/july/b1.htm
[11] Ynet,
Aug 25 2002, "Exclusive: the complete world view of the new chief of
staff."
[12] Ha'aretz,
August 15 2002, "Preemptive warnings of fantastic scenarios."
[13] International
Herald Tribune, August 26 2002, "Shroeder and Stoiber spar
on TV over Iraq".