18 aug 2018
The American linguist, historian and thinker Noam Chomsky says that the administration of US President Donald Trump, despite all its talk about the so-called ‘Deal of the Century’ , has no solution to offer that could lead to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. The Trump administration, he said, is only thinking of striking Iran.
“Israel will not be able to rely forever on American support,” Chomsky said in an interview with the Shahid Center and the “themfadhel.com” blog, adding, “The actions of Israel in recent years have alienated public opinion among the most liberal sectors and the youth, including the American Jews.
He said that the “support for Israel is increasingly based on evangelical churches and the predominantly nationalist and racist (anti-Muslim) party, where major institutions, especially the Presbyterian Church, have adopted boycott and divestment programs, with a focus also on American companies involved in the occupation.”
Chomsky also referred to Israel’s growing realization of its strategic leanings: “A few years ago, Israeli strategic analysts realized that Israel can no longer rely on the support it receives from countries where there is some interest in human rights and [that] it must come closer to more reactionary and authoritarian sectors, a major change that has not taken years.”
Calling the situation in the United States “flexible”, Chomsky said, according to the PNN, that “there can be positive changes in the future.”
Excerpts from the Q & A with Chomsky:
Q1: In your previous lecture with the Shahed center in 2016, you pointed out that the Oslo Accord was a “regenerated selling” for the Palestinian national rights, considering that the reference which the agreement was built on – which was decision number 242 – didn’t explicitly mention the Palestinians, but talked about solving the problem of refugees. As we are concerned about the historical review of the Palestinian struggle, and considering your assessment, how do you see the possibility of exiting this impasse?
Chomsky: The earlier Madrid negotiations broke down because the Palestinian delegation, led by Dr. Haidar Abdel-Shafi, insisted – quite properly – on termination of Israel’s policy of expanding illegal settlements. The US and Israel would not agree. The late chairman Yassir Arafat, undercutting the Palestinian delegation through the Norway channel, did not insist on this – in fact, insisted on almost nothing apart from the recognition of the PLO (nothing about the Palestinian Declaration of Independence, or anything else concerning Palestinian national rights).
After Oslo, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin initiated new settlement programs. The US and Israel quickly broke the Agreements explicitly by moving to separate Gaza and the West Bank. There were no steps towards Palestinian independence under Rabin or his successor Shimon Peres, who made it explicit, as he left office in 1996, that there could be no Palestinian state.
The first Israeli government to admit the possibility of a Palestinian state was the Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration that succeeded Peres. In response to a query by a journalist, David Bar-Illan, director of Communications and Policy Planning in the office of the Prime Minister Netanyahu, said that the Palestinians could call whatever Israel decided to leave to them “a state,” if they liked; or they could call it “fried chicken.”
Subsequent negotiations collapsed in ways that I cannot go into here, though the Taba negotiations in January 2001, called off by Prime Minister Ehud Barak, seemed to be making some progress, according to participants. The way out of the impasse is for Israel and its US backer to join almost all of the rest of the world in agreeing to an acceptable version of a two-state settlement based on the internationally recognised border (the green line), with fair and limited land swaps.
Q2: In the same lecture, you said that the two-state solution, or one whole binational state, were all solutions unacceptable to the Israelis, and that “there is no reason to worship the borders created by the imperialist powers”, and you linked this by talking about the binational state which you considered a fulfillment for the Zionist dreams in the great state of Israel.
What do you think Palestinians should do about this situation? Is there another option?
Chomisky: In the short term, there are two options: (1) the international consensus on two states; (2) Israel’s program of creating a Greater Israel that integrates into Israel whatever it wants in the West Bank, leaving Palestinians in dozens of unviable cantons and under constant harassment, or worse. There is a good deal of talk about a “one-state settlement,” but that is highly unrealistic under current circumstances. Unlike (1), it has virtually no international support, and Israel is strongly opposed because it would pose the dreaded “demographic problem” (too many Arabs in a Jewish state).
That problem will not arise under (2) as it is being implemented, by-passing and isolating Palestinian population concentrations and expelling Palestinians from the areas Israel intends to keep. One can imagine a process beginning with (1), followed by gradual erosion of the Israel-Palestine border (commercial, cultural and other contacts), leading to some form of federation and maybe on to true binationalism – which is not a “fulfillment of Zionist dreams” for the large majority of pre-state Zionists, but a position that had support from much of the Israeli kibbutz movement (Hashomer Hatzair), small groups of intellectuals (Brit Shalom), and some others farther to the left (Kalvarisky’s League for Arab-Jewish Rapprochement).
Along the way, the legitimacy of the borders should be questioned. They were, after all, imposed by Britain and France for their own interests, with no concern for the indigenous population. Now they are bristling with armaments, but that was not always so. In fact, in the early ‘50s, while hiking in northern Israel, I crossed the unmarked border by accident. Erosion of national borders can be salutary, as in post-World War II Europe.
The best hope for Palestinians now is to create pressures for a diplomatic settlement, cooperating with like-minded Israelis and supporters abroad. That has always been a priority for successful national liberation movements. The most important case is the US, and I think there are significant opportunities to bring about important changes in US policies.
Q3: With few differences in the comparison, do you see that the Palestinian struggle for national rights is akin to the struggle of people of South Africa against the Apartheid regime?
Chomsky: There are some similarities, but important differences too. The analogy is imperfect. Within Israel, there is severe discrimination, but it is not Apartheid. In the occupied territories, the situation is much worse than Apartheid. Israel basically wants Palestinians to disappear, the norm for settler-colonial societies (like the US, for example).
South Africa, on the other hand, needed its Black population. They were the workforce. The Bantustans were horrible, but South Africa made efforts to sustain them and to gain international recognition for them. And the international situation is much different. Apartheid was strongly opposed internationally – arms embargoes, sanctions, boycott and divestment. Thirty years before the fall of the Apartheid regime, the South African foreign minister, recognising that the regime was becoming an international pariah, informed the US Ambassador, in effect, that they were relying on Washington to defend them against international opprobrium.
And indeed Ronald Reagan was the last world leader to support the Apartheid state, though by then American opinion, and crucially US business, favoured overcoming Apartheid and government policy was beginning to shift. There was another crucial difference: Cuba. Cuba played a major role in liberating southern Africa, beating back the South African invasion of Angola and shattering the myth of white supremacy both within South Africa and in the surrounding regions. The situation with regard to Israel-Palestine is far different today.
Q4: The current US administration reported that there was a “bargain of the century” which began by declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel. This doesn’t seem new since many previous American administrations had given comparable promises over the past decades. What are your expectations about the type of solution/s that Donald Trump and his administration are thinking about?
Chomsky: They haven’t given any indications, but their record suggests that if there is a plan at all – which is uncertain – it will probably be grotesque. The strategic goal of the administration, to the extent that one can extricate one from the chaos, is to firm up the developing coalition of Israel and Arab states and to join in confronting their common enemy, Iran, which is perceived as threatening US hegemony in the region and Israel’s freedom to resort to violence.
Q5: After US president Donald Trump declared the withdrawal of Washington from the nuclear agreement with Iran and the latter’s response (through statements by Iranian supreme leader Khamenei) to return to its activities in Uranium enrichment, and the successive Israeli strikes on sites in Syria, how do you see the impact of this regional tension? Especially since Iran cannot be exempted from its accountability in creating this tension, through its continuous interference in the neighboring countries, leading to less attention to the Palestinian issue?
Chomsky: Iran is no doubt seeking to extend its influence in the region, in the way all powers do. US aggression has created new opportunities for Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is supporting the Assad regime, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. These developments are naturally regarded as unwelcome by the US, Israel and Gulf States, threatening their regional dominance.
Even US intelligence agrees that Iran was living up to the nuclear agreement despite regular US violations. Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement does significantly heighten tensions in the region. It is unclear whether Iran will respond by returning to Uranium enrichment, though they are entitled to. If it does, US-Israel might present that as the pretext for a military attack, in addition to their cyberattack (an act of war, under US doctrine) and assassination of scientists. The consequences could be grim.
Q6: You mentioned also in your lecture [2016] that we should see the possibility of change in the American politics. In this context, you mentioned that the public support for Israel in the US was drifting towards the right. You also mentioned that a day might soon come where Israel would no longer be able to count on the support expected half a century ago? Current facts indicate the predominance of the populist right logic represented by Trump and a possible generic attack on the libertarian values not only in the US but in Europe too. What are the factors that can contribute to an expected change in the American society and in the American legislators?
Chomsky: It seems on the surface as though US support for extremist Israeli positions is solid, but that picture is misleading. Israeli actions in recent years have alienated public opinion among more liberal sectors and the young (including many Jewish Americans). Self-identified Democrats are now more sympathetic to Palestinians than to Israelis. Increasingly, support for Israel is based mostly on Evangelical churches and the nationalist and often racist (anti-Muslim) right. Major institutions, notably the Presbyterian Church, have adopted boycott-divestment programs, also focusing on US corporations involved in the occupation. Major human rights organisations have called for an arms embargo against Israel – and in fact, under US law (the Leahy Law) a strong case can be made for that. Much the same is true throughout the world. For some years, Israeli strategic analysts have recognised that Israel can no longer count on support from countries where there is some concern for human rights and must ally itself more closely with more reactionary and authoritarian sectors. That is a major change from not many years ago. The situation in the US is fluid, and there could be positive changes ahead.
Q7: American history showed is the ability to correct the imbalance as what happened, for example, in the 1920s with the persecution of Italian immigrants (its peak was Sacco and Vanzetti case), or getting out of the impact created by the McCarthyism era that lasted for two decades. Do you see that American society still owns this ability? As we are witnessing, the right-wing populist wave have become a growing stream on both sides of the Atlantic fuelled by (immigration, Islamophobia, fear of Russia and China)?
Chomsky: There is a good deal to say about the history, but putting that aside, while such tendencies are clear, it’s important to recognise that there are counter-tendencies too. The most popular political figure in the US, according to polls, is Bernie Sanders. His success in the 2016 elections was a sharp break from American political history, in which elections have been substantially determined by massive funding. Sanders had no support from the usual sources (corporations, great wealth), was ignored or denigrated by the media, and even used the scare word “socialism” (meaning social democracy).
He probably would have won the Democratic nomination had it not been for machinations of Obama-Clinton party managers, and the popular movements spawned by his campaign, along with others, are having considerable success. There are similar developments in Europe (Corbyn’s Labour Party, Podemos, DiEM 25, and others).
In general, centrist political institutions are collapsing in a prevailing atmosphere of anger, fear, and contempt for institutions, largely engendered by the regressive impact on the population of the neoliberal/austerity programs of the past generation. Such conditions often foster latent anti-social attitudes and exaggerated fears. For example, popular estimates of the number of immigrants are far higher than actual numbers, particularly in the US (much the same is true of estimates of foreign aid and of recipients of government benefits). The general circumstances bring to mind Gramsci’s words in Mussolini’s prison cells: “‘The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born.”
Q8: The Palestinians have developed a new way of struggling since 2015, which is the economic and cultural boycott campaigns led by movements (BDS). How do you see the Palestinian boycott movement that has achieved remarkable successes and represented a great existential concern for Israel and which pushed it to release threats to eliminate Palestinian leaders?
Chomsky: For the reasons I mentioned, unlike the South African case, the question of sanctions does not arise, yet at least; perhaps it will if matters progress successfully. So the real questions are boycott and divestment. These can be powerful tools. And as always for serious activism, it is necessary to think through carefully the impact of tactical choices.
For the first time to my knowledge, a BDS movement was launched 20 years ago by Uri Avnery’s Gush Emunim, directed against the occupation.
The ‘BDS movement’ has become a major international campaign under Palestinian initiative since 2005, with many success and much promise. Experience has shown, I think, that focus on the occupation is the most effective tactic, the tactic that really concerns Israeli leaders and that can energise significant popular support, as in cases I mentioned earlier.
The issues are clear and unambiguous, the stand entirely principled. The actions are not, as often happens, open to diversion away from the plight of Palestinians to side issues (academic freedom, double standards, etc.). They do not elicit backlash that sometimes overwhelms the actions undertaken. They could lead to policy changes, both in Israel and abroad, as they gain in force and scale.
Choice of tactics can surely be debated, but it is important to bear in mind that it should be debated. Choice of tactics should always be considered carefully in terms of consequences for the victims and opportunity costs – the course not taken and what it might have achieved. These are never trivial considerations.
There is no room for dogmatism or inflexible doctrine. That much at least should be second nature to activists.
08/20/15 Noam Chomsky: Israeli Apartheid ‘Much Worse’ Than South Africa
“Israel will not be able to rely forever on American support,” Chomsky said in an interview with the Shahid Center and the “themfadhel.com” blog, adding, “The actions of Israel in recent years have alienated public opinion among the most liberal sectors and the youth, including the American Jews.
He said that the “support for Israel is increasingly based on evangelical churches and the predominantly nationalist and racist (anti-Muslim) party, where major institutions, especially the Presbyterian Church, have adopted boycott and divestment programs, with a focus also on American companies involved in the occupation.”
Chomsky also referred to Israel’s growing realization of its strategic leanings: “A few years ago, Israeli strategic analysts realized that Israel can no longer rely on the support it receives from countries where there is some interest in human rights and [that] it must come closer to more reactionary and authoritarian sectors, a major change that has not taken years.”
Calling the situation in the United States “flexible”, Chomsky said, according to the PNN, that “there can be positive changes in the future.”
Excerpts from the Q & A with Chomsky:
Q1: In your previous lecture with the Shahed center in 2016, you pointed out that the Oslo Accord was a “regenerated selling” for the Palestinian national rights, considering that the reference which the agreement was built on – which was decision number 242 – didn’t explicitly mention the Palestinians, but talked about solving the problem of refugees. As we are concerned about the historical review of the Palestinian struggle, and considering your assessment, how do you see the possibility of exiting this impasse?
Chomsky: The earlier Madrid negotiations broke down because the Palestinian delegation, led by Dr. Haidar Abdel-Shafi, insisted – quite properly – on termination of Israel’s policy of expanding illegal settlements. The US and Israel would not agree. The late chairman Yassir Arafat, undercutting the Palestinian delegation through the Norway channel, did not insist on this – in fact, insisted on almost nothing apart from the recognition of the PLO (nothing about the Palestinian Declaration of Independence, or anything else concerning Palestinian national rights).
After Oslo, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin initiated new settlement programs. The US and Israel quickly broke the Agreements explicitly by moving to separate Gaza and the West Bank. There were no steps towards Palestinian independence under Rabin or his successor Shimon Peres, who made it explicit, as he left office in 1996, that there could be no Palestinian state.
The first Israeli government to admit the possibility of a Palestinian state was the Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration that succeeded Peres. In response to a query by a journalist, David Bar-Illan, director of Communications and Policy Planning in the office of the Prime Minister Netanyahu, said that the Palestinians could call whatever Israel decided to leave to them “a state,” if they liked; or they could call it “fried chicken.”
Subsequent negotiations collapsed in ways that I cannot go into here, though the Taba negotiations in January 2001, called off by Prime Minister Ehud Barak, seemed to be making some progress, according to participants. The way out of the impasse is for Israel and its US backer to join almost all of the rest of the world in agreeing to an acceptable version of a two-state settlement based on the internationally recognised border (the green line), with fair and limited land swaps.
Q2: In the same lecture, you said that the two-state solution, or one whole binational state, were all solutions unacceptable to the Israelis, and that “there is no reason to worship the borders created by the imperialist powers”, and you linked this by talking about the binational state which you considered a fulfillment for the Zionist dreams in the great state of Israel.
What do you think Palestinians should do about this situation? Is there another option?
Chomisky: In the short term, there are two options: (1) the international consensus on two states; (2) Israel’s program of creating a Greater Israel that integrates into Israel whatever it wants in the West Bank, leaving Palestinians in dozens of unviable cantons and under constant harassment, or worse. There is a good deal of talk about a “one-state settlement,” but that is highly unrealistic under current circumstances. Unlike (1), it has virtually no international support, and Israel is strongly opposed because it would pose the dreaded “demographic problem” (too many Arabs in a Jewish state).
That problem will not arise under (2) as it is being implemented, by-passing and isolating Palestinian population concentrations and expelling Palestinians from the areas Israel intends to keep. One can imagine a process beginning with (1), followed by gradual erosion of the Israel-Palestine border (commercial, cultural and other contacts), leading to some form of federation and maybe on to true binationalism – which is not a “fulfillment of Zionist dreams” for the large majority of pre-state Zionists, but a position that had support from much of the Israeli kibbutz movement (Hashomer Hatzair), small groups of intellectuals (Brit Shalom), and some others farther to the left (Kalvarisky’s League for Arab-Jewish Rapprochement).
Along the way, the legitimacy of the borders should be questioned. They were, after all, imposed by Britain and France for their own interests, with no concern for the indigenous population. Now they are bristling with armaments, but that was not always so. In fact, in the early ‘50s, while hiking in northern Israel, I crossed the unmarked border by accident. Erosion of national borders can be salutary, as in post-World War II Europe.
The best hope for Palestinians now is to create pressures for a diplomatic settlement, cooperating with like-minded Israelis and supporters abroad. That has always been a priority for successful national liberation movements. The most important case is the US, and I think there are significant opportunities to bring about important changes in US policies.
Q3: With few differences in the comparison, do you see that the Palestinian struggle for national rights is akin to the struggle of people of South Africa against the Apartheid regime?
Chomsky: There are some similarities, but important differences too. The analogy is imperfect. Within Israel, there is severe discrimination, but it is not Apartheid. In the occupied territories, the situation is much worse than Apartheid. Israel basically wants Palestinians to disappear, the norm for settler-colonial societies (like the US, for example).
South Africa, on the other hand, needed its Black population. They were the workforce. The Bantustans were horrible, but South Africa made efforts to sustain them and to gain international recognition for them. And the international situation is much different. Apartheid was strongly opposed internationally – arms embargoes, sanctions, boycott and divestment. Thirty years before the fall of the Apartheid regime, the South African foreign minister, recognising that the regime was becoming an international pariah, informed the US Ambassador, in effect, that they were relying on Washington to defend them against international opprobrium.
And indeed Ronald Reagan was the last world leader to support the Apartheid state, though by then American opinion, and crucially US business, favoured overcoming Apartheid and government policy was beginning to shift. There was another crucial difference: Cuba. Cuba played a major role in liberating southern Africa, beating back the South African invasion of Angola and shattering the myth of white supremacy both within South Africa and in the surrounding regions. The situation with regard to Israel-Palestine is far different today.
Q4: The current US administration reported that there was a “bargain of the century” which began by declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel. This doesn’t seem new since many previous American administrations had given comparable promises over the past decades. What are your expectations about the type of solution/s that Donald Trump and his administration are thinking about?
Chomsky: They haven’t given any indications, but their record suggests that if there is a plan at all – which is uncertain – it will probably be grotesque. The strategic goal of the administration, to the extent that one can extricate one from the chaos, is to firm up the developing coalition of Israel and Arab states and to join in confronting their common enemy, Iran, which is perceived as threatening US hegemony in the region and Israel’s freedom to resort to violence.
Q5: After US president Donald Trump declared the withdrawal of Washington from the nuclear agreement with Iran and the latter’s response (through statements by Iranian supreme leader Khamenei) to return to its activities in Uranium enrichment, and the successive Israeli strikes on sites in Syria, how do you see the impact of this regional tension? Especially since Iran cannot be exempted from its accountability in creating this tension, through its continuous interference in the neighboring countries, leading to less attention to the Palestinian issue?
Chomsky: Iran is no doubt seeking to extend its influence in the region, in the way all powers do. US aggression has created new opportunities for Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is supporting the Assad regime, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. These developments are naturally regarded as unwelcome by the US, Israel and Gulf States, threatening their regional dominance.
Even US intelligence agrees that Iran was living up to the nuclear agreement despite regular US violations. Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement does significantly heighten tensions in the region. It is unclear whether Iran will respond by returning to Uranium enrichment, though they are entitled to. If it does, US-Israel might present that as the pretext for a military attack, in addition to their cyberattack (an act of war, under US doctrine) and assassination of scientists. The consequences could be grim.
Q6: You mentioned also in your lecture [2016] that we should see the possibility of change in the American politics. In this context, you mentioned that the public support for Israel in the US was drifting towards the right. You also mentioned that a day might soon come where Israel would no longer be able to count on the support expected half a century ago? Current facts indicate the predominance of the populist right logic represented by Trump and a possible generic attack on the libertarian values not only in the US but in Europe too. What are the factors that can contribute to an expected change in the American society and in the American legislators?
Chomsky: It seems on the surface as though US support for extremist Israeli positions is solid, but that picture is misleading. Israeli actions in recent years have alienated public opinion among more liberal sectors and the young (including many Jewish Americans). Self-identified Democrats are now more sympathetic to Palestinians than to Israelis. Increasingly, support for Israel is based mostly on Evangelical churches and the nationalist and often racist (anti-Muslim) right. Major institutions, notably the Presbyterian Church, have adopted boycott-divestment programs, also focusing on US corporations involved in the occupation. Major human rights organisations have called for an arms embargo against Israel – and in fact, under US law (the Leahy Law) a strong case can be made for that. Much the same is true throughout the world. For some years, Israeli strategic analysts have recognised that Israel can no longer count on support from countries where there is some concern for human rights and must ally itself more closely with more reactionary and authoritarian sectors. That is a major change from not many years ago. The situation in the US is fluid, and there could be positive changes ahead.
Q7: American history showed is the ability to correct the imbalance as what happened, for example, in the 1920s with the persecution of Italian immigrants (its peak was Sacco and Vanzetti case), or getting out of the impact created by the McCarthyism era that lasted for two decades. Do you see that American society still owns this ability? As we are witnessing, the right-wing populist wave have become a growing stream on both sides of the Atlantic fuelled by (immigration, Islamophobia, fear of Russia and China)?
Chomsky: There is a good deal to say about the history, but putting that aside, while such tendencies are clear, it’s important to recognise that there are counter-tendencies too. The most popular political figure in the US, according to polls, is Bernie Sanders. His success in the 2016 elections was a sharp break from American political history, in which elections have been substantially determined by massive funding. Sanders had no support from the usual sources (corporations, great wealth), was ignored or denigrated by the media, and even used the scare word “socialism” (meaning social democracy).
He probably would have won the Democratic nomination had it not been for machinations of Obama-Clinton party managers, and the popular movements spawned by his campaign, along with others, are having considerable success. There are similar developments in Europe (Corbyn’s Labour Party, Podemos, DiEM 25, and others).
In general, centrist political institutions are collapsing in a prevailing atmosphere of anger, fear, and contempt for institutions, largely engendered by the regressive impact on the population of the neoliberal/austerity programs of the past generation. Such conditions often foster latent anti-social attitudes and exaggerated fears. For example, popular estimates of the number of immigrants are far higher than actual numbers, particularly in the US (much the same is true of estimates of foreign aid and of recipients of government benefits). The general circumstances bring to mind Gramsci’s words in Mussolini’s prison cells: “‘The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born.”
Q8: The Palestinians have developed a new way of struggling since 2015, which is the economic and cultural boycott campaigns led by movements (BDS). How do you see the Palestinian boycott movement that has achieved remarkable successes and represented a great existential concern for Israel and which pushed it to release threats to eliminate Palestinian leaders?
Chomsky: For the reasons I mentioned, unlike the South African case, the question of sanctions does not arise, yet at least; perhaps it will if matters progress successfully. So the real questions are boycott and divestment. These can be powerful tools. And as always for serious activism, it is necessary to think through carefully the impact of tactical choices.
For the first time to my knowledge, a BDS movement was launched 20 years ago by Uri Avnery’s Gush Emunim, directed against the occupation.
The ‘BDS movement’ has become a major international campaign under Palestinian initiative since 2005, with many success and much promise. Experience has shown, I think, that focus on the occupation is the most effective tactic, the tactic that really concerns Israeli leaders and that can energise significant popular support, as in cases I mentioned earlier.
The issues are clear and unambiguous, the stand entirely principled. The actions are not, as often happens, open to diversion away from the plight of Palestinians to side issues (academic freedom, double standards, etc.). They do not elicit backlash that sometimes overwhelms the actions undertaken. They could lead to policy changes, both in Israel and abroad, as they gain in force and scale.
Choice of tactics can surely be debated, but it is important to bear in mind that it should be debated. Choice of tactics should always be considered carefully in terms of consequences for the victims and opportunity costs – the course not taken and what it might have achieved. These are never trivial considerations.
There is no room for dogmatism or inflexible doctrine. That much at least should be second nature to activists.
08/20/15 Noam Chomsky: Israeli Apartheid ‘Much Worse’ Than South Africa
7 aug 2018
Israeli security services held and interrogated Simone Zimmerman, a US Jewish activist, at the border with Egypt for several hours on Sunday, over her alleged “connections with Palestinians.”
Zimmerman, who resides and works in Israel, tweeted that her and a friend were held at the Taba Crossing for four hours, where they were questioned by security agents from Shin Bet over their political views and previous work with Palestinians.
“I am at the border after a weekend in Sinai and Israeli authorities have detained me and my friend Abby for the last three hours. We are being questioned solely about our political opinions and activities vis a vis Palestinians esp in the occupied territories,” the activist tweeted on Sunday.
The activist said that security agents quizzed her and fellow activist Abby Kirschbaum over places they had visited in the West Bank, what they thought of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and “why she wanted to help [people] in Gaza.”
“All of the questions they asked me were about if I go to Palestinian areas, what do I do/who do I meet there, why I go there… and why the hell would I want to do that,” she said, in another tweet.
Zimmerman, who describes herself on Twitter as part of the Jewish Resistance to the occupation, works for an Israeli human rights organisation in Tel Aviv for which she holds a valid work permit.
She is a founding member of IfNotNow, an American Jewish anti-occupation organization.
Zimmerman worked previously for US Senator Bernie Sanders, as the Jewish outreach coordinator for the 2016 primary campaign. However, she was allegedly fired after comments surfaced, from 2015, in which she called Netanyahu a “manipulative asshole” and “murderer”.
Zimmerman, who says she is not herself a supporter of the BDS movement, recently made a video condemning Israel’s travel ban on anyone associated with the boycott movement, which came into action last year.
Zimmerman, who resides and works in Israel, tweeted that her and a friend were held at the Taba Crossing for four hours, where they were questioned by security agents from Shin Bet over their political views and previous work with Palestinians.
“I am at the border after a weekend in Sinai and Israeli authorities have detained me and my friend Abby for the last three hours. We are being questioned solely about our political opinions and activities vis a vis Palestinians esp in the occupied territories,” the activist tweeted on Sunday.
The activist said that security agents quizzed her and fellow activist Abby Kirschbaum over places they had visited in the West Bank, what they thought of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and “why she wanted to help [people] in Gaza.”
“All of the questions they asked me were about if I go to Palestinian areas, what do I do/who do I meet there, why I go there… and why the hell would I want to do that,” she said, in another tweet.
Zimmerman, who describes herself on Twitter as part of the Jewish Resistance to the occupation, works for an Israeli human rights organisation in Tel Aviv for which she holds a valid work permit.
She is a founding member of IfNotNow, an American Jewish anti-occupation organization.
Zimmerman worked previously for US Senator Bernie Sanders, as the Jewish outreach coordinator for the 2016 primary campaign. However, she was allegedly fired after comments surfaced, from 2015, in which she called Netanyahu a “manipulative asshole” and “murderer”.
Zimmerman, who says she is not herself a supporter of the BDS movement, recently made a video condemning Israel’s travel ban on anyone associated with the boycott movement, which came into action last year.
22 july 2018
39 Jewish groups from across the world have defended the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement in an open letter released recently.
These left-wing Jewish groups, which are from Sweden, Britain, France, Spain, Belgium, Germany, New Zealand, The Netherlands, US, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Australia, South Africa and other countries, affirmed that “BDS should not be defined as anti-Semitic.”
“As social justice organizations from around the world, we write this letter with growing alarm regarding the targeting of organizations that support Palestinian rights in general and the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, in particular. These attacks too often take the form of cynical and false accusations of anti-Semitism that dangerously conflate anti-Jewish racism with opposition to Israel’s policies and system of occupation and apartheid.”
“We live in a frightening era, with growing numbers of authoritarian and xenophobic regimes worldwide, foremost among them the Trump administration, allying themselves with Israel’s far right government while making common cause with deeply anti-Semitic and racist white supremacist groups and parties.”
The 39 Jewish groups stated that “from our own histories we are all too aware of the dangers of increasingly fascistic and openly racist governments and political parties.”
Their letter underlines that “it is more important than ever to distinguish between the hostility to or prejudice against Jews on the one hand and legitimate critiques of Israeli policies and system of injustice on the other.”
The letter also states that “the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, which is increasingly being adopted or considered by western governments, is worded in such a way as to be easily adopted or considered by western governments to intentionally equate legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with anti-Semitism, as a means to suppress the former.”
“This conflation undermines both the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality and the global struggle against anti-Semitism. It also serves to shield Israel from being held accountable to universal standards of human rights and international law,” the letter asserts further.
The organizations that signed the letter include Academia4equality (Israel), Boycott from Within (Israeli citizens for BDS), Coalition of Women for Peace (Israel), Collectif Judéo Arabe et Citoyen pour la Palestine (France), Dayenu: New Zealand Jews Against Occupation (New Zealand), Een Ander Joods Geluid (A Different Jewish Voice) (The Netherlands), Een Andere Joodse Stem – Another Jewish Voice (Flanders, Belgium), European Jews for a Just Peace, and Free Speech on Israel (UK).
These left-wing Jewish groups, which are from Sweden, Britain, France, Spain, Belgium, Germany, New Zealand, The Netherlands, US, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Australia, South Africa and other countries, affirmed that “BDS should not be defined as anti-Semitic.”
“As social justice organizations from around the world, we write this letter with growing alarm regarding the targeting of organizations that support Palestinian rights in general and the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, in particular. These attacks too often take the form of cynical and false accusations of anti-Semitism that dangerously conflate anti-Jewish racism with opposition to Israel’s policies and system of occupation and apartheid.”
“We live in a frightening era, with growing numbers of authoritarian and xenophobic regimes worldwide, foremost among them the Trump administration, allying themselves with Israel’s far right government while making common cause with deeply anti-Semitic and racist white supremacist groups and parties.”
The 39 Jewish groups stated that “from our own histories we are all too aware of the dangers of increasingly fascistic and openly racist governments and political parties.”
Their letter underlines that “it is more important than ever to distinguish between the hostility to or prejudice against Jews on the one hand and legitimate critiques of Israeli policies and system of injustice on the other.”
The letter also states that “the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, which is increasingly being adopted or considered by western governments, is worded in such a way as to be easily adopted or considered by western governments to intentionally equate legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with anti-Semitism, as a means to suppress the former.”
“This conflation undermines both the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality and the global struggle against anti-Semitism. It also serves to shield Israel from being held accountable to universal standards of human rights and international law,” the letter asserts further.
The organizations that signed the letter include Academia4equality (Israel), Boycott from Within (Israeli citizens for BDS), Coalition of Women for Peace (Israel), Collectif Judéo Arabe et Citoyen pour la Palestine (France), Dayenu: New Zealand Jews Against Occupation (New Zealand), Een Ander Joods Geluid (A Different Jewish Voice) (The Netherlands), Een Andere Joodse Stem – Another Jewish Voice (Flanders, Belgium), European Jews for a Just Peace, and Free Speech on Israel (UK).
18 july 2018
“BDS should not be defined as anti-Semitic.” This is the message from 39 Jewish groups who oppose equating antisemitism with criticism of Israel.
On Tuesday, South African Jewish Voices for a Just Peace (SAJVP) and South African Jews for a Free Palestine (SAJFP) joined Jews from the United States, Germany, England, Argentina, New Zealand and other corners of the world in a statement condemning the targeting of organizations that support Palestinian rights in general, and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, in particular.
Attacks on pro-Palestine groups and the BDS Movement “often take the form of cynical and false accusations of antisemitism that dangerously conflate anti-Jewish racism with opposition to Israel’s policies and system of occupation and apartheid,” the groups said. (In February, the BDS Movement was officially nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for its ongoing commitment to fighting antisemitism and all forms of racism and bigotry).
“This conflation undermines both the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality and the global struggle against antisemitism. It also serves to shield Israel from being held accountable to universal standards of human rights and international law.”
The groups stressed that it is more important than ever to distinguish between hostility or prejudice against Jews on the one hand, and legitimate critiques of Israeli policies and systems of injustice on the other.
The Jewish groups also found the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which is increasingly being adopted or considered by western governments, problematic, as it is worded in such a way that equates legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism. This is intended to stifle criticism of Israel.
They urged governments to reject the IHRA definition of antisemitism and instead take effective measures to end the international community’s complicity in Israel’s human rights violations against Palestinians.
Source: Afro-Palestine News Wire Service
On Tuesday, South African Jewish Voices for a Just Peace (SAJVP) and South African Jews for a Free Palestine (SAJFP) joined Jews from the United States, Germany, England, Argentina, New Zealand and other corners of the world in a statement condemning the targeting of organizations that support Palestinian rights in general, and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, in particular.
Attacks on pro-Palestine groups and the BDS Movement “often take the form of cynical and false accusations of antisemitism that dangerously conflate anti-Jewish racism with opposition to Israel’s policies and system of occupation and apartheid,” the groups said. (In February, the BDS Movement was officially nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for its ongoing commitment to fighting antisemitism and all forms of racism and bigotry).
“This conflation undermines both the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality and the global struggle against antisemitism. It also serves to shield Israel from being held accountable to universal standards of human rights and international law.”
The groups stressed that it is more important than ever to distinguish between hostility or prejudice against Jews on the one hand, and legitimate critiques of Israeli policies and systems of injustice on the other.
The Jewish groups also found the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which is increasingly being adopted or considered by western governments, problematic, as it is worded in such a way that equates legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism. This is intended to stifle criticism of Israel.
They urged governments to reject the IHRA definition of antisemitism and instead take effective measures to end the international community’s complicity in Israel’s human rights violations against Palestinians.
Source: Afro-Palestine News Wire Service
|
|
Yonatan Shapira says Israel’s ‘democracy’ is, in fact, an apartheid state led by fascist Jewish supremacists.
TRNN video & transcript: DIMITRI LASCARIS: This is Dimitri Lascaris, reporting for The Real News Network from the port of Naples, Italy. We are seated in front of the ships of the Gaza flotilla, the Freedom Flotilla, which have been docked here for a couple of days, and I’m pleased to be joined today by Yonatan Shapira. Yonatan is a former rescue pilot in the Israeli Air Force. He’s also a founding member and prominent activist of the Israeli movement Boycott From Within. And I’d like to thank you very much for joining us today, Yonatan. YONATAN SHAPIRA: Thank you. Thank you for coming. |
DIMITRI LASCARIS: So I’d like to start by talking about your experiences within the Israeli Air Force, and your decision ultimately to become a dissenter from military service. Could you tell us about that?
YONATAN SHAPIRA: Well, there is a long story to tell here, but I’ll just try to say in a few words that in 2003, after more than 10 years of service in the Israeli Air Force, I was a Blackhawk helicopter pilot doing rescues and flying soldiers, and doing everything that I was asked. I realized together with other friends in the air force that we are fighting for the wrong side, and we are part of an organization that commits a crime against innocent Palestinians, and we do not want to be part of it anymore. So together with a group of about 27 pilots from all different squadrons of the Israeli air force, attack pilots, rescue pilots like me and others, veterans and active, we send this letter to our commander and the whole society in Israel telling them that we are no longer willing to obey the orders and be part of this illegal and criminal, immoral, occupation. That’s what started my life as an activist fifteen years ago, on the eve of the Jewish year, Rosh Hashanah.
DIMITRI LASCARIS: And subsequently you became a prominent member, as I mentioned, at the outset of this movement, Boycott From Within. Can you tell us, what is it like being an Israeli citizen advocating for the imposition of a boycott given the attitude of the Israeli government towards the whole boycott movement?
YONATAN SHAPIRA: As a human being, I’m very proud of it. I feel super confident about what we, we are many activists. We are still a minority of a minority. But there are activists in Israel who are calling for boycott, divestment, and sanctions because we believe it’s for the benefit of all people; Palestinian people, and Jewish people, and everyone living there and everyone in the world. Of course, the Zionist society in Israel doesn’t like it. So you pay the [little] price of being a dissenter in an apartheid. So you get some benefit, some of your privilege away. But overall I’m still able to be there when I’m there, and lead a relatively comfortable life.
And slowly, slowly, the apartheid system is trying to make it harder and harder and more difficult on us. But again, when I look and compare my life to the life of a Palestinian or a refugee in Israel, or even a non-white Ashkenazi Israeli man in Israel, I’m still able to live quite comfortable. As we speak there are many trying in Parliament to make the apartheid in Israel more official. So different laws that are trying to constitute, that will make it even harder for us to still be free to still act.
And it’s just important to remember that Israel claims to be a democracy. It is not. It’s, it’s an apartheid. It’s led by a group of fascist Jewish supremacy people, and prime minister, and ministers. But if you’re a Zionist Jew, you can feel great democracy. If you are not a Zionist, and if you’re not a Jew, you’re living in apartheid.
DIMITRI LASCARIS: Now, you’ve participated in prior missions of the Freedom Flotilla. Could you tell me why, and also how you were received by your former colleagues within the Israeli military when the vessels were intercepted on those occasions?
YONATAN SHAPIRA: The first time I tried to break the blockade with a group of activists was 2010. About three months after what happened on the Mavi Marmara, where Israeli, the Israeli army shot and killed about 10 activists from Turkey, most of them. The helicopter that landed, the soldiers that killed and massacred people on the Mavi Marmara, were helicopters from the squadron I used to fly in, this Blackhawk squadron in the Israeli air force. And therefore I decided that I must participate in the second boat that will try to break the blockade. It happened in September 2010. We were very small, and we were intercepted by many warships, small and big.
And if we were Palestinians or Turks I guess they would shoot us and kill us, maybe, but I got the better treatment of a Taser gun in my heart. So maybe they thought that they will resuscitate my Zionist behavior. My Zionist heart will start beating again.
But instead it just made me more clear about my decision, and confident about the need to struggle against apartheid and against this illegal crime of ghettoization and that concentration of two million people. The second attempt was 2011, a year, about a year later. I was on a crew of The Audacity of Hope. It was a big American boat, and we were part of the second flotilla trying to leave from the port of Piraeus in Greece. Unfortunately, the Greek government was coopted by Israel and the U.S., and with different pressure, I guess, they obeyed Bibi Netanyahu. And we had a big sign saying, who’s your commander, Netanyahu or Poseidon? Who is the god of the sea. Is it Israel, or the Greek Poseidon?
Unfortunately, it was Netanyahu and on a gun show on a gunpoint. We were stopped by the Greek coast guard just a few minutes after leaving the port of Priaeus, and we had to go back, and were detained by the, by the Greeks. And the third attempt was 2012, with the Ship to Gaza, the Swedish group that was with many international organizations, and the Finnish flagged boat. We had other Israelis on board. And we were also stopped about 40 miles from, from shore, from Gaza. This time it was a big operation. I guess they used it as a maneuver for training their forces, because they know that we are not posing any threat, like military threat, on them. So they were hundreds, maybe thousands of soldiers participating.
About 15 warships, big and small. And also one Blackhawk helicopter that came in circled above us. And when I looked at it on the tail I could see that the number on the tail is 852, which is the same helicopter, tthe same piece of metal that I used to fly some years before. They again arrested us, tasered us, and took us to the Navy base of Ashdod, and we spent a few days arrested.
DIMITRI LASCARIS: I’d like, I’d like to talk to you about the future, to conclude. And you know, those of us in the West watching with trepidation what’s happening seem, it seems to be that every day the predicament of the Palestinian people is worse, and that the Israeli government’s sense of impunity is on the increase, if anything. Do you, are you feeling hopeful, based upon what you see, for the cause of Palestinian justice, justice for the Palestinian people? Do you see signs that this is a battle that is being won, ultimately, and that this is something that may actually be won within your lifetime?
YONATAN SHAPIRA: Well gives me hope is nothing about the governments and the system that controls us in your country, in my country. I see a lot of hypocrisy all over Europe and elsewhere, and also Canada. What gives me hope is to see the popular struggle of Palestinians that are showing incredible bravery. That reminds me what I grew up on, you know, the struggle in the ghettos, in the Warsaw Ghetto, in other ghettos. With the, with all the courage to walk into the fence, towards the fence of this biggest prison in the world, without bearing any arms. Walking and trying to protest this siege. It gives me a lot of hope, because I think that’s where the mighty power of the Israeli military collapses, when we have thousands and thousands of Palestinians that are uniting, holding hands and standing in front of the Israeli snipers.
That gives me hope. That means that it’s not going to be able to last forever. And things like that gives me hope to be together with the Spanish, Italians, Americans, Canadians, Norwegians, Swedish, everyone. It means that somewhere on a deep nerve of many people around the world, it’s quite clear that this symbolic struggle of the Palestinians for freedom will be won at some point. And our job is to not be deterred, and not be, not lose our hope when we see the hypocritical governments in one hand saying something against Israel’s crimes, and on the other hand still doing arms trade with them and giving them all the impunity and all the actual support to continue with this massacre and this illegality.
But it’s important to to say to everyone who listens to us that we need you. We need the person that now maybe sits in Canada, or in the U.S., or in elsewhere in Europe, or somewhere else. We need you to join this struggle. And this struggle is not just about freedom for Palestinians. It’s about the struggle against what Europe and the U.S. and other countries are doing to refugees that are trying to escape the horrors in Africa. It’s the same struggle. It’s the struggle of the people who have less to be recognized and to get their basic human right. So if you want to be part of the struggle, wherever you are, you don’t have to come all the way and join us in this flotilla. You can be active on your, in your local community, for justice for, for everyone. And then you are part of the struggle for justice for Palestine.
DIMITRI LASCARIS: I’d like to thank you very much for speaking with The Real News today, Yonatan. It’s been a pleasure.
YONATAN SHAPIRA: Thank you for coming here. And good luck with your health.
DIMITRI LASCARIS: Thank you very much. And this is Dimitri Lascaris, reporting for The Real News from Naples, Italy.
IMEMC Interview 06/26/18: Jewish American Explains Why She Supports Palestine and BDS
YONATAN SHAPIRA: Well, there is a long story to tell here, but I’ll just try to say in a few words that in 2003, after more than 10 years of service in the Israeli Air Force, I was a Blackhawk helicopter pilot doing rescues and flying soldiers, and doing everything that I was asked. I realized together with other friends in the air force that we are fighting for the wrong side, and we are part of an organization that commits a crime against innocent Palestinians, and we do not want to be part of it anymore. So together with a group of about 27 pilots from all different squadrons of the Israeli air force, attack pilots, rescue pilots like me and others, veterans and active, we send this letter to our commander and the whole society in Israel telling them that we are no longer willing to obey the orders and be part of this illegal and criminal, immoral, occupation. That’s what started my life as an activist fifteen years ago, on the eve of the Jewish year, Rosh Hashanah.
DIMITRI LASCARIS: And subsequently you became a prominent member, as I mentioned, at the outset of this movement, Boycott From Within. Can you tell us, what is it like being an Israeli citizen advocating for the imposition of a boycott given the attitude of the Israeli government towards the whole boycott movement?
YONATAN SHAPIRA: As a human being, I’m very proud of it. I feel super confident about what we, we are many activists. We are still a minority of a minority. But there are activists in Israel who are calling for boycott, divestment, and sanctions because we believe it’s for the benefit of all people; Palestinian people, and Jewish people, and everyone living there and everyone in the world. Of course, the Zionist society in Israel doesn’t like it. So you pay the [little] price of being a dissenter in an apartheid. So you get some benefit, some of your privilege away. But overall I’m still able to be there when I’m there, and lead a relatively comfortable life.
And slowly, slowly, the apartheid system is trying to make it harder and harder and more difficult on us. But again, when I look and compare my life to the life of a Palestinian or a refugee in Israel, or even a non-white Ashkenazi Israeli man in Israel, I’m still able to live quite comfortable. As we speak there are many trying in Parliament to make the apartheid in Israel more official. So different laws that are trying to constitute, that will make it even harder for us to still be free to still act.
And it’s just important to remember that Israel claims to be a democracy. It is not. It’s, it’s an apartheid. It’s led by a group of fascist Jewish supremacy people, and prime minister, and ministers. But if you’re a Zionist Jew, you can feel great democracy. If you are not a Zionist, and if you’re not a Jew, you’re living in apartheid.
DIMITRI LASCARIS: Now, you’ve participated in prior missions of the Freedom Flotilla. Could you tell me why, and also how you were received by your former colleagues within the Israeli military when the vessels were intercepted on those occasions?
YONATAN SHAPIRA: The first time I tried to break the blockade with a group of activists was 2010. About three months after what happened on the Mavi Marmara, where Israeli, the Israeli army shot and killed about 10 activists from Turkey, most of them. The helicopter that landed, the soldiers that killed and massacred people on the Mavi Marmara, were helicopters from the squadron I used to fly in, this Blackhawk squadron in the Israeli air force. And therefore I decided that I must participate in the second boat that will try to break the blockade. It happened in September 2010. We were very small, and we were intercepted by many warships, small and big.
And if we were Palestinians or Turks I guess they would shoot us and kill us, maybe, but I got the better treatment of a Taser gun in my heart. So maybe they thought that they will resuscitate my Zionist behavior. My Zionist heart will start beating again.
But instead it just made me more clear about my decision, and confident about the need to struggle against apartheid and against this illegal crime of ghettoization and that concentration of two million people. The second attempt was 2011, a year, about a year later. I was on a crew of The Audacity of Hope. It was a big American boat, and we were part of the second flotilla trying to leave from the port of Piraeus in Greece. Unfortunately, the Greek government was coopted by Israel and the U.S., and with different pressure, I guess, they obeyed Bibi Netanyahu. And we had a big sign saying, who’s your commander, Netanyahu or Poseidon? Who is the god of the sea. Is it Israel, or the Greek Poseidon?
Unfortunately, it was Netanyahu and on a gun show on a gunpoint. We were stopped by the Greek coast guard just a few minutes after leaving the port of Priaeus, and we had to go back, and were detained by the, by the Greeks. And the third attempt was 2012, with the Ship to Gaza, the Swedish group that was with many international organizations, and the Finnish flagged boat. We had other Israelis on board. And we were also stopped about 40 miles from, from shore, from Gaza. This time it was a big operation. I guess they used it as a maneuver for training their forces, because they know that we are not posing any threat, like military threat, on them. So they were hundreds, maybe thousands of soldiers participating.
About 15 warships, big and small. And also one Blackhawk helicopter that came in circled above us. And when I looked at it on the tail I could see that the number on the tail is 852, which is the same helicopter, tthe same piece of metal that I used to fly some years before. They again arrested us, tasered us, and took us to the Navy base of Ashdod, and we spent a few days arrested.
DIMITRI LASCARIS: I’d like, I’d like to talk to you about the future, to conclude. And you know, those of us in the West watching with trepidation what’s happening seem, it seems to be that every day the predicament of the Palestinian people is worse, and that the Israeli government’s sense of impunity is on the increase, if anything. Do you, are you feeling hopeful, based upon what you see, for the cause of Palestinian justice, justice for the Palestinian people? Do you see signs that this is a battle that is being won, ultimately, and that this is something that may actually be won within your lifetime?
YONATAN SHAPIRA: Well gives me hope is nothing about the governments and the system that controls us in your country, in my country. I see a lot of hypocrisy all over Europe and elsewhere, and also Canada. What gives me hope is to see the popular struggle of Palestinians that are showing incredible bravery. That reminds me what I grew up on, you know, the struggle in the ghettos, in the Warsaw Ghetto, in other ghettos. With the, with all the courage to walk into the fence, towards the fence of this biggest prison in the world, without bearing any arms. Walking and trying to protest this siege. It gives me a lot of hope, because I think that’s where the mighty power of the Israeli military collapses, when we have thousands and thousands of Palestinians that are uniting, holding hands and standing in front of the Israeli snipers.
That gives me hope. That means that it’s not going to be able to last forever. And things like that gives me hope to be together with the Spanish, Italians, Americans, Canadians, Norwegians, Swedish, everyone. It means that somewhere on a deep nerve of many people around the world, it’s quite clear that this symbolic struggle of the Palestinians for freedom will be won at some point. And our job is to not be deterred, and not be, not lose our hope when we see the hypocritical governments in one hand saying something against Israel’s crimes, and on the other hand still doing arms trade with them and giving them all the impunity and all the actual support to continue with this massacre and this illegality.
But it’s important to to say to everyone who listens to us that we need you. We need the person that now maybe sits in Canada, or in the U.S., or in elsewhere in Europe, or somewhere else. We need you to join this struggle. And this struggle is not just about freedom for Palestinians. It’s about the struggle against what Europe and the U.S. and other countries are doing to refugees that are trying to escape the horrors in Africa. It’s the same struggle. It’s the struggle of the people who have less to be recognized and to get their basic human right. So if you want to be part of the struggle, wherever you are, you don’t have to come all the way and join us in this flotilla. You can be active on your, in your local community, for justice for, for everyone. And then you are part of the struggle for justice for Palestine.
DIMITRI LASCARIS: I’d like to thank you very much for speaking with The Real News today, Yonatan. It’s been a pleasure.
YONATAN SHAPIRA: Thank you for coming here. And good luck with your health.
DIMITRI LASCARIS: Thank you very much. And this is Dimitri Lascaris, reporting for The Real News from Naples, Italy.
IMEMC Interview 06/26/18: Jewish American Explains Why She Supports Palestine and BDS
17 july 2018
The Israeli Knesset approved, on Monday night, the “Breaking The Silence” bill, granting the Minister of Education the power to prevent peace activists from the organization “Breaking the Silence” from entering schools, or to talking to students about their organization.
The approved bill passed with 43 Knesset members voting in favor, while 24 opposed it; in the wording of the bill, it describes Breaking the Silence members, former Israeli soldiers who decided to speak out against the ongoing military violations against the Palestinian people, as “external elements that act against the Israeli military, and the educational system.”
The Maan News Agency quoted Breaking The Silence as stating that Israel is now taking action to silence the activists, after using other means to try to stop them from speaking out against the Israeli occupation and its illegal practices.
The new Israeli law, although naming Breaking The Silence, is also meant to prevent any organization or group that opposes the Israeli military occupation of Palestine from entering schools and talking to the students.
In their statement in response to the new law, Breaking the Silence stated that the passage of the bill shows that Education Minister Naftali Bennet, “is so terrified by Breaking the Silence, that he would go so far as to pass a law meant simply to silence us.”
The group said that Bennet wants to present only his agenda to students in Israel. Bennet’s curricula include justification for the killing of Palestinian children, while at the same time refusing any eviction of colonialist Israeli settlers from the occupied West Bank.
It is worth mentioning that Bennet commented in the vote stating that “the reality in which organizations could harm Israel’s legitimacy, and the reputation of its soldiers in front of school students, has come to an end.”
He added that, as long as, “Breaking the Silence remain active against the state of Israel and its army, in the country or abroad, but I will not allow them to be active in our educational system; if they want to be active in their homes, so be it, but not in our schools, where we shape the future generation, such voices will not be allowed.”
Breaking the Silence is a group made up of former Israeli soldiers who served in the Occupied Palestinian Territories of the West Bank and Gaza, but felt remorse for their actions and the atrocities they witnessed or participated in.
These former soldiers share their personal accounts of what they experienced, including stories of being ordered to brutalize children, terrorize families, and shoot unarmed civilians. The main purpose of the group is to share the accounts of these soldiers to show the reality of the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian land to an Israeli public that has hidden this reality behind a Wall.
The approved bill passed with 43 Knesset members voting in favor, while 24 opposed it; in the wording of the bill, it describes Breaking the Silence members, former Israeli soldiers who decided to speak out against the ongoing military violations against the Palestinian people, as “external elements that act against the Israeli military, and the educational system.”
The Maan News Agency quoted Breaking The Silence as stating that Israel is now taking action to silence the activists, after using other means to try to stop them from speaking out against the Israeli occupation and its illegal practices.
The new Israeli law, although naming Breaking The Silence, is also meant to prevent any organization or group that opposes the Israeli military occupation of Palestine from entering schools and talking to the students.
In their statement in response to the new law, Breaking the Silence stated that the passage of the bill shows that Education Minister Naftali Bennet, “is so terrified by Breaking the Silence, that he would go so far as to pass a law meant simply to silence us.”
The group said that Bennet wants to present only his agenda to students in Israel. Bennet’s curricula include justification for the killing of Palestinian children, while at the same time refusing any eviction of colonialist Israeli settlers from the occupied West Bank.
It is worth mentioning that Bennet commented in the vote stating that “the reality in which organizations could harm Israel’s legitimacy, and the reputation of its soldiers in front of school students, has come to an end.”
He added that, as long as, “Breaking the Silence remain active against the state of Israel and its army, in the country or abroad, but I will not allow them to be active in our educational system; if they want to be active in their homes, so be it, but not in our schools, where we shape the future generation, such voices will not be allowed.”
Breaking the Silence is a group made up of former Israeli soldiers who served in the Occupied Palestinian Territories of the West Bank and Gaza, but felt remorse for their actions and the atrocities they witnessed or participated in.
These former soldiers share their personal accounts of what they experienced, including stories of being ordered to brutalize children, terrorize families, and shoot unarmed civilians. The main purpose of the group is to share the accounts of these soldiers to show the reality of the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian land to an Israeli public that has hidden this reality behind a Wall.
