Israel - backed by mainstream Western media - describes its war against the Palestinians as a war of defence, a necessary response to Palestinian terror, a noble instance of the global war against terrorism. It is amazing how still now, after two years of massive Israeli destruction of the Palestinian society, so little is known about the real facts of how this war developed, and what Israel's role in it is. The first aim of this book is to bring these facts to light.
print article
Untitled Document
ISRAEL/PALESTINE
How to End the War of 1948
by Tanya Reinhart
Seven Stories Press | 212. 226. 8760
http://www.sevenstories.com
Available also at Amazon.com, and several other distributors
ZNET INTERVIEW WITH TANYA REINHART
(1) Can you tell ZNet, please, what your new book,"Israel/Palestine- How
to End the War of 1948," is about? What is it trying to communicate?
Israel - backed by mainstream Western media - describes its war against the
Palestinians as a war of defence, a necessary response to Palestinian terror,
a noble instance of the global war against terrorism. It is amazing how still
now, after two years of massive Israeli destruction of the Palestinian society,
so little is known about the real facts of how this war developed, and what
Israel's role in it is. The first aim of this book is to bring these facts to
light.
The book follows Israel's policies over the three years since Ehud Barak became
prime minister, until the summer of 2002the darkest period in the history of
Israel so far. Based on information available in abundance in the Israeli media,
we can track a shift of policy right at the start of this period - a shift away
from the Oslo conception, which dominated since 1993. This is, of course, a
long story, documented in detail in the book, but let me give you the gist of
it.
Ever since the Palestinian territories were occupied in 1967, the Israeli military
and political elites have deliberated over the question how to keep maximum
land (and water) with minimum Palestinian population. A simple solution of annexing
the heavily populated Palestinian land would have created a "demographic
problem" - the fear that a Jewish majority could not be sustained. Therefore,
two basic approaches were formed. The Alon plan of the Labor party proposed
annexation of 35-40 percent of the territories, and either a Jordanian rule,
or some form of autonomy for the rest of the land, to which the Palestinian
residents will be confined. In the eyes of its proponents, this plan represented
a necessary compromise. They believed it would be inconceivable to repeat the
"solution" of the 1948 Independence war, when much of the land was
obtained "Arab-free", following mass expulsion of the Palestinian
residents. The second approach, whose most vocal spokesman was Sharon, strived
to get more. In its extreme realization it maintained that it should be possible
to find more acceptable and sophisticated ways to achieve a “1948 style"
solution. It would only be necessary to find another state for as many Palestinians
as possible. "Jordan is Palestine" was the phrase Sharon coined in
the 1980's.
In 1993, in Oslo, it seemed that the Alon plan triumphed. This was enabled
also by Arafat's cooperation. In the past, the Palestinians always opposed the
Alon plan, which robs them of much of their land. But in 1993 Arafat was about
to loose his grip on Palestinian society, with endless protest over his one
man rule, and the corruption of his organizations. An apparent "smashing
victory" seemed the only thing that could save him in power. Behind the
back of the local Palestinian negotiating team headed by Haider Abd al-Shafi,
Arafat accepted an agreement that leaves all Israeli settlements intact even
in the Gaza strip, where 6000 Israeli settlers occupy one third of the land,
and a million Palestinians are crowded in the rest. As years went by since Oslo,
Israel extended the "Arab-free" areas in the occupied Palestinian
territories to about 50% of the land. Labor circles began to talk about the
"Alon Plus" plan, namely - more lands to Israel. However, it appeared
that they would still allow some Palestinian self-rule in the other 50%, under
conditions similar to the Bantustans in South Africa.
On the eve of the Oslo agreements, the majority of Israelis were tired of war.
In their eyes, the fights over land and resources were over. Haunted by the
memory of the Holocaust, most Israelis believe that the 1948 war of independence,
with its horrible consequences for the Palestinians, was necessary to establish
a state for the Jews. But now that they have a state, they just long to live
normally on whatever land they have. Like the majority of Palestinians, the
Israeli majority let itself be fooled into believing that what we were witnessing
were just "interim agreements" and that eventually the occupation
will somehow end, and the settlements wiil be dismantled. With this conception
of what is ahead, two third of the Jewish Israelis supported the Oslo agreements
in the polls. It was obvious that there was no majority for any new war over
land and water.
But the ideology of war over land never died out in the army, or in the circles
of politically influential generals, whose careers moved from the military to
the government. From the start of the Oslo process, the maximalists objected
to giving even that much land and rights to the Palestinians. This was most
visible in military circles, whose most vocal spokesman was then chief of staff,
Ehud Barak, who objected to the Oslo agreements from the start. Another beacon
of opposition was, of course, Ariel Sharon.
In 1999, the army got back to power through the politicized generals - first
Barak, and then Sharon (the book surveys their long history of collaboration).
The road was open to correct what they view as the grave mistake of Oslo. In
their eyes, Sharon’s alternative of fighting the Palestinians to the bitter
end and imposing new regional orders may have failed in Lebanon in 1982 because
of the weakness of “spoiled Israeli society”. But now, given the new
war philosophy established through U.S. military operations in Iraq, Kosovo,
and, later, Afghanistan, the political generals believe that with Israel’s
massive air superiority, it might still be possible to execute that vision.
However, in order to get there, it was first necessary to convince the "spoiled"
Israeli society that, in fact, the Palestinians are not willing to live in peace,
and are still threatening Israel's very existence. Sharon alone could not have
possibly achieved that, but Barak did succeed with his "generous offer"
fraud.
By now, much was written already about Barak's non-offer in Camp David. Nevertheless,
a careful examination of the information in Israeli media reveals more about
the extent of the fraud, and a chapter in the book surveys all the details.
In fact, Barak's Camp David was the second round of his mastery of deception
of public opinion. Several months before, he did the same with Syria, letting
Israelis and the world believe that Israel is willing to withdraw from the occupied
Syrian Golan Heights. In the polls, 60% of the Israelis supported enthusiastically
dismantling all settlements in the Golan Hights. But the end of this round of
peace negotiations was just the same as the later end of the negotiations with
the Palestinians. Israelis became convinced that the rejectionist Asad i would
not be willing to get his territories back and make peace with Israel. Since
then, the possibility of war with Syria has been in the air. Military circles
explain openly that "Hezbollah, Syria and Iran are trying to trap Israel
in a 'strategic ambush' and that Israel has to evade that ambush by setting
one of its own... The circumstances could be created during or near the end
of an American offensive against Iraq" (Amir Oren, Ha'aretz, July 9, 2002).
On September 28, 2000, Sharon, with Barak's approval, threw a match into the
boiling frustration which was accumulating in Palestinian society, with his
provocative visit to Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif. The massive security forces
that surrounded him used rubber bullets against unarmed demonstrators. When
these events triggered further demonstrations the next day, Barak escalated
the shooting and ordered Israeli forces and tanks into densely populated Palestinian
areas. By all indications, the escalation of Palestinian protest into armed
clashes could have been prevented had the Israeli response been more restrained.
Even in the face of armed resistance, Israel's reaction has been grossly out
of proportion, as stated by the General Assembly of the UN, which condemned
Israel's "excessive use of force", on October 26, 2000.
Israel defines its military action as a necessary defense against terrorism.
But in fact, the first Palestinian terrorist attack on Israeli civilians inside
Israel occurred on November 2, 2000. That was after a month during which Israel
used its full military arsenal against civilians, including live bullets, automatic
guns, combat helicopters, tanks, and missiles.
What is particularly astounding is that most the military plans underlying
Israel’s actions in the coming months, had already been conceived right
at the start, in October 2000 including the destruction of the Palestinian infra
structure ("Field of Thorns" plan). The political strategies aimed
at discrediting Arafat and the Palestinian Authority were also ready right from
the start. Barak's political circles prepared a manuscript known as the "White
Book", which announced that Arafat had never deserted the "option
of violence".
Amid the propaganda, a theme that had already emerged in October 2000 was the
analogy linking present circumstances to the war of 1948. Major General Moshe
Ya'alon, then deputy chief of staff (and the present chief of staff), explained
that "this was Israel's most critical campaign against the Palestinians,
including Israel's Arab population, since the 1948 war - for him, in fact, it
is the second half of 1948" (Amir Oren, Ha'aretz, November 17, 2000). After
two years of brutal Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, it is hard to avoid
the conclusion that the leading military and political circles in Israel that
produced this analogy still believe that "the second half" - a completion
of the ethnic cleansing that started in 1948 - is necessary and possible.
My second aim in the book is to show that despite the horrors of the last two
years, there is still also another alternative open to end the war of 1948 the
road of peace and real reconciliation. It is amazing how simple and feasible
would be to achieve that. Israel should withdraw immediately from the territories
occupied in 1967. The bulk of Israeli settlers (150,000 of them) are concentrated
in the big settlement blocks in the center of the West bank. These areas cannot
be evacuated over night. But the rest of the land (about 90% - 96% of the West
bank and the whole of the Gaza strip) can be evacuated immediately. Many of
the residents of the isolated Israeli settlements that are scattered in these
areas are speaking openly in the Israeli media about their wish to leave. It
is only necessary to offer them reasonable compensation for the property they
will be leaving behind. The rest - the hard-core “land redemption”
fanatics - are a negligible minority that will have to accept the will of the
majority.
Such immediate withdrawal would still leave under debate the 6 to 10 percent
of the West bank with the large settlement blocks, as well as the issues of
Jerusalem and the right of return. Over these, serious peace negotiations should
start. However, during these negotiations Palestinian society could begin to
recover, to settle the land that the Israelis evacuated, to construct democratic
institutions, and to develop its economy based on free contacts with whomever
it wants. Under these circumstances, it should be possible to address the core
issue of what is the right way for two peoples who share the same land to jointly
build their future.
In Israel, the call for immediate withdrawal is drawing some public support
since Amy Ayalon (former head of the security services) has openly called for
it, and was joined in February 2002 by the Council for Peace and Security a
body of about 1000 establishment members. To judge by the polls, this plan has
the support of 60 percent of the Jewish Israelis. This is not surprising, as
it is the same majority that has been consistently supporting the dismantlement
of settlements since 1993. In a Dahaf poll of May 6 2002, solicited by Peace
Now, 59 percent supported a unilateral withdrawal of the Israeli army from most
of the occupied territories, and dismantling most of the settlements. They believe
that this will renew the peace process, and that this solution is the most hopeful
of the options outlined in the survey. This majority is, of course, not represented
at all by the political system, but it is there.
(2) Can you tell ZNet something about writing the book? Where does the content
come from? What went into making the book what it is?
I began writing the book during the first months of the Palestinian uprising.
It started as columns in the Israeli Israeli paper Yediot Aharonont, and more
extended internet articles for Znet and Israel Indymedia, that were following
the events as they took place. But I then extended the research into a full
coverage of the period. The first draft was completed in February 2002, and
appeared in April in French as Detruire la Palestine, ou comment terminer la
guerre de 1948 (France: La Fabrique, 2002) The present English version covers
also the period between April and the summer of 2002, when Israel entered its
new and most cruel stage of the destruction of Palestine, with its operation
"Defensive Shield," and the horrors in the refugee camp of Jenin.
My major source of information is the Israeli media. In the Israeli papers
you can find much more about what is going on than in any outside coverage.
One often hears statements interpreting this as signifying that the Israeli
media is more liberal and critical than other Western media. This, however,
is not the explanation. With the notable exception of courageous and conscientious
journalists like Amira Hass Gideon Levi, and a few others, the Israeli press
is as obedient as elsewhere, and it recycles faithfully the military and governmental
messages. But part of the reason it is more revealing is its lack of inhibition.
Things that would look outrageous in the world, are considered natural daily
routine.
For example, on April 12, 2002, following the Jenin atrocities, Ha’aretz
innocently reported what “military sources” had told the paper: ”The
IDF [Israeli army] intends to bury today Palestinans killed in the West Bank
camp… The sources said that two infantry companies, along with members
of the military rabbinate, will enter the camp today to collect the bodies.
Those who can be identified as civilians will be moved to a hospital in Jenin,
and then on to burial, while those identified as terrorists will be buried at
a special cemetery in the Jordan Valley.” Apparently, no one in Israel
was particularly concerned at the time about issues of international law, war
crimes and mass graves. Israeli TV even showed, the evening before, refrigerator
trucks that were waiting outside the Jenin camp to transfer bodies to “terrorist
cemeteries”. It was only after international attention began to focus on
Jenin that this information was quickly concealed and reinterpreted using any
absurd reasoning to explain that nothing of the sort had ever happened. This
is how the respectable analyst Ze’ev Schiff of Ha’aretz later summarized
the event: “Toward the end of the fighting, the army sent three large refrigerator
trucks into the city. Reservists decided to sleep in them for their air conditioning.
Some Palestinians saw dozens of covered bodies lying in the trucks and rumors
spread that the Jews had filled trucks full of Palestinian bodies.” (Ha’aretz,
July 17, 2002).
(3) What are your hopes for Israel/Palestine How to End the War of 1948? What
do you hope it will contribute or achieve, politically? Given the effort and
aspirations you have for the book, what will you deem to be a success? What
would leave you happy about the whole undertaking? What would leave you wondering
if it was worth all the time and effort?
In the present political atmosphere in the US and Europe, anybody who dares
express criticism of Israel is immediately silenced as an anti-Semite. Part
of the reason why the Israeli and Jewish lobby has been so successful in forcing
this accusation is the massive lack of knowledge about what is really happening.
Without the facts, the dominant narrative remains that Israel is struggling
to defend its mere existence. Attention focuses only on the horrible and despicable
Palestinian terror, so that if you criticize Israel, you are accused of justifying
terror. My hope, then, is to give the readers the weapons to face such accusations
a detailed knowledge of the facts.
My second hope is to restore hope. As I said, a sane and rational solution
is still possible. People have managed in the past to move from a history of
bloodshed into peaceful coexistence, Europe being the most well known example.
After two years of horror, a majority in both the Israeli and Palestinian people
is still willing to open a new page. I show this in detail in the book, and
I end the book with the story of the many Palestinian and Israeli activists
who are struggling together for the only future worth living a future based
on basic human values. What is needed to give hope a chance is for the people
of the world to intervene and stop the Israeli military Junta, which does not
even represent the Israeli majority.
Finally, and perhaps most important, I try to give some picture of the Palestinian
tragedy - the best I can from my privileged position as a member of the oppressing
society. With the U.S. backing, and the silence of the Western world, there
is a serious danger that what we have seen so far is only the beginning, and
that under the umbrella of a war in Iraq, the Palestinian people may be destined
to a choice between annihilation or a second exile. Arundhati Roy’s description
of the situation in Afghanistan at the time seems so painfully applicable to
what the Palestinians are enduring: “Witness the infinite justice of the
new century. Civilians starving to death while they are waiting to be killed.”
My biggest hope and plea is - save the Palestinians! Make ‘stop Israel!’
a part of any struggle against the US war in Iraq. If the governments of the
world will not do that, my hope is that the people of the world still can.
www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart
add your comments
Source file
![[independent media
centre]](../../imc/local/images/imclogo-heb4.gif)