The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Noam Chomsky Archive
Ceasefires in Which Violations Never Cease
What’s Next for Israel, Hamas, and Gaza?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

On August 26th, Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) both accepted a ceasefire agreement after a 50-day Israeli assault on Gaza that left 2,100 Palestinians dead and vast landscapes of destruction behind. The agreement calls for an end to military action by both Israel and Hamas, as well as an easing of the Israeli siege that has strangled Gaza for many years.

This is, however, just the most recent of a series of ceasefire agreements reached after each of Israel’s periodic escalations of its unremitting assault on Gaza. Throughout this period, the terms of these agreements remain essentially the same. The regular pattern is for Israel, then, to disregard whatever agreement is in place, while Hamas observes it — as Israel has officially recognized — until a sharp increase in Israeli violence elicits a Hamas response, followed by even fiercer brutality. These escalations, which amount to shooting fish in a pond, are called “mowing the lawn” in Israeli parlance. The most recent was more accurately described as “removing the topsoil” by a senior U.S. military officer, appalled by the practices of the self-described “most moral army in the world.”

The first of this series was the Agreement on Movement and Access Between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in November 2005. It called for “a crossing between Gaza and Egypt at Rafah for the export of goods and the transit of people, continuous operation of crossings between Israel and Gaza for the import/export of goods, and the transit of people, reduction of obstacles to movement within the West Bank, bus and truck convoys between the West Bank and Gaza, the building of a seaport in Gaza, [and the] re-opening of the airport in Gaza” that Israeli bombing had demolished.

That agreement was reached shortly after Israel withdrew its settlers and military forces from Gaza. The motive for the disengagement was explained by Dov Weissglass, a confidant of then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who was in charge of negotiating and implementing it. “The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process,” Weissglass informed the Israeli press. “And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders, and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a [U.S.] presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.” True enough.

“The disengagement is actually formaldehyde,” Weissglass added. “It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.” Israeli hawks also recognized that instead of investing substantial resources in maintaining a few thousand settlers in illegal communities in devastated Gaza, it made more sense to transfer them to illegal subsidized communities in areas of the West Bank that Israel intended to keep.

The disengagement was depicted as a noble effort to pursue peace, but the reality was quite different. Israel never relinquished control of Gaza and is, accordingly, recognized as the occupying power by the United Nations, the U.S., and other states (Israel apart, of course). In their comprehensive history of Israeli settlement in the occupied territories, Israeli scholars Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar describe what actually happened when that country disengaged: the ruined territory was not released “for even a single day from Israel’s military grip or from the price of the occupation that the inhabitants pay every day.” After the disengagement, “Israel left behind scorched earth, devastated services, and people with neither a present nor a future. The settlements were destroyed in an ungenerous move by an unenlightened occupier, which in fact continues to control the territory and kill and harass its inhabitants by means of its formidable military might.”

Operations Cast Lead and Pillar of Defense

Israel soon had a pretext for violating the November Agreement more severely. In January 2006, the Palestinians committed a serious crime. They voted “the wrong way” in carefully monitored free elections, placing the parliament in the hands of Hamas. Israel and the United States immediately imposed harsh sanctions, telling the world very clearly what they mean by “democracy promotion.” Europe, to its shame, went along as well.

The U.S. and Israel soon began planning a military coup to overthrow the unacceptable elected government, a familiar procedure. When Hamas pre-empted the coup in 2007, the siege of Gaza became far more severe, along with regular Israeli military attacks. Voting the wrong way in a free election was bad enough, but preempting a U.S.-planned military coup proved to be an unpardonable offense.

A new ceasefire agreement was reached in June 2008. It again called for opening the border crossings to “allow the transfer of all goods that were banned and restricted to go into Gaza.” Israel formally agreed to this, but immediately announced that it would not abide by the agreement and open the borders until Hamas released Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier held by Hamas.

Israel itself has a long history of kidnapping civilians in Lebanon and on the high seas and holding them for lengthy periods without credible charge, sometimes as hostages. Of course, imprisoning civilians on dubious charges, or none, is a regular practice in the territories Israel controls. But the standard western distinction between people and “unpeople” (in Orwell’s useful phrase) renders all this insignificant.

Israel not only maintained the siege in violation of the June 2008 ceasefire agreement but did so with extreme rigor, even preventing the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which cares for the huge number of official refugees in Gaza, from replenishing its stocks.

On November 4th, while the media were focused on the U.S. presidential election, Israeli troops entered Gaza and killed half a dozen Hamas militants. That elicited a Hamas missile response and an exchange of fire. (All the deaths were Palestinian.) In late December, Hamas offered to renew the ceasefire. Israel considered the offer, but rejected it, preferring instead to launch Operation Cast Lead, a three-week incursion of the full power of the Israeli military into the Gaza strip, resulting in shocking atrocities well documented by international and Israeli human rights organizations.

On January 8, 2009, while Cast Lead was in full fury, the U.N. Security Council passed a unanimous resolution (with the U.S. abstaining) calling for “an immediate ceasefire leading to a full Israeli withdrawal, unimpeded provision through Gaza of food, fuel, and medical treatment, and intensified international arrangements to prevent arms and ammunition smuggling.”

A new ceasefire agreement was indeed reached, but the terms, similar to the previous ones, were again never observed and broke down completely with the next major mowing-the-lawn episode in November 2012, Operation Pillar of Defense. What happened in the interim can be illustrated by the casualty figures from January 2012 to the launching of that operation: one Israeli was killed by fire from Gaza while 78 Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire.

The first act of Operation Pillar of Defense was the murder of Ahmed Jabari, a high official of the military wing of Hamas. Aluf Benn, editor-in-chief of Israel’s leading newspaper Haaretz, described Jabari as Israel’s “subcontractor” in Gaza, who enforced relative quiet there for more than five years. As always, there was a pretext for the assassination, but the likely reason was provided by Israeli peace activist Gershon Baskin. He had been involved in direct negotiations with Jabari for years and reported that, hours before he was assassinated, Jabari “received the draft of a permanent truce agreement with Israel, which included mechanisms for maintaining the ceasefire in the case of a flare-up between Israel and the factions in the Gaza Strip.”

There is a long record of Israeli actions designed to deter the threat of a diplomatic settlement. After this exercise of mowing the lawn, a ceasefire agreement was reached yet again. Repeating the now-standard terms, it called for a cessation of military action by both sides and the effective ending of the siege of Gaza with Israel “opening the crossings and facilitating the movements of people and transfer of goods, and refraining from restricting residents’ free movements and targeting residents in border areas.”

What happened next was reviewed by Nathan Thrall, senior Middle East analyst of the International Crisis Group. Israeli intelligence recognized that Hamas was observing the terms of the ceasefire. “Israel,” Thrall wrote, “therefore saw little incentive in upholding its end of the deal. In the three months following the ceasefire, its forces made regular incursions into Gaza, strafed Palestinian farmers and those collecting scrap and rubble across the border, and fired at boats, preventing fishermen from accessing the majority of Gaza’s waters.” In other words, the siege never ended. “Crossings were repeatedly shut. So-called buffer zones inside Gaza [from which Palestinians are barred, and which include a third or more of the strip’s limited arable land] were reinstated. Imports declined, exports were blocked, and fewer Gazans were given exit permits to Israel and the West Bank.”

Operation Protective Edge

So matters continued until April 2014, when an important event took place. The two major Palestinian groupings, Gaza-based Hamas and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority in the West Bank signed a unity agreement. Hamas made major concessions. The unity government contained none of its members or allies. In substantial measure, as Nathan Thrall observes, Hamas turned over governance of Gaza to the PA. Several thousand PA security forces were sent there and the PA placed its guards at borders and crossings, with no reciprocal positions for Hamas in the West Bank security apparatus. Finally, the unity government accepted the three conditions that Washington and the European Union had long demanded: non-violence, adherence to past agreements, and the recognition of Israel.

Israel was infuriated. Its government declared at once that it would refuse to deal with the unity government and cancelled negotiations. Its fury mounted when the U.S., along with most of the world, signaled support for the unity government.

There are good reasons why Israel opposes the unification of Palestinians. One is that the Hamas-Fatah conflict has provided a useful pretext for refusing to engage in serious negotiations. How can one negotiate with a divided entity? More significantly, for more than 20 years, Israel has been committed to separating Gaza from the West Bank in violation of the Oslo Accords it signed in 1993, which declare Gaza and the West Bank to be an inseparable territorial unity.

A look at a map explains the rationale. Separated from Gaza, any West Bank enclaves left to Palestinians have no access to the outside world. They are contained by two hostile powers, Israel and Jordan, both close U.S. allies — and contrary to illusions, the U.S. is very far from a neutral “honest broker.”

Furthermore, Israel has been systematically taking over the Jordan Valley, driving out Palestinians, establishing settlements, sinking wells, and otherwise ensuring that the region — about one-third of the West Bank, with much of its arable land — will ultimately be integrated into Israel along with the other regions that country is taking over. Hence remaining Palestinian cantons will be completely imprisoned. Unification with Gaza would interfere with these plans, which trace back to the early days of the occupation and have had steady support from the major political blocs, including figures usually portrayed as doves like former president Shimon Peres, who was one of the architects of settlement deep in the West Bank.

As usual, a pretext was needed to move on to the next escalation. Such an occasion arose when three Israeli boys from the settler community in the West Bank were brutally murdered. The Israeli government evidently quickly realized that they were dead, but pretended otherwise, which provided the opportunity to launch a “rescue operation” — actually a rampage primarily targeting Hamas. The Netanyahu government has claimed from the start that it knew Hamas was responsible, but has made no effort to present evidence.

One of Israel’s leading authorities on Hamas, Shlomi Eldar, reported almost at once that the killers very likely came from a dissident clan in Hebron that has long been a thorn in the side of the Hamas leadership. He added, “I’m sure they didn’t get any green light from the leadership of Hamas, they just thought it was the right time to act.”

The Israeli police have since been searching for and arresting members of the clan, still claiming, without evidence, that they are “Hamas terrorists.” On September 2nd, Haaretz reported that, after very intensive interrogations, the Israeli security services concluded the abduction of the teenagers “was carried out by an independent cell” with no known direct links to Hamas.

The 18-day rampage by the Israeli Defense Forces succeeded in undermining the feared unity government. According to Israeli military sources, its soldiers arrested 419 Palestinians, including 335 affiliated with Hamas, and killed six, while searching thousands of locations and confiscating $350,000. Israel also conducted dozens of attacks in Gaza, killing five Hamas members on July 7th.

Hamas finally reacted with its first rockets in 18 months, Israeli officials reported, providing Israel with the pretext to launch Operation Protective Edge on July 8th. The 50-day assault proved the most extreme exercise in mowing the lawn — so far.

Operation [Still to Be Named]

Israel is in a fine position today to reverse its decades-old policy of separating Gaza from the West Bank in violation of its solemn agreements and to observe a major ceasefire agreement for the first time. At least temporarily, the threat of democracy in neighboring Egypt has been diminished, and the brutal Egyptian military dictatorship of General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi is a welcome ally for Israel in maintaining control over Gaza.

The Palestinian unity government, as noted earlier, is placing the U.S.-trained forces of the Palestinian Authority in control of Gaza’s borders, and governance may be shifting into the hands of the PA, which depends on Israel for its survival, as well as for its finances. Israel might feel that its takeover of Palestinian territory in the West Bank has proceeded so far that there is little to fear from some limited form of autonomy for the enclaves that remain to Palestinians.

There is also some truth to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s observation: “Many elements in the region understand today that, in the struggle in which they are threatened, Israel is not an enemy but a partner.” Akiva Eldar, Israel’s leading diplomatic correspondent, adds, however, that “all those ‘many elements in the region’ also understand that there is no brave and comprehensive diplomatic move on the horizon without an agreement on the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders and a just, agreed-upon solution to the refugee problem.” That is not on Israel’s agenda, he points out, and is in fact in direct conflict with the 1999 electoral program of the governing Likud coalition, never rescinded, which “flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”

Some knowledgeable Israeli commentators, notably columnist Danny Rubinstein, believe that Israel is poised to reverse course and relax its stranglehold on Gaza.

We’ll see.

The record of these past years suggests otherwise and the first signs are not auspicious. As Operation Protective Edge ended, Israel announced its largest appropriation of West Bank land in 30 years, almost 1,000 acres. Israel Radio reported that the takeover was in response to the killing of the three Jewish teenagers by “Hamas militants.” A Palestinian boy was burned to death in retaliation for the murder, but no Israeli land was handed to Palestinians, nor was there any reaction when an Israeli soldier murdered 10-year-old Khalil Anati on a quiet street in a refugee camp near Hebron on August 10th, while the most moral army in the world was smashing Gaza to bits, and then drove away in his jeep as the child bled to death.

Anati was one the 23 Palestinians (including three children) killed by Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank during the Gaza onslaught, according to U.N. statistics, along with more than 2,000 wounded, 38% by live fire. “None of those killed were endangering soldiers’ lives,” Israeli journalist Gideon Levy reported. To none of this is there any reaction, just as there was no reaction while Israel killed, on average, more than two Palestinian children a week for the past 14 years. Unpeople, after all.

It is commonly claimed on all sides that, if the two-state settlement is dead as a result of Israel’s takeover of Palestinian lands, then the outcome will be one state West of the Jordan. Some Palestinians welcome this outcome, anticipating that they can then conduct a civil rights struggle for equal rights on the model of South Africa under apartheid. Many Israeli commentators warn that the resulting “demographic problem” of more Arab than Jewish births and diminishing Jewish immigration will undermine their hope for a “democratic Jewish state.”

But these widespread beliefs are dubious.

The realistic alternative to a two-state settlement is that Israel will continue to carry forward the plans it has been implementing for years, taking over whatever is of value to it in the West Bank, while avoiding Palestinian population concentrations and removing Palestinians from the areas it is integrating into Israel. That should avoid the dreaded “demographic problem.”

The areas being integrated into Israel include a vastly expanded Greater Jerusalem, the area within the illegal “Separation Wall,” corridors cutting through the regions to the East, and will probably also encompass the Jordan Valley. Gaza will likely remain under its usual harsh siege, separated from the West Bank. And the Syrian Golan Heights — like Jerusalem, annexed in violation of Security Council orders — will quietly become part of Greater Israel. In the meantime, West Bank Palestinians will be contained in unviable cantons, with special accommodation for elites in standard neocolonial style.

These basic policies have been underway since the 1967 conquest, following a principle enunciated by then-Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, one of the Israeli leaders most sympathetic to the Palestinians. He informed his cabinet colleagues that they should tell Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, “We have no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave, and we will see where this process leads.”

The suggestion was natural within the overriding conception articulated in 1972 by future president Haim Herzog: “I do not deny the Palestinians a place or stand or opinion on every matter… But certainly I am not prepared to consider them as partners in any respect in a land that has been consecrated in the hands of our nation for thousands of years. For the Jews of this land there cannot be any partner.” Dayan also called for Israel’s “permanent rule” (“memshelet keva“) over the occupied territories. When Netanyahu expresses the same stand today, he is not breaking new ground.

Like other states, Israel pleads “security” as justification for its aggressive and violent actions. But knowledgeable Israelis know better. Their recognition of reality was articulated clearly in 1972 by Air Force Commander (and later president) Ezer Weizmann. He explained that there would be no security problem if Israel were to accept the international call to withdraw from the territories it conquered in 1967, but the country would not then be able to “exist according to the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.”

For a century, the Zionist colonization of Palestine has proceeded primarily on the pragmatic principle of the quiet establishment of facts on the ground, which the world was to ultimately come to accept. It has been a highly successful policy. There is every reason to expect it to persist as long as the United States provides the necessary military, economic, diplomatic, and ideological support. For those concerned with the rights of the brutalized Palestinians, there can be no higher priority than working to change U.S. policies, not an idle dream by any means.

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor emeritus in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Among his recent books are Hegemony or Survival , Failed States, Power Systems,Occupy , and Hopes and Prospects . His latest book, Masters of Mankind, will be published this week by Haymarket Books, which is also reissuing 12 of his classic books in new editions over the coming year. His work is regularly posted at TomDispatch.com. His website is www.chomsky.info.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Gaza, Israel/Palestine 
Hide 19 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Chomsky seems utterly unmoved by the fact that Hamas are a bunch of Islamocrazies, who, if they ever got their hands on him, would torture him to death, no matter how much he might proclaim his anti-Zionist views. If Hamas wish to avoid civilian casualties, the logical thing would be for them to take their rocket launchers out to uninhabited desert areas where they could make easier targets for Israel: or alternatively, even more logically, they could stop rocketing Israel.

    It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Hamas simply have no interest in minimising civilian casualties as (a) they are great propaganda and (b) as Islamocrazies who believe in the 72 virgins, they don’t really care.

    Chomsky is also careful to ignore the hundreds of Fatah police officers and civil servants who were murdered by Hamas during their takeover of Gaza – which is one reason for the dog that has not barked – ie there has been no support from the West Bank for Hamas: Fatah are happy to see them humbled – he also ignores the thousands of Christian Palestinians intimidated into emigration by Hamas, and the scores of their civilians murdered as “informers” probably just people who offended local Hamas commanders.

    He, like the rest of the American left, has also ignored the massive levels of corruption among the PLO over the decades, which was the main reason Hamas outpolled Fatah in Gaza. Arafat died worth £20 million. His wife and the wives of the other PLO leaders were squandering aid money in Harrods when their people were starving

    Instead of tunnelling under Israel, why did Hamas not spend some of the massive U.S./EU aid money they received on building some bomb shelters?

    But Chomsky has spoken. He has demonstrated his moral superiority. That’s the main thing.

  2. KA says:

    “He, like the rest of the American left, has also ignored the massive levels of corruption among the PLO over the decades, which was the main reason Hamas outpolled Fatah in Gaza. Arafat died worth £20 million. His wife and the wives of the other PLO leaders were squandering aid money in Harrods when their people were starving”

    I agree with your observation. But I don’t agree with the conclusion or the future implications of the corruption for the movements . Palestinian leaders are corrupt . They live in WB .They get invited by White House. They kowtow to Zionist ‘s every demands . They keep on kneeling . But they could not satisfy the zionist beast . The exposé in Guardian demonstrated the impotence of the corrupted West Bank PA leaders , never been elected ,never been chosen in modern times by Palestininians but eagerly promoted snd accepted and lauded by Israel and Israeli controlled western governments . Corruption is nurtured,protected,and promoted by Israel. All these leaders by name Abbas and Mazen get , are some left over crumbs , given by Israel but stolen anyway from Palestinian taxes and taken from Ametican yearly handout to Israel .
    Arafat despite being so corrupt ,must have been doing something positive . That was the reason Sharon threatened to kill him . Bush stopped him for a while but eventually that mass killers Sharon killed him and paid someone also to write that he died from Aids .

  3. matt says:

    “He, like the rest of the American left, has also ignored the massive levels of corruption among the PLO over the decades, which was the main reason Hamas outpolled Fatah in Gaza. Arafat died worth £20 million. His wife and the wives of the other PLO leaders were squandering aid money in Harrods when their people were starving”

    What nonsense. Chomsky, like his friend, the late Edward Said, was a bitter critic of Arafat when he was alive. Israel, on the other hand, was perfectly fine with Arafat from 1993 to 2000, along with all his corruption, larceny, brutality, and suppression of dissent, as long as Arafat maintained “stability” and advanced the Oslo “peace process” farce.

    The following two articles give a good sense of Chomsky and Said’s opinion of Arafat and his treasonous surrender to the war criminal Yitzhak Rabin.

    http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199310–.htm

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/edward-said/the-morning-after

    In particular, this passage from Said should dispel any notion that he was a friend of Arafat:

    “It is worth mentioning that at least twice during the past summer Arafat said that his experience of government consisted of the ten years during which he ‘controlled’ Lebanon, hardly a comfort to the many Lebanese and Palestinians who recollect that sorry period. Nor is there at present any concrete way for elections to be held should they even be scheduled. The imposition of rule from above, plus the long legacy of the occupation, have not contributed much to the growth of democratic, grass-roots institutions. There are unconfirmed reports in the Arabic press indicating that the PLO has already appointed ministers from its own inner circle in Tunis, and deputy ministers from among trusted residents of the West Bank and Gaza. Will there ever be truly representative institutions? One cannot be very sanguine, given Arafat’s absolute refusal to share or delegate power, to say nothing of the financial assets he alone knows about and controls.”

  4. Cahokia says:

    “Arafat despite being so corrupt ,must have been doing something positive . That was the reason Sharon threatened to kill him . Bush stopped him for a while but eventually that mass killers Sharon killed him and paid someone also to write that he died from Aids.”

    This is how corrupt and morally bankrupt Israel is.

    It’s not enough to assassinate their enemies.

    They could have killed Arafat openly. Hell, they had repeatedly warned of doing just that.

    Instead they did it in secret and used innuendo (such as suggesting Arafat died of AIDS and was a homosexual) to distract from their crime.

    Say what you will about the “Islamocrazies” or whatever, they don’t manipulate public opinion in this way.

    You know who does? The same people who have apparently convinced the majority of Americans that the U.S. should engage in yet another war in Iraq and Syria.

    • Replies: @john cronin
  5. KA says:

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/10/ted-cruz-booed-off-stage-at-middle-east-christian-conference-video/

    Cruz was booed off stage in a conference . He was the key note speaker. The boos and hisses came when that toady said ” Christian has no greater ally than Israel”
    Poor shithead thought everyone would turn out to be as stupid as was every flag waving evangelical moron out of Texas mega church .
    Christians are waking up.

    • Replies: @rod1963
  6. Karl says:

    none of these pantywaists can stop us from liberating ALL of Judea from Arabic colonialism; AND returning Gaza to Coptic-Christian rule; AND restoring Aramaic to its place of indigenous honor in the churches of the Levant.

    I’ll give the Occupiers credit for one beautiful aphorism: “the dogs may bark, but the caravan continues on”.

    • Replies: @KA
  7. @Cahokia

    Few peoples have been so badly served by their leadership as the Palestinians. The rest of the Arab world do not seem to be busting a gut to help them: in particular the Gulf Arabs hate the Palestinians – might be something to do with Arafat’s brilliant decision to back Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait: after the Kuwaitis had given 200,000 Palestinians jobs. Talk about gratitude.

    • Replies: @KA
  8. KA says:
    @Karl

    Caravans of dog keep on digging in the dog house like a mad dog as was foreseen by Moshe Dyan . Coptics know the Hasabara . Their trouble stems from the dog fleas buoyed by the Zionism .

  9. KA says:
    @john cronin

    Yes . Palestinian support for Saddam in regard to Kuwait was superficially a betrayal. But it does not rise to the same level as that of the of repeated betrayals of American interests by Israel. When will US stand up ? When will it learn from the Kuwaitis? When it is going to expel the Zionist hurting the American interests?

  10. TomB says:

    Chomsky writes:

    The regular pattern is for Israel, then, to disregard whatever agreement is in place, while Hamas observes it — as Israel has officially recognized — until a sharp increase in Israeli violence elicits a Hamas response, followed by even fiercer brutality.

    Sounds Israeli to me:

    According to the published notes, Mr. Tal began to remonstrate, ”But they were sitting on the Golan Heights, and . . . ”
    General Dayan interrupted: ”Never mind that. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let’s talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn’t possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that’s how it was.’ … General Dayan said in his conversations with Mr. Tal that the kibbutz leaders who had urgently demanded that Israel take the Golan Heights had done so largely for the land.

    See: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html

  11. rod1963 says:
    @KA

    Indeed.

    Cruz is just another bought and paid for Neo-Con puppet but with a tin ear.

    What was he thinking going to a christian conference and blabbing about Israel and the Jews(his wife works for Lloyd Blankfein) . it’s not like the Jews ever lifted a finger to help Christians in the ME or anywhere else. Hell until recently Cruz has said nothing about the attacks by Muslims against Christians in the ME. Nothing at all.

    But the same can be said for Chomsky as well. He has his pet causes like all the other manipulators. He knows this one gets him the approval of cultural Marxists across the world. Who cares if the people he’s promoting would behead him in a minute if showed his Jewish face over there.

    It’s all about the manipulation of white Westerners in the end, either for $$$ or power.

    • Replies: @KA
    , @KA
  12. KA says:
    @rod1963

    The dastardly daily attacks on Christians by Muslims are definitely to be deplored,condemned,and be stopped. But this is not an isolated phenomena. It can be explained superficially to the perils of neglecting the preventive measures now and in future. That explanation is the inherent fanaticism of Islam. But the crisis begs some tough soul searching and repudiation of our own conducts.
    In the absence of central authority ,chances are that the thugs will take over,chalk out their little enclaves,separate everybody from everybody on some grounds of color,religion language,or political affiliations. Some will target the minorities .
    In US,this happens all the time . After Katrina looting was a serious problem . Same thing happened in UK in 2011. Following the police beatings of Rodney King California was engulfed in worst violence Following 911 there have been attacks on foreigners . Only vigorous responses by law enforcements stop the carnage .
    The carnage was foreseen and expected by Libyan Catholic priest . He warned . But … Rest is history. There was actually no anti Christian violence in ME in recent times until after 2003. Most of the independence struggle in ME were often led by Christians .
    Recent violence in Greece though no where near Iraq level ,also confirms the observation that violence in the society can erupt suddenly and target the vulnerable unless the authority steps in or has the capacity to step in . The violence feeds from fear and adversity and also from violence. There was no Shia Sunni violence even after 1991 . There was no anti christian violence after 1991 in Iraq.

    • Replies: @KA
  13. KA says:
    @rod1963

    Cruz has found the opportunity of ingratiating with the AIPAC . That is always risk free . So is the blathering against Muslim. But he will not touch the truth with an 1 mile long pole even. I am glad to hear the attendees spoke their minds .
    But it seems that there is nothing , not even the calamity of this nature will make Cruz think for a second that there are certain things that are way above and out side the realm of politics . To him every thing is for personal gain and nothing for personal growth . To him each of us is some kind of capital or commodity .

  14. It’s like the Star Trek episode The Alternative Factor: “Kirk returns to his universe and confronts the insane Lazarus, pushing him into his dimensional portal. Kirk heads back to the Enterprise, ordering the phasers to target the dimension ship. The two Lazaruses meet once more and fight as phaser beams vaporize the ship. Both Lazaruses are now trapped between universes, apparently doomed to fight each other for eternity.”

  15. KA says:
    @KA

    Who knows if the latest beheadings were or were not expected and hoped for at some stage of the master planning by the West.

    “It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs,” said one US government defense consultant in 2007. “It’s who they throw them at – Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”

    Early during the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, the US covertly supplied arms to al-Qaeda affiliated insurgents even while ostensibly supporting an emerging Shi’a-dominated administration.

    Pakistani defense sources interviewed by Asia Times in February 2005 confirmed that insurgents described as “former Ba’ath party” loyalists – who were being recruited and trained by “al-Qaeda in Iraq” under the leadership of the late Abu Musab Zarqawi ”

    According to a little-known November report for the US Joint Special Operations University (JSOU) and Strategic Studies Department, Dividing Our Enemies, post-invasion Iraq was “an interesting case study of fanning discontent among enemies, leading to ‘red-against-red’ [enemy-against-enemy] firefights.” (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/0511_jsou-report-05-5.pdf%5D

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/12/how-the-west-created-the-islamic-state/

  16. KA says:

    “Yet as noted by Dahr Jamail, one of the few unembedded investigative reporters in Iraq after the war, the proliferation of propaganda linking the acceleration of suicide bombings to the persona of Zarqawi was not matched by meaningful evidence. His own search to substantiate the myriad claims attributing the insurgency to Zarqawi beyond anonymous US intelligence sources encountered only an “eerie blankness”. http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/12/how-the-west-created-the-islamic-state/

    The Zarqawi Phenomenon Submitted by ross on Sat, 10/01/2011 – 01:10
    *This article originally appeared on http://www.tomdispatch.com/ on July 5, 2005*

    By Dahr Jamail

    http://thefallujahproject.org/home/node/69

  17. I’m pretty sure Chomsky’s condemned the plight of Christians in the ME before.

  18. Sam J. says:

    9-11, the Iraq war and the present back and forth destruction of the Middle East is one big plan to weaken the Arab states against Israel. Shame that the US is such an idiot country, me being one of them, to allow us to be so used.

    As for all the bombing in Iraq blamed on extremist who do you really think did this? A clue.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/british-undercover-soldiers-caught-driving-booby-trapped-car/972

    That was just one group caught. If we did one why not all of them?

    If you assume the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths you’ll never be surprised. The World will make sense.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Noam Chomsky Comments via RSS