[spectre] WHY GAZA?

[Louise Desrenards]

Please forward the links / S'il vous plait partagez les liens !
Thanks / Merci par avance


1.
WHY GAZA? For Israel, Imperialism Isn't Enough 	
Written by Dan Freeman-Maloy
Saturday, 17 November 2012 10:37 @ http://www.odsg.org/

2.
Gaza massacrée ! Appel au retour général des fondamentaux de la Gauche !
 Press Release: A new Gaza Massacre! @ http://www.odsg.org/

+  the translation by L. D. (the link) @ http://www.larevuedesressources.org/
Gaza massacrée ! Appel au retour général des fondamentaux de la Gauche !

- - - - - - - - - - - - --

1.

WHY GAZA? For Israel, Imperialism Isn't Enough 	
Written by Dan Freeman-Maloy
Saturday, 17 November 2012 10:37



"What I am trying to say to you, my friends, comrades, brothers and
sisters, is that what we are facing with Israel is a two-headed
monster: it is both an imperialist monster, a colonialist monster; but
it is also an extremists state." - Eqbal Ahmad, speaking on the
occasion of Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon.

Things in Palestine have developed far beyond the point where any
given "flare-up" in the constant violence that defines Israeli rule
can be addressed in isolation. The significance of the ongoing Israeli
assault on Gaza has absolutely nothing to do with the tired, dull
hasbara talking points being peddled by Israeli diplomats - less still
with their enterprising "twitter offensive". But nor is it simply
reflected in the destructive impact of this wave of Israeli state
killings. As Eqbal Ahmad put it in a 1982 speech that today rings very
true, "What matters is the goal, the actuality, of what the Israelis
want."

Israel, of course, has no monopoly on the politics of violent
domination. But if, as the late Eric Hobsbawm wrote, "most historic
empires have ruled indirectly, through native elites often operating
native institutions," in its rule over the Palestinians Israel does
not easily fit into this imperial mainstream. As a result, the threat
posed by Israeli politics involves dangers much more severe than
external dominance and the suppression of genuine independence.

The false promise of conventional imperial rule in Palestine has
gotten much public play in recent years. A decade ago, endorsing
Israel's renewed onslaught throughout the occupied territories,
President Bush declared (June 2002) that what needed was "a new and
different Palestinian leadership so that a Palestinian state can be
born". A Palestinian "state"!

Of course, if this were the case, some obvious questions arose. Like,
why not in the '90s? The Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat had
already been caught in a system of extreme financial dependence on
Israel and its superpower sponsor, thanks in no small part to
conditional funding from a willing Europe. As it rubbed shoulders with
donors, the PA leadership had increasingly demobilized and sidelined
the organized mass base of the Palestine Liberation Organization. And
by decade's end, it was clamoring to overcome Israeli objections to
the increased involvement of CIA operatives and their close associates
in PA affairs. If the objective was a viable client state, what was
the problem?

Full Israeli re-invasion of this budding client state, the occupied
West Bank and Gaza, thus raised some eyebrows. When Israel moved
beyond prisons and bullets to deploy U.S.-supplied F16 fighter jets
against the occupied Palestinian population (spring 2001) - the first
deployment of warplanes within Palestine since 1967 - no less a dove
than Dick Cheney publicly objected. Even after September 11 2001, it
took some time for official Western acceptance of this escalation to
sink in. With Binyamin Netanyahu, for example, declaring that 9/11
demonstrated the need to "destroy terrorist regimes, starting with the
Palestinian Authority," George W. Bush countered that "the world ought
to applaud" Arafat for deploying PA security forces against "radical
elements" (October 2001). To the end, CIA director George Tenet
objected to the application of "regime change" politics against
Arafat's PA.

Yet there were limits to the Arafat leadership's indulgence of foreign
sponsors - limits to the diplomatic concessions it would make, limits
to its willingness to deploy PA forces against Palestinians when they
would all be attacked by Israeli military power, regardless. And the
days of U.S. (and hence international Western) cooperation with Arafat
were numbered.

Karma Nabulsi, speaking on a panel in Boston just after Israel's
2008-9 assault on Gaza, recalls the ensuing transition to Bush's "new
and different Palestinian leadership":

 "[In] 2005, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) ran for the presidency of the
Palestinian Authority - this was after the death of Arafat. And if you
remember, Arafat had been under a two-and-a-half year siege in his
headquarters in Ramallah for very much the same kind of issues that
are facing Hamas today. Mahmoud Abbas was elected on a vast popular
landslide. And his position was much different from Arafat's. His
position was that we are going to - as Fateh, as a political party, as
a president who will lead the negotiations - we are going to entirely
rely upon the goodwill of the Israeli government and of the U.S.
administration in order to achieve our rights, in order to raise the
issues that concern us, and in order to get a peaceful settlement. If
any of you remember what happened during that year, Sharon was in
power, and Mahmoud Abbas received absolutely nothing. And not only
that, was humiliated, and treated with contempt, by the Israeli
administration."

 The election of a Hamas majority in the parliamentary votes of early
2006 occurred against this backdrop. The outcome, Nabulsi emphasizes,
reflected not the bare popularity of Hamas, but the presence within
its electoral platform of the consensual Palestinian positions (on
prisoners, on refugees) that the Abbas presidency had set aside under
the pressure of external threats and demands.

 Under the pressure of a suffocating destabilization campaign jointly
pursued by Israel, U.S.-allied donor states, and foreign security
personnel, the politics of the occupied West Bank and Gaza were
further fragmented in June 2007 - the elected Hamas government
effectively confined to Gaza, control of the fragmented PA authority
within the West Bank returned to those Palestinian leaders favoured by
Israel and the West.

But even as those Palestinians resisting have been punished, the
politics of compliance have themselves been allowed to develop only
within the narrowest of cages.

 To be sure, development of something like a genuine Western
protectorate in parts of Palestine has had its prominent advocates. "I
firmly believe," explained the ranking U.S. military commander
responsible for the Palestinian file in 2007, "that you make changes
in this world the way the Romans did - by being on the ground, by
getting your feet dirty in the mud and working with the people on the
scene." And partnered with a compliant West Bank administration, why
not? After summer 2007 the influence in the West Bank of the 2006
election results had been nullified; or in other words (those of then
Secretary of State Rice), "you now have in the Palestinian territories
a democratic leadership".

 Armed with the "Roman option," the likes of Dayton thus pitched the
politics of sustained imperial cooptation to Israeli officialdom.
Compliant Palestinian security forces could be developed, brought into
the orbit of U.S.-allied protectorate networks in the region, and
clear the way for limited Israeli withdrawals that addressed Israel's
stated security concerns. "For the first time," Dayton kvelled in
2009, "I think it's fair to say that the Palestinian security forces
feel they are on a winning team."

 This message, however, does not resonate all that strongly in
predominant Israeli political circles. Leaders considering the
Palestine question are much more inclined to play New England Puritans
and Pequots than to merely dispatch imperial proconsuls.

When the Obama administration took over, neocolonial dictates were
predictable and quick in coming. "The new U.S. Administration," PA
officials were told before Obama even assumed office, "expects to see
the same Palestinian faces (Abu Mazen and Salaam Fayyad) if it is to
continue funding the Palestinian Authority." But a question remained:
Might a middle path be developed between conventional imperialism and
Israel's settler colonial zeal? Might Israel be seriously pressed to
reserve some stable fragments of Palestinian land, and some position
of plausible diplomatic dignity, for some kind of Palestinian polity?

 Until autumn 2010, it seemed possible. Since, the illusion has faded.
Political manipulation by Western donor states continues - but fewer
and fewer are taking development of a viable Palestinian protectorate
seriously. The vaunted Palestinian-Israeli "bilateral track" stands
exposed as the relationship between an occupied population and a
pioneering military power intent on brutalizing and suppressing it (at
best). And the U.S., true to form, stands vigilant in defense of the
sanctity of this fine "bilateral process" against any who would
interfere.

* * *

So what of Gaza? What does it mean when Israel threatens, bombs, and
kills to ensure its compliance? Its compliance with what?

 Note that the territorial and demographic reality that is the Gaza
Strip is itself, to begin, an ominous reflection of Israeli colonial
strategy to date: "When transfer doesn't work, concentration is
tried."

 In 1948, the greater part of Palestine's population was forcefully
displaced beyond Israel's pre-1967 sphere of control to clear the way
for Israel's anachronistic pioneering. A great number of the
"transferred" ended up in the Gaza Strip. Their nearby existence
quickly gave rise to an abiding Israeli wish: "If I believed in
miracles," declared David Ben-Gurion in an October 1956 Knesset
speech, "I would pray that Gaza would be washed down into the sea."
After 1967, Gaza's inhabitants not only remained above water but came
under direct Israeli rule.

 Several decades later, they surely aren't taking up very much room.
"Taken in isolation," Darryl Li wrote in 2006, "the Gaza Strip is
often described as one of the most densely populated places on earth:
1.4 million Palestinians crowded into 365 square kilometers. But in
the broader Zionist calculus of minima and maxima, this fact can be
redescribed as follows: some 25 percent of all Palestinians living
under Israeli control have been confined to 1.4 percent of the
territory of the British Mandate of Palestine."

 Still, they exist, they take part in Palestinian politics, they
resist with all the means at their disposal. And Israeli officialdom
continues to look wistfully at the water.

But how simultaneously to exclude and control these people while
clearing safe space to pioneer? "It will be a difficult struggle,"
explained Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Sunday. "Gaza's residents are
not about to jump into the sea". Until the likes of Barak can be so
lucky, however, they do see ways to proceed. Fabricating pretexts for
aggression on the southern front is, after all, a vibrant tradition,
as old as the state itself.

 Hence Wednesday's dramatic demonstration killing - an old-fashioned
public political execution, carried out with the latest technology. It
is worth quoting this Wednesday's report by Aluf Benn, editor-in-chief
of the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, at some length:

"Israel demanded of Hamas that it observe the truce in the south and
enforce it on the multiplicity of armed organizations in the Gaza
Strip. The man responsible for carrying out this policy was Ahmed
Jabari . . . Now Israel is saying that its subcontrator did not do his
part and did not maintain the promised quiet on the southern border.
The repeated complaint against him was that Hamas did not succeed in
controlling the other organizations, even though it is not interested
in escalation. After Jabari was warned openly ..., he was executed on
Wednesday in a public assassination action, for which Israel hastened
to take responsibility. The message was simple and clear: You failed -
you're dead."

Now - the principal line of actual communication between Israel and
Hamas having being violently severed in the most spectacular way
possible - hundreds of air strikes on Gaza form the backdrop to
Israeli explanations that it will need to move in hard with ground
forces if complete quiet in the south is not immediately forthcoming.
During last year's spring wave of aerial killings in Gaza, Israeli
cabinet minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch declared that there "is no
immunity for anyone in Gaza". Until Israeli wishes are fulfilled, the
state reserves the right to kill at a pace of its choosing.

 * * *

 Not long after giving the speech cited at the outset of this article,
Eqbal Ahmad wrote that "the PLO has been saddled with a heavier burden
than any other liberation movement in contemporary history except one"
(that of the Vietnamese after the Korean war). How this challenge
still facing Palestinians can be met by those facing ruthless
exclusion on the one hand and, on the other, a proudly declared
"continuum of assassinations" executed with overwhelming military
force, is well beyond me. It is also, I hasten to add, very much
beyond most people who often speak to it from the West with undue
confidence. The very resilience of Palestinian challenges, locally and
around the world, is in any event extremely impressive.

But the issue here is absolutely not Palestinian conduct in the south.
And to consider the ongoing attacks on Gaza as part of a
disproportionate back-and-forth is to miss the point. These killings,
which are startling far beyond their body count, must instead be taken
as confirmation of the grievous threat posed by the Israeli political
system and its current place in the region's politics for the coming
period- irrespective of how this particular surge in violence
develops. Recall that as Palestinians face mass imprisonment and
aerial political killings, there also remain on the record the
threats, issued via quasi-official Israeli documents, to reduce the
main population centres across the Middle East to "vapour and ash"
should any state in the region pose too serious a challenge.

Perhaps Israeli killings will continue to rage with impunity, checked
only by the armed responses others in the region can muster. But this
may well be catastrophic for everyone concerned. Those of us observing
these developments from the West, and identifying with the kind of
politics that avoid bloodshed, should take very seriously the question
of what forms of political deterrence can be developed to check this
threat.


Dan Freeman-Maloy

Publiished by
The One Democratic State Group

http://www.odsg.org/co/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2685:why-gaza-for-israel-imperialism-isnt-enough&catid=31:general&Itemid=41


-----


---------


- - - - - - - - - - - - --

2.

 Press Release: A new Gaza Massacre!

Wednesday, 14 November 2012 19:33

14.November.2012

Besieged Gaza, Occupied Palestine--The Palestinian Students’ Campaign
for the Academic Boycott of Israel, University Teachers’ Association
and The One Democratic State Group condemn in the strongest possible
terms the criminal Israeli attack against innocent Palestinians in the
Gaza Strip. More than 7 people have been killed within the last 6
hours, including 7-year-old child Ranan Arafat. Charred bodies of
injured children are pouring in to Al Shifa hospital and the other
depleted hospitals around the Gaza Strip. This heinous crime also
comes one week after the re-election of Barak Obama for a second term.
Tel Aviv claims to have been given the green light to annihilate as
many Palestinians in Gaza as possible.

 Gaza has been enduring Israeli policies of extermination and
vandalism since 2006. We reiterate our condemnation of the
international conspiracy of silence and Arab impotence in the face of
these continuous Israeli crimes. We note that not a single action
against Israel has been taken by any Arab country. Will the Arab
Spring stand aside and watch while we are being butchered? Empty
rhetoric will no longer be accepted. Words of condemnation have to be
translated into action!

We also reiterate our call on all civil society organizations and
political parties to boycott Israeli embassies and compel their
governments to sever their diplomatic ties with Apartheid Israel.
This time, Apartheid Israel must not get away with its crimes against
the innocent civilians of Gaza.  All students and academics should
stand in solidarity with their Palestinian colleagues and peers. We
ask, what more does the international community need to see to be
convinced to act than the dozens of dead corpses of children in Gaza?
It is left to civil society and people of conscience to stop the
ongoing massacre in Gaza.

Inaction has led us to this point.

 ACT NOW BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!

One Democratic State Group

Palestinian Students’ Campaign for the Academic Boycott of Israel

University Teachers’ Association



http://www.odsg.org/co/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2679%3Apress-release-a-new-gaza-massacre&catid=39%3AStatements&Itemid=62


In French (more a preface) :

http://www.larevuedesressources.org/gaza-massacree-appel-au-retour-general-des-fondamentaux-de-la-gauche,2436.html


____________