[News] Interview with Noam Chomsky on Lebanon

[Anti-Imperialist News]

http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky08162006.html

August 16, 2006


An Interview with Noam Chomsky on Lebanon


Apocalypse Near

By MERAV YUDILOVITCH

[Note from NC: "The Yediot Ahronot interview came 
out (on Ynet), Aug. 3, but only in Hebrew -- so 
far at least. What they published was a kind of 
amalgam of two versions, the second when the 
asked me to shorten the first by eliminating the 
part about Iranian nuclear weapons. What they 
published, for some reason, included the part 
they asked me to cut and eliminated parts I 
thought were more important. But worked out OK." 
The version posted here reproduces the original transcript in full.]

MY: You say the provocation and 
counter-provocation all serve as a distraction 
from the real issue. does the war in Lebanon is 
also a distraction the aims to draw the world's 
attention to the north of Israel while Gaza is been destroyed?

NC: I assume you are referring to John Berger's 
letter (which I signed, among others).

The "real issue" that is being ignored is the 
systematic destruction of any prospects for a 
viable Palestinian existence as Israel annexes 
valuable land and major resources (water 
particularly), leaving the shrinking territories 
assigned to Palestinians as unviable cantons, 
largely separated from one another and from 
whatever little bit of Jerusalem is to be left to 
Palestinians, and completely imprisoned as Israel 
takes over the Jordan valley (and of course 
controls air space, etc.). This program of 
"hitkansut," cynically disguised as "withdrawal," 
is of course completely illegal, in violation of 
Security Council resolutions and the unanimous 
decision of the World Court (including the 
dissenting statement of US Justice Buergenthal). 
If it is implemented as planned, it spells the 
end of the very broad international consensus on 
a two-state settlement that the US and Israel 
have unilaterally blocked for 30 years ­ matters 
that are so well documented that I do not have to review them here.

The US and Israel do not tolerate any resistance 
to these plans, preferring to pretend ­ falsely 
of course ­ that "there is no partner," as they 
proceed with programs that go back a long way. We 
may recall that Gaza and the West Bank are 
recognized to be a unit, so that if resistance to 
Israel's destructive and illegal progams is 
considered to be legitimate within the West Bank, 
then it is legitimate in Gaza as well, in 
reaction to Israeli actions in the West Bank.

To turn to your specific question, even a casual 
look at the Western press reveals that the 
crucial developments in the occupied territories 
are marginalized even more by the war in Lebanon. 
The ongoing destruction in Gaza ­ which was 
rarely seriously reported in the first place -- 
has largely faded into the background, and the 
systematic takeover of the West Bank has 
virtually disappeared. The severe punishment of 
the population for "voting the wrong way" was 
never considered problematic, consistent with the 
long-standing principle that democracy is fine if 
and only if it accords with strategic and 
economic interests, documented to the heavens. 
However, I would not go as far as the implication 
in your question that this was a purpose of the 
war, though it clearly is the effect.

MY: Do you see the world media partialy 
responsible for not insisting of linking between 
what's going on in the Occupied Territories and Lebanon?

NC: Yes, but that is the least of the charges 
that should be levelled against the world media, 
and the intellectual communities generally. One 
of many far more severe charges is brought up in 
the opening paragraph of the Berger letter. 
Recall the facts. On June 25, Cpl. Gilad Shalit 
was captured at an army post near Gaza, eliciting 
huge cries of outrage worldwide, continuing daily 
at a high pitch, and a sharp escalation in 
Israeli attacks in Gaza. The escalation was 
supported on the grounds that capture of a 
soldier is a grave crime for which the population 
must be punished. One day before, on June 24, 
Israeli forces kidnapped two Gaza civilians, 
Osama and Mustafa Muamar, by any standards a far 
more severe crime than capture of a soldier. The 
Muamar kidnappings were certainly known to the 
major world media. They were reported at once in 
the English-language Israeli press (Jerusalem 
Post, Ha'aretz English edition, June 25), 
basically IDF handouts. And there were indeed a 
few brief, scattered and dismissive reports in 
several newspapers around the US; the only 
serious news report in English that day was in 
the Turkish press. Very revealingly, there was no 
comment, no follow-up, no call for military or 
terrorist attacks against Israel. A google search 
will quickly reveal the relative significance in 
the West of the kidnapping of civilians by the 
IDF and the capture of an Israeli soldier a day later.

The paired events, a day apart, demonstrate with 
bitter clarity that the show of outrage over the 
Shalit kidnapping was cynical fraud. They reveal 
that by Western moral standards, kidnapping of 
civilians is just fine if it is done by "our 
side," but capture of a soldier on "our side" a 
day later is a despicable crime that requires 
severe punishment of the population. As Gideon 
Levy accurately wrote in Ha'aretz, the IDF 
kidnapping of civilians the day before the 
capture of Cpl. Shalit strips away any 
"legitimate basis for the IDF's operation," and, 
we may add, any legitimate basis for support for 
these operations. The same assessment carries 
over to the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli 
soldiers near the Lebanon border, heightened, in 
this case, by the (null) reaction to the regular 
Israeli practice for many years of abducting 
Lebanese and holding many as hostages for long 
periods, and of course killing many Lebanese. No 
one ever argued that these crimes justified 
bombing and shelling of Israel, invasion and 
destruction of much of the country, or terrorist 
actions within it. The conclusions are stark, clear, and entirely unambiguous.

All of this is, obviously, of extraordinary 
importance in the present case, particularly 
given the dramatic timing. That is, I suppose, 
why the major media chose to avoid the crucial 
facts, apart from a very few scattered and dismissive phrases.

Apologists for state crimes claim that the 
kidnapping of the Gaza civilians is justified by 
IDF claims that they are "Hamas militants" or 
were planning crimes. By their logic, they should 
therefore be lauding the capture of Gilad Shalit, 
a soldier in an army that was (uncontroversially) 
shelling and bombing Gaza. These performances are truly disgraceful.

MY: You're talking first and foremost about 
acknowledging the Palestinian nation but will it 
solve the "iranian threat" will it push the 
Hizbullah from the Israeli boarder? today 
Israelis see an imediate danger in the northern front are we being blinded?

NC: Virtually all informed observers agree that a 
fair and equitable resolution of the plight of 
the Palestinians would considerably weaken the 
anger and hatred towards Israel and the US in the 
Arab and Muslim worlds. Such an agreement is 
surely within reach, if the US and Israel depart 
from their long-standing rejectionism. Before 
they were called off prematurely by Ehud Barak, 
the Taba negotiations of January 2001 were coming 
close to a viable settlement, carried forward by 
subseqnent negotiations, most prominently the 
Geneva Accord released on December 2002, which 
received strong international support but was 
dismissed by the US and rejected by Israel. One 
can raise various criticisms of these proposals, 
but they are at least a basis, perhaps a solid 
basis, for progress towards peaceful settlement ­ 
if the US and Israel sharply reverse their rejectionist policies.

On Iran and Hizbollah, there is, of course, much 
more to say, and I can only mention a few central points here.

Let us begin with Iran. In 2003, Iran offered to 
negotiate all outstanding issues with the US, 
including nuclear issues and a two-state solution 
to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The offer was 
made by the moderate Khatami government, with the 
support of the hard-line "supreme leader" 
Ayatollah Khamenei. The Bush administration 
response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer.

In June 2006, Khamenei issued an official 
declaration stating that Iran agrees with the 
Arab countries on the issue of Palestine, meaning 
that it accepts the 2002 Arab League call for 
full normalization of relations with Israel in a 
two-state settlement in accord with the 
international consensus. The timing suggests that 
this might have been a reprimand to his 
subordinate Ahmadenijad, whose inflammatory 
statements are given wide publicity in the West, 
unlike the far more important declaration by his 
superior Khamenei. Just a few days ago, former 
Iranian diplomat Saddagh Kharazzi "reaffirmed 
that Iran would back a two-state solution if the 
Palestinians accepted" (Financial Times, July 26, 
2006). Of course, the PLO has officially backed a 
two-state solution for many years, and backed the 
2002 Arab League proposal. Hamas has also 
indicated its willingness to negotiate a 
two-state settlement, as is surely well-known in 
Israel. Kharazzi is reported to be the author of 
the 2003 proposal of Khatami and Khamanei.

The US and Israel do not want to hear any of 
this. They prefer to hear that Iran "is sworn to 
the destruction of the Jewish state" (Jerusalem 
correspondent Charles Radin, Boston Globe, 2 
August), the standard and more convenient story.

They also do not want to hear that Iran appears 
to be the only country to have accepted the 
proposal by IAEA director Mohammed ElBaradei that 
all weapons-usable fissile materials be placed 
under international control, a step towards a 
verifiable Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty 
(FMCT), as mandated by the UN General Assembly in 
1993. ElBaradei's proposal, if implemented, would 
not only end the Iranian nuclear crisis but would 
also deal with a vastly more serious crisis: the 
growing threat of nuclear war, which leads 
prominent strategic analysts to warn of 
"apocalypse soon" (Robert McNamara) if policies 
continue on their current course. The US strongly 
opposes a verifiable FMCT, but over US 
objections, the treaty came to a vote at the 
United Nations, where it passed 147-1, with two 
abstentions: Israel, which cannot oppose its 
patron, and more interestingly, Blair's Britain, 
which retains a degree of sovereignty. The 
British ambassador stated that Britain supports 
the treaty, but it "divides the international 
community" ­ 147 to 1. These again are matters 
that are virtually suppressed outside of 
specialist circles, and are matters of literal 
survival of the species, extending far beyond Iran.

It is commonly said that the "international 
community" has called on Iran to abandon its 
legal right to enrich uranium. That is true, if 
we define the "international community" as 
Washington and whoever happens to go along with 
it. It is surely not true of the world. The 
non-aligned countries have forcefully endorsed 
Iran's "inalienable right" to enrich uranium. 
And, rather remarkably, in Turkey, Pakistan, and 
Saudi Arabia, a majority of the population favor 
accepting a nuclear-armed Iran over any American 
military action, international polls reveal.

The non-aligned countries also called for a 
nuclear-free Middle East, a longstanding demand 
of the authentic international community, again 
blocked by the US and Israel. It should be 
recognized that the threat of Israeli nuclear 
weapons is taken very seriously in the world. As 
explained by the former Commander-in-Chief of the 
US Strategic Command, General Lee Butler, "it is 
dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of 
animosities that we call the Middle East, one 
nation has armed itself, ostensibly, with 
stockpiles of nuclear weapons, perhaps numbering 
in the hundreds, and that inspires other nations 
to do so." Israel is doing itself no favors if it ignores these concerns.

It is also of some interest that when Iran was 
ruled by the tryant installed by a US-UK military 
coup, the United States ­ including Rumsfeld, 
Cheney, Kissinger, Wolfowitz and others -- 
strongly supported the Iranian nuclear programs 
they now condemn and helped provide Iran with the 
means to pursue them. These facts are surely not 
lost on the Iranians, just as they have not 
forgotten the very strong support of the US and 
its allies for Saddam Hussein during his 
murderous aggression, including help in 
developing the chemical weapons that helped kill 
hundreds of thousands of Iranians.

There is a great deal more to say, but it appears 
that the "Iranian threat" to which you refer can 
be approached by peaceful means, if the US and 
Israel would agree. We cannot know whether the 
Iranian proposals are serious, unless they are 
explored. The US-Israel refusal to explore them, 
and the silence of the US (and, to my knowledge, 
European) media, suggests that it is perhaps feared that they may be serious.

I should add that to the outside world, it sounds 
a bit odd, to put it mildly, for the US and 
Israel to be warning of the "Iranian threat" when 
they and they alone are issuing threats to launch 
an attack, threats that are immediate and 
credible, and in serious violation of 
international law; and are preparing very openly 
for such an attack. Whatever one thinks of Iran, 
no such charge can be made in their case. It is 
also apparent to the world, if not to the US and 
Israel, that Iran has not invaded any other 
countries, something that the US and Israel have done regularly.

On Hezbollah too, there are hard and serious 
questions. As well-known, Hezbollah was formed in 
reaction to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 
1982 and its harsh and brutal occupation in 
violation of Security Council orders. It won 
considerable prestige by playing the leading role 
in driving out the aggressors. Also, like other 
Islamic movements, including Hamas, it has gained 
popular support by providing social services to 
the poor. Along with Amal, now its close ally, 
Hizbollah represents the Shi'a community in the 
parliament in Lebanon's confessional system. It 
is an integral part of Lebanese society. And much 
as in the past, US-backed Israeli violence is 
sharply increasing popular support for Hezbollah, 
not only in the Arab and Muslim worlds generally, 
but also in Lebanon itself. Polls taken in late 
July reveal that "87 percent of Lebanese support 
Hizbullah's fight with Israel, a rise of 29 
percent on a similar poll conducted in February. 
More striking, however, is the level of support 
for Hizbullah's resistance from non-Shiite 
communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled 
supported Hizbullah along with 80 percent of 
Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis. Lebanese no 
longer blame Hizbullah for sparking the war by 
kidnapping the Israeli soldiers, but Israel and 
the US instead" (Christian Science Monitor, July 
28). As often in the past, Israel is doing itself 
no favors by failing to attend to the predictable 
consequences of its resort to extreme violence 
instead of such measures as prisoner exchange, as in the past.

It is also not wise to ignore the recent 
observations of Zeev Maoz (Ha'aretz, July 24). As 
he wrote, the "wall-to-wall consensus in Israel 
that the war against the Hezbollah in Lebanon is 
a just and moral waris based on selective and 
short-term memory, on an introverted world view, 
and on double standards." The reasons include the 
Israeli practice of kidnapping and the almost 
daily violations of the Lebanese border for 
surveillance: "a border violation is a border 
violation." The reasons also include the 
historical record: the four earlier Israeli 
invasions since 1978, and their grim consequences 
for Lebanese. And we should also not forget the 
pretexts. The 1982 invasion was carried out after 
a year in which Israel repeatedly carried out 
bombing and other provocations in Lebanon, 
apparently trying to elicit some PLO violation of 
the 1981 truce, and when it failed, attacked 
anyway, on the pretext of the assassination 
attempt against Ambassador Argov (by Abu Nidal, 
who was at war with the PLO). The invasion was 
clearly intended, as virtually conceded, to end 
the embarrassing PLO initiatives for negotiation, 
a "veritable catastrophe" for Israel as Yehoshua 
Porat pointed out. It was, as described at the 
time, a "war for the West Bank." The later 
invasions also had shameful pretexts. In 1993, 
Hezbollah had violated "the rules of the game," 
Yitzhak Rabin announced: these Israeli rules 
permitted Israel to carry out terrorist attacks 
north of its illegally-held "security zone," but 
did not permit retaliation within Israel. Peres's 
1996 invasion had no more credible pretexts. It 
is convenient to forget all of this, or to 
concoct tales about shelling of the Galilee in 
1981, but it is not an attractive practice, nor a wise one.

The problem of Hezbollah's arms is quite serious, 
no doubt. Resolution 1559 calls for disarming of 
all Lebanese militias, but Lebanon has not 
enacted that provision. Sunni Prime Minister Fuad 
Siniora describes Hezbollah's military wing as 
"resistance rather than as a militia, and thus 
exempt from" Resolution 1559. A National Dialogue 
in June 2006 failed to resolve the problem. Its 
main purpose was to formulate a "national defense 
strategy" (vis-à-vis Israel), but it remained 
deadlocked over Hezbollah's call for "a defense 
strategy that allowed the Islamic Resistance to 
keep its weapons as a deterrent to possible 
Israeli aggression" (Beirut-based journalist Jim 
Quilty, Middle East Report, July 25), in the 
absence of any credible alternative. The US 
could, if it chose, provide a credible guarantee 
against an invasion by its client state, but that 
would require a sharp change in long-standing policy.

In the background are crucial facts emphasized by 
several veteran Middle East correspondents. Rami 
Khouri, an editor of Lebanon's Daily Star, writes 
that "the Lebanese and Palestinians have 
responded to Israel's persistent and increasingly 
savage attacks against entire civilian 
populations by creating parallel or alternative 
leaderships that can protect them and deliver 
essential services." Syria specialist Patrick 
Seale agrees: "You have the rise of essentially 
non-state actors like Hezbollah and Hamas because 
of the vacuum created by the impotence of Arab 
states to contain or deter Israel. These actors 
are basically taking issue with Israel's 
'deterrence,' which posits that Israel can strike 
but no one can strike at it." Until such basic 
questions are dealt with, it is likely that "the 
Middle East will sink further into violence and despair," as Khouri predicts.

MY: You are not refering in your letter to the 
Israeli casualties. is there diferentiation in 
your opinion between Isareli casualties of war 
(and I'm not talking about soldiers I'm talking 
about civilians) and Lebanese or Palestinians casualties?

NC: That is not accurate. John Berger's letter is 
very explicit about making no distinction between 
Israeli and other casualties. As his letter 
states: "Both categories of missile rip bodies 
apart horribly - who but field commanders can forget this for a moment."

MY: Why in your opinion the world is co-operating 
with the Israeli invasion to Lebanon and why 
isn't there any real pressure on the israeli 
government to stop the madness in Gaza and Jenin? 
What purpose does this silence serve?

NC: The great majority of the world protests, but 
chooses not to act. Europe is unwilling to take a 
stand against the US administration, which has 
made it clear that it supports Israeli policies 
in Palestine and Lebanon. The rest of the world 
strongly objects, but they are not even 
considered part of the "international community," 
unless they obey. The US-backed Arab tyrannies at 
first condemned Hezbollah, but were forced to 
back down out of fear of their own populations. 
Even King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Washington's 
most loyal (and most important) ally, was 
compelled to say that "If the peace option is 
rejected due to the Israeli arrogance, then only 
the war option remains, and no one knows the 
repercussions befalling the region, including 
wars and conflict that will spare no one, 
including those whose military power is now tempting them to play with fire."

With regard to Palestine, while Bush's stand is 
extreme, it has its roots in earlier policies. 
The week in Taba in January 2001 is the only real 
break in US rejectionism in 30 years. During the 
Oslo years, the US-Israel hinted at joining the 
international consensus, but made sure it would 
be very difficult to implement by steady increase 
in settlement, the rate peaking in 2000. The US 
also strongly supported earlier Israeli invasions 
of Lebanon, though in 1982 and 1996, it compelled 
Israel to terminate its aggression when 
atrocities were reaching a point that harmed US interests.

Unfortunately, one can generalize a comment of 
Uri Avnery's about Dan Halutz, who "views the 
world below through a bombsight." Much the same 
is true of Rumsfeld-Cheney-Rice, and other top 
Bush administration planners, despite occasional 
soothing rhetoric. As history reveals, that view 
of the world is not uncommon among those who hold 
a virtual monopoly of the means of violence, with 
consequences that we need not review.

MY: What is the next chapter in this middle-eastern conflict as you see it?

NC: I do not know of anyone foolhardy enough to 
predict. The US and Israel are stirring up 
popular forces that are very ominous, and which 
will only gain in power and become more extremist 
if the US and Israel persist in demolishing any 
hope of realization of Palestinian national 
rights, and destroying Lebanon. It should also be 
recognized that Washington's primary concern, as 
in the past, is not Israel and Lebanon, but the 
vast energy resources of the Middle East, 
recognized 60 years ago to be a "stupendous 
source of strategic power" and "one of the 
greatest material prizes in world history." We 
can expect, with confidence, that the US will 
continue to do what it can to control this 
unparalleled source of strategic power. That may 
not be easy. The remarkable incompetence of Bush 
planners has created a catastrophe in Iraq, for 
their own interests as well. They are even facing 
the possibility of the ultimate nightmare: a 
loose Shi'a alliance (including Shi'ite-dominated 
Iraq, Iran, and the Shi'ite regions of Saudi 
Arabia), controlling the world's major energy 
supplies, and independent of Washington ­ or even 
worse, establishing closer links with the 
China-based Asian Energy Security Grid and 
Shanghai Cooperation Council. The results could 
be truly apocalyptic. And even in tiny Lebanon, 
the leading Lebanese academic scholar of 
Hezbollah, and a harsh critic of the 
organization, describes the current conflict in 
"apocalyptic terms," warning that possibly "All 
hell would be let loose" if the outcome of the 
US-Israel campaign leaves a situation in which 
"the Shiite community is seething with resentment 
at Israel, the United States and the government 
that it perceives as its betrayer" (Amal 
Saad-Ghorayeb, Washington Post, 23 July).

It is no secret that in past years, Israel has 
helped to destroy secular Arab nationalism and to 
create Hezbollah and Hamas, just as US violence 
has expedited the rise of extremist Islamic 
fundamentalism and jihadi terror. The reasons are 
understood. There are constant warnings about it 
by Western (including US) intelligence agencies, 
and by the leading specialists on these topics. 
One can bury one's head in the sand and take 
comfort in a "wall-to-wall consensus" that what 
we do is "just and moral" (Maoz), ignoring the 
lessons of recent history, or simple rationality. 
Or one can face the facts, and approach dilemmas 
which are very serious by peaceful means. They 
are available. Their success can never be 
guaranteed. But we can be reasonably confident 
that viewing the world through a bombsight will 
bring further misery and suffering, perhaps even "apocalypse soon."


The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 863-9977
www.freedomarchives.org 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20060816/26b03a12/attachment.htm>