The "Jewish state" and the real meaning of "Western values"

3 December 2012. A World to Win News Service. Democracy, human rights, the rule of law, justice, peace – all these nice words that the U.S. would like people to believe are the highest values of the American system and the basis for its bond with Israel – were cast aside and covered with filth by the representatives of the U.S. and Israel when the UN voted on admitting Palestine as a non-member observer state. Instead, they argued that what Israel stands for, and what the U.S. holds highest in relation to Israel and the Palestinians, is Israel's existence as a "Jewish state". Everything else, U.S. and Israeli representatives agreed at the UN and in the barrage of press conferences before and after, has to be judged in the light of what best guarantees the existence of that state. This explains some extraordinary spectacles: Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's purposely thuggish top diplomat, labelled the Palestinian decision to seek UN status "diplomatic terrorism". Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev denounced it as "an obstacle to peace", and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeated this formulation. In warning the UN to stay out of Israel's affairs, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejoiced in quoting Barack Obama: "Peace cannot be imposed from the outside." This phrase from the president of the U.S., a country that has long tried to violently impose its will "from the outside" in invasions and other military interventions around the globe! Since the Korean war of the 1950s and the Congo a decade later, this has often been under the cover of "peacekeeping" and the UN flag. The U.S. unabashedly seeks to interfere in the "internal affairs" of countries like Syria (and Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia, etc.), but when it comes to Israel even the prospect of UN involvement is forbidden. In what way is obtaining UN status an "obstacle to peace"? Why is going to the UN treated as more of an existential threat than shooting rockets at Israel? Why, in Israeli eyes, must even an act of diplomacy be "punished"? When Israeli mouthpiece Regev was pressed to explain this during an interview on Al Jazeera television 29 November, he refused to answer, remaining silent for a few moments. Then the phone went dead. When the correspondent re-established the link and asked, again, why the UN move should "preclude negotiations", he changed the subject. It is indicative of the smarmy mentality of most of the Western media that when Hillary Clinton repeated that claim the next day, she went unchallenged. Few mainstream commentators have even wondered aloud about it. This is a forbidden question because it could open a window into the character and legitimacy of the whole "peace process". In the decades since the Palestine Liberation Organization renounced the goal of the overthrow of the state of Israel by violence or any other means, and especially since the 1993 Oslo Accord brokered by the U.S., the "peace process" has been a tool for steady Israeli expansion, leaving Palestinians with only 22 percent of what was once Palestine. At the same time, the PLO has morphed into the Palestinian Authority, whose role is to act as the native administrators of an occupied territory. PA President Mahmoud Abbas now likes to call Palestine a "state", but Israeli guns hold political power in the West Bank. Gaza, too, remains an occupied territory under the definition of international law, because despite the pull-out of Israeli settlements and troops, it remains cut off from the rest of Palestine and the world, under constant attacks and threats from Israel, whose guns are the ultimate arbitrator. Israel made this clear when it responded to a Hamas attempt to negotiate a ceasefire by assassinating the key figure in those negotiations, Hamas leader Ahmed Jabari. (International Crisis Group report, 22 November, 2012) It made that point clear again following the ceasefire it finally accepted after killing about 140 Gaza residents. When unarmed Palestinians visited their former farmland in the Israeli-declared "buffer zone" in Gaza, Israeli soldiers shot at them. Again on 30 November, when Palestinians demonstrated to demand access to the buffer zone that Israel had supposedly agreed to under the ceasefire, again Israeli solders blasted the crowd, killing one man and wounding many others, at least six seriously. Even now, missile-armed Israeli drones are always in the sky above Gaza. Israeli spokesman Regev mocked Abbas's claim to speak for a Palestinian state because the President of the Palestinian Authority can't even go to Gaza. It is true that Abbas would not get a warm welcome there, and many Palestinians in the West Bank don't admire him either. But no Palestinian, not even Abbas, can get in or out of the West Bank without the permission of the Israeli government. What Israel demands from Abbas is not just subordination but servility. Again, it's an exposure of what Israel and the U.S. really stand for that they hit the air raid sirens and scream bloody murder about a "red line" at the mere idea that Palestinians might ask for the enforcement of international law at the UN-connected International Criminal Court in The Hague. Isn't threatening harm to dissuade someone from filing criminal charges itself considered a crime in most countries? Where are the voices raised to say: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time"? – if you don't want to be prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, then don't commit any! But it's impossible for Israel not to violate international law, even though the UN acquiesced to its foundation in 1948 (which shows that ultimately the UN is and always has been an instrument of the major powers). For instance, the annexation of territory conquered by war is illegal according to the Geneva Conventions. But Israel annexed East Jerusalem, captured in 1967, claiming since God intended the city to be "the eternal capital of the Jewish people", human considerations are irrelevant. Likewise, it's illegal to colonize lands seized in war, and yet Israel has annexed, colonized or restricted or forbidden Palestinian access to much of the West Bank. It also colonized Gaza for almost two generations, withdrawing not because of any recognition of justice or legality but for practical considerations. Further, even given UN approval of the existence of the state of Israel, its insistence on remaining a "Jewish state" – to which all U.S., Israeli and European governments agree – is not so compatible with international law. The way the Zionists obtained a majority Jewish population was by expelling or forcing out a large part of the original Palestinian inhabitants – about three-quarters of a million people – in 1948. Under article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a founding UN document, "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." Israel offers the "right of return" to anyone considered of Jewish ancestry anywhere in the world, regardless of their place of birth or residence, and forbids that right to all Palestinians, including those born there as well as their descendants. According to the standards of the Declaration, that constitutes illegal discrimination based on religion or "race". Article 13 also guarantees "freedom of movement and residence within each state," which Israel explicitly denies to Palestinians in the West Bank. In fact, both by law and accepted practice, Palestinians are denied most of the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration, not only in the territories occupied in 1967 but also in the original occupied territory, Israel itself. Our point here is not to mythologize international law, which for the most part has been crafted by the imperialist powers in their own general interests. But by definition, because of its unique nature as a "Jewish state", Israel cannot comply with those standards. The equality before the law proclaimed by the West masks and enforces real inequalities, but a state defined by religion and ethnicity can't even pretend to offer equality. And while Western bourgeois democracies can often obscure the fact that political power ultimately rests on a monopoly of force, Israel doesn't have that option. As openly murderous and fascistic as Netanyahu and his cabinet may be, no Israeli government has been or could be fundamentally different. That is the only possible outcome of the theory of Zionism – that's what it means for there to be a "Jewish state". What's more, Israel can remain a "Jewish state" only by trying to displace and crush the Palestinians no matter what they do, and Israel proves that every chance it gets. The Palestinians are punished if they resist, and punished if they don't. Take Israel's reaction to the UN vote: Less than 24 hours later, it announced that it would build 3,000 more homes in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and begin planning to colonize the area between East Jerusalem and the Israeli settlement city of Maale Adumim, effectively cutting the most inhabited part of the West Bank into two non-contiguous zones. This was supposed to be retaliation for the Palestinians for daring to carry out international diplomacy. But the bitter irony is that it was already well under way long before the UN vote. The number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank grew by more than 15,000 during the year ending in July 2012. (Harriet Sherwood, 26 July 2012, the Guardian) This construction has nothing to do with housing needs, since there are not enough settlers to fill the new units. Many Israelis – perhaps on the order of 100,000 – are encouraged by government financial benefits to register as settlement residents but actually live elsewhere. (See settlementwatcheastjerusalem.wordpress.com) The "peace process" broke down two years ago because Israel refused to stop building new settlements. Since then, the pace of construction has accelerated. Israeli roadblocks, supposedly to protect settlements, including Maale Adumim, have already all but completely cut off Ramallah and Bethlehem from each other and Jerusalem. Having first divided Jerusalem in 1948 and then declaring it indivisibly Jewish since 1967, Israel is forcing the Palestinian population out of their homes in neighbourhoods being "Judaized" even as new towns for Jews are being built and annexed to the city. The infamous wall, roadways partitioned into Jewish and non-Jewish lanes with separate access and Israeli military checkpoints within the West Bank have already isolated Palestinian villages, towns and cities. The settlement expansion announced after the UN vote hqd already been planned and budgeted beforehand. Even Israel's latest decision to confiscate the tax revenues it collects on behalf of of the Palestinian Authority happened again and again before Abbas gave Israel its "Look what you made me do!" moment. Whether Israel steals the money or hands it over, this situation is only a reflection of the fact that the Palestinian "state" doesn't control its own borders and is so powerless that it has to let Israel collect its import duties and other taxes. Because the Palestinian Authority is utterly dependent on Israel (and the U.S., and lately on U.S.-friendly Arab regimes), it's very unlikely that the PA would ever risk taking Israel or Israeli citizens to the International Criminal Court. In fact, in 2009, when a UN report accused Israel of war crimes in its invasion of Gaza, Abbas and the PA yielded to U.S. pressure and got the UN Human Rights Commission to drop the matter. This saved the U.S. the possible embarrassment of a discussion of the report in the Security Council, even though it could use its veto power to prevent the case being sent to court. (See AWTWNS 5 October 2009). Israel and its American patron regularly use violence and the threat of violence to serve their interests and don't let laws stop them, but that doesn't mean that they place no importance on the political effect of their actions. The aura of justice and legitimacy – the "moral high ground – is very important to them. So is the necessity of promoting the illusion that accepting the existence of Israel is the wisest course. This accounts for Clinton's apparently contradictory response to the UN vote and its aftermath. On the one hand, she made it clear that the U.S. considers the existence of the "Jewish state" a matter of strategic importance. There was no "daylight" between the U.S. and Israel on that, at the UN or anywhere else. Washington's seems genuinely appalled and enraged at Abbas because it fears the slightest loss of the "moral high ground" and legitimacy – not only to Israel but itself. On the other, Clinton also seemed perturbed by Israel's arbitrary humiliation of Abbas after the vote, precisely because the U.S. doesn't want Palestinians, and Arab people in general, to lose all hope that it will moderate Israel's unapologetic barbarity. This is all the more crucial right now because of the enormous upheaval in the region. Mass rebellions have hit both regimes that have been pillars of U.S. interests in the region (such as Mubarak in Egypt) and others (such as Assad in Syria) that have helped maintain a stability that favoured U.S. and Israeli interests. Hatred for Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, of the regimes that have gone along with that and, at times, of the U.S. itself, have been important and sometimes central themes in these rebellions. For example, speaking at the UN, the Zionist spokesman Regev brayed, "Israel awaits a Palestinian leader willing to follow the path of Sadat", the Egyptian president who in 1977 began the "peace process" that is grinding up the Palestinian people to this day. But Sadat is dead, killed by Islamists – his open capitulation to Israel was politically unsustainable anyway – and even his successor Mubarak has been tossed aside. At this point in time, at least, there can be no more Sadats. The U.S. (and Israel) need the Moslem Brotherhood now in power in Egypt to maintain the "fourth wall" of the prison that is Gaza. According to reports, the Morsi government has promised to launch major operations against the tunnels that are Gaza's main link to the world, seeking perhaps not to shut them down but better control what goes through them. This is no easy matter, since Cairo has been unable to fully control the adjacent Sinai Peninsula, and even the Brotherhood's hold on Egypt is weak. The U.S. can't afford to see Morsi disgraced as a stooge for Israel like Abbas. Even Abbas's reputation needs a bit of shining up. In her 30 November speech to the Saban Forum, "an annual dialogue between American and Israeli leaders", Clinton reproached the Israelis for having humiliated and politically destabilized Abbas (and leaving the "peace process" liable to exposure) with their brazen announcement about expanding settlements. She made the same point in Abbas's defence that Palestinian critics have made against him: that he has helped "make Israel's streets safer" by using the money and authority delegated to him to build up a Palestinian police force whose main activity is controlling Palestinians seeking to confront Israeli troops and armed settlers. Clinton even hinted that Hamas could make itself more acceptable in the U.S.'s eyes if it played the role Abbas has tried – and largely failed to play successfully – of being a pillar of (Israeli) stability even while making it look otherwise. It seems that Israel assassinated Hamas leader Jabari to make the same point about what it wants Hamas to do. There is some basis for that hope, since Hamas's fundamental goal is a religious state, and its leadership has said that an Islamic Palestine could accept long-term coexistence with the "Jewish state". Clinton's raising of the possibility that Hamas could become something the U.S. could live with is probably related to the U.S. assessment that a Moslem Brotherhood regime might be its best available option in Egypt. In any event, the advance of Islamic fundamentalism in all its interrelated forms, whether seeking compromise or confrontation with the U.S. and the West, is one probable outcome of recent events. They have spotlighted the bankruptcy of "Western values" and cast a negative light, retroactively, on the historically secular Palestinian revolutionary movement because of the grovelling of people like Abbas today. Even though the CIA and Israeli Mossad worked to build up the Islamists and kill or beat down the secular left in previous decades, Israel's self-proclaimed intransigence could help make the rise of Islamism even more dangerous to American imperialism's strategic interests. Is there no alternative to the dead-end roads of hoping for the best from the U.S. or seeking to pull an Islamic veil over national oppression? It's hard to imagine a free Palestine given the current configuration of the region and the world, but is that configuration eternal – and hasn't what happens in Palestine always reacted back on other countries in the region and elsewhere? Can the peoples of the Middle East ever free themselves of the economic, political and military domination of the U.S. and its allies, and the regimes that in one way or another find their place in this web? Israeli brutality and U.S. hypocrisy constantly provoke resistance and turmoil, but where will that lead? Will today's situation set the stage for the emergence of a new Palestinian movement that can learn from its own history and the experience and understanding of the communist movement historically and globally, its setbacks and errors and especially its advances? How can Palestinians be freed if not through revolution in Palestine as part of the struggle to liberate and transform the region and the world? That path needs to be charted, in theory and practice.