Ilan Pappe :

« There is no peace movement in Israel »

4th June 2005

Ilan Pappe, an Israeli historian, denounces that Palestinians are the victims of ab ethnic cleansing and that they are now more than ever in danger. Thus, he calls to the world solidarity movements to boycott Israeli universities which he considers as an official propaganda engine in the hands of Israel’s governement. Silvia Cattori

I think that there is a game in Israel-Palestine: the charade of peace. But what it really means is that again these politicians on both sides meet in beautiful hotels, with diplomats from all around the world to discuss nothing, just chatting. And you see very important words such as peace process, evacuation, disengagement, the end of occupation, creation of a Palestinian state. This is the "peace industry" as Chomsky said. And on the field, nothing is happening…

But, all around, there is no partner to the chattering and futile exercise of diplomacy that the diplomats and politicians on both sides. But the worrying side is that ever since Ariel Sharon declares in an article to begin a new peace initiative in a previous peace initiative which is called the Road map, ever since that happened, there is a very dangerous trend that everyone in the world interested in the question of Palestine seems to take part in the game of peace. We have already seen previous chapters in the game of peace, but before that, not every one took part in.

This time, what we call the Quartet – the European Union, the United Nations, Russia and the United States – are all congratulating Ariel Sharon for his disengagement. And we have people in Israel, who supposedly belong to the Peace camp, the Labour Party and from the Peace Now Movement, who say the same things as the Quartet is saying, namely that they will leave Sharon, the man who is leading Israel and the Palestinians into a new chapter of the peace-making in Israel and Palestine.

The danger of Ariel Sharon peace deal is two-fold : one is that you create the illusion among the people that something good is happening to them, when actually the situation is catastrophic and dreadful.
But then, when a policy does not produce any change in the people’s reality then the frustration follows. And a third Intifada is just around the corner.
It will happen at the moment that enough people realise that present negotiations have failed and that they have nothing to offer to the people.

[…]
But the other scenario which is less likely but can happen is that there will be more violence, and the people would be tired and would say " all right, let’s trade and get what we can have, we have had enough ; anyone who has been in the occupied territories knows that there is a quest for normal life, that there is a tiredness for the struggle for 38 years of occupation and they do not know how to live with this, and there is a danger that even a Palestinian delegation would say, like Yasser Arafat in the summer of 2000, " all right, let us take this, this is better than nothing " and you can already hear these voices in the corridors of power in Ramallah. And this is more dangerous then the violence. This is a chapter that can lead to the destruction, to the total destruction of the palestinian people and Palestine.

Now, in order to prevent this from happening, we have to stress again and again, that instead of a peace charade, what we have on the ground is a continuing occupation. Every day looks like the day before, and each day looks like the last day in the last thirty seven years. But if you support this peace charade, if anyone supports this peace game, it does not only mean that by that you would allow the occupation to continue, it means that you would allow something much worse than the occupation to take place. Because in either way, if the Israelis are going to get the green light for the Sharon plans it would mean that there is danger for the Palestinians who live in that half of the West Bank which Israel, the consensual Israel, now regards as part of the Jewish state, there is a great danger that these people would be ethnically cleansed. Israel has already transferred two thousands palestinians families for building the wall. We don’t see this information in any of the western press ; two thousand families have been moved from their houses for the creation of the wall.

There are two hundred fifty thousand Palestinians under direct danger of ethnic cleansing for the next stage of the wall in the next stage of annexation of the West Bank. If the peace plan is going to be continued to be supported by Europeans, by Americans, by Russian and the United Nations it would mean a green light to Israel to continue with this policy of ethnic cleansing. Moreover the Israelis make themselves ready for the next uprising ; and this time they would not hesitate to use even worst means of repression compared to what they had used to the previous two Intifadas. So we are talking here not just of ethnic cleansing but of real danger of genocidal policy.

It is not enough to say that you know exactly what the peace plan is all about. I think, all of us, activists, inside and outside, should understand that there is an urgent danger for the ethnic cleansing of more Palestinians, for the killing of more Palestinians, for the destruction of Palestine and the Palestinians ; and there is only one way to stop Israel. Not dialogue, not diplomatic negotiations. We have tried this for 37 years. There is no chance for an anti-occupation movement inside Israel. This is not going to happen. The only way to stop the scenario I was describing to you is by pressure, by sanctions, by embargo, by making Israel a state, like South Africa was when the chapter of apartheid occurred on its soil…There is no other way. And I feel very sad for saying it because I know the consequences of such a policy ; but anyone who has been in a peace business - I have been for 37 years – know that you are entitled, after 37 years, to say that diplomatic efforts don’t lead anywhere, the negotiations with Israel don’t lead anywhere, that the peace camp in Israel does not have any power, that the military struggles of the Palestinians have failed, and there is only one way of saving Palestine: it is to make the Israelis feel that they cannot be a member of the civilised nations if the occupation continues one more day.

What strategy ?

It is a difficult time for solidarity movements. In Europe, I believe for a very long time and rightly so, one of the mains purposes has been to promote Israeli-Palestinian dialogue and this purpose is still very important but we need a different target now. We are asking actually to solidarity movements to do something that they have never done before in Europe. We are asking them to copy, to imitate what the solidarity movements did in the case of South Africa ; and if you look at the history of Palestinian solidarity movements in the last 37 years you will see that, because they believed there were two sides, because they believed there was a chance with dialogue to end the occupation, the solidarity movements – I do not blame them, I was there as well – were trying to promote negotiation, coexistence, understanding. One day we would need that kind of energies and support from the solidarity movement. But now what I was trying to say, is that what we need from the solidarity movements is to save Palestine to the Palestinians. In fact if they will fail to save Palestine to the Palestinians, the Jews in Israel will be also the victims and lost. So actually we have called to save Palestinians and the Jews, for what I have compared in my article that we are all in one plane that does not have a pilot. Everyone knows, if you talk with the Palestinians or with the Israelis, everybody knows that we are riding towards a collision of a terrible war and anybody is not willing to talk about it. Which means that the energy on the ground to stop the capacities of peace are not there. So, solidarity, with both Palestinian and Jewish, means now helping to bring an end to the occupation.

Any attempt to try and help solidarity movements that are engaged in peace initiatives, and dialogue, and coexistence is important, but I think we should not forget, for one moment, what is the urgent target.

There is an urgent need, for strategies that suit more like tactics, to do something, which both the peaceful movement within Israel and in the Palestinian resistance movement in the occupied territories, apparently have failed to do. And this is to bring an end to the Israeli occupation. Only when the military occupation would come to an end is there any chance to reconciliation between the two people. Now, unfortunately the peace process until now, and this in my mind includes Geneva accords, until now has equated the end of occupation and the end of conflict. And this is false ; this is not going to work. You cannot end the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians by not ending the occupation. You can start to negotiate over the end of the conflict after you’ve ended the occupation, but not one moment before that. And so much energy, and so many good people (including Geneva) have gone in the wrong direction in trying to convince people in Europe, in Israel, in Palestine and in America that the moment Israeli soldiers would leave the occupied territories, peace would come to Palestine. In fact the moment Israeli soldiers would leave the West Bank and the Gaza Strip then the real peace negotiations will begin. And far from this real peace negotiations has to be a reorganisation also on the Palestinian side.

I would be worried to put too much stress on the election of Abu Mazen or on the election of Yasser Arafat after Oslo. Yes I thought that Abu Mazen would have won democratic elections in the occupied territories. I thought Yasser Arafat would have won democratic elections. But let us not forget for one moment, the election is not something that people in the occupied territories ask for. The occupation election was forced upon Palestinians as a precondition by the Israeli. Don’t forget that you have to face the fact of history bravely, bravely. The Israeli said to the Palestinians : " you are primitive people, we cannot negotiate with you peace until you have democratic elections ". And this is how the elections come about. Until this israeli demand come, the Palestinians said something very very right and just. " Who needs elections when we are occupied ? ". Did anyone in France, after the second world war, ask for the elections before the end of the occupation ? This is what we are talking about.

Secondly, if you want to talk about strategies. We all do respect Abu Mazen, he represents the people of occupied territories. He can go negotiate and he should negotiate the end of the occupation. Is he entitled to negotiate on the behalf of the Palestinians refugees? Am I entitled to negotiate on the behalf of Palestinians refugees? Is anyone apart of Palestinians refugees entitled to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians refugees? We need to hear from the refugees themselves how they want to implement the right of return that was promised to them by United Nations in 1948. I am very happy to hear Abu Mazen, that I have known from 25 years, saying he will not give up the right of return. He hope he must. But the strategies for peace including solidarity movement in Europe would have to put the Palestinian right of return at the centre of the peace agenda. Not about the end of occupation. We all want the end of the occupation. The people of Geneva Initiative wanted the end of the occupation. But the conflict between Israel and Palestine is not about the occupation ; is about the ethnic cleansing that Israel did in 1948 and which did not end for one day after 48. So strategies for peace are not strategies for ending the occupation. This is how they felt our mind with bubbles, ever since 1967.

This is what the Peace Now movement said, this is what the American said, this is what the Swiss government are going to say, this is about Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. No. This in not peace ; and Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank is an end of their crimes against humanity. This has nothing to do with peace. Because the palestinian people in the occupied territories are the only group of people, in the second half of the century, who have been living for 37 years under the military occupation. This has nothing to do with peace. Can you imagine Switzerland for ten years under military occupation ? Anyone here knows what a military occupation means. That a military sergeant can shut you, close your shop, destroy your house at will, every moment of the day, brutally, by 37 years. What does this have to do with peace ? Do we talk about oppression in other place in the world and we need negotiate with governments, of ending the oppression by giving something else ?

In Serbia NATO bombed Belgrade to stop the ethnic cleansing in Balkans. It bombed with aeroplanes Belgrade. But with Israel we negotiate ! We have to offer something to the Israelis, so that they would be willing to give up a little bit of the military of the occupation. And unfortunately too many Palestinians collaborated with this policy. Strategy for peace is something very different. Strategy for peace is a question that bothers all the Middle East not only Palestine. Not just the people who live in the occupied territories. They are just one part of the Palestinian people. The palestinian people are all over the Middle East and they are all part of the problem. The very bad negative thing about the Oslo project was that it excluded the Palestinians refugees, that it excluded the Palestinians in Israel from the future solution for the Palestine question.

I will end by saying to you how I envision, for what it works, a strategy that can relocate the refugees’ problem at the centre of peace and bring about reconciliation between Jews and Palestinians, because anything else, anything else, is just a momentary relief from violence and occupation, and I don’t underestimate it, but it is not a peace plan. That three, I use to call them the three "A".

The three “A