Al-Jazeerah History
Archives
Mission & Name
Conflict Terminology
Editorials
Gaza Holocaust
Gulf War
Isdood
Islam
News
News Photos
Opinion
Editorials
US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)
www.aljazeerah.info
|
|
The Convoluted Israeli Discourse:
Was The Women’s Boat to Gaza an Existential Threat?
By Ramzy Baroud
Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, October
14, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Israeli official narrative regarding its conflict
with the Palestinians is deliberately confounded because a muddled up
discourse is a convenient one. It allows the narrator to pick and choose
half-truths at will, in order to create a falsified version of reality.
For instance, this is part of what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
said at the United Nations on September 22: “Ladies and
Gentlemen: Israel fights this fateful battle against the forces of
militant Islam every day. We keep our borders safe from ISIS, we prevent
the smuggling of game-changing weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon, we thwart
Palestinian terror attacks in Judea and Samaria, the West Bank, and we
deter missile attacks from Hamas-controlled Gaza.” In just a
single paragraph, Netanyahu has chosen to create an alternate reality,
despite the fact that: ISIS’ main victims, thus far, have been Muslims,
never Israelis; Hezbollah, which is embroiled in a sectarian fight in
Syria is a Lebanese movement that is also at war with ISIS; the uprising
in the West Bank has been largely led by desperate youth who were born
under violent Israeli military Occupation and have no trust in their own
leadership; Hamas has not lobbed any homemade rockets at Israel since the
destructive Israeli war of 2014, which killed 2,251 Palestinians, mostly
civilians. While Netanyahu’s statements are not outright lies,
the selection of these statements, not keen on dates, devoid of context
and lacking in any Israeli
accountability or even introspection, makes them simply untrue.
Needless to say, utterly confusing as well, especially for those who
rarely understand the nature of Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians
and its other Arab neighbors. The Israeli Prime Minister’s
language at international forums are quite typical, if not predictable.
Not only typical of him as a statesman, but of generations of Israeli
leaders, past and present. Former Israeli Prime Minister and President,
Shimon Peres, who died late September, mastered this Israeli style, bar
none. Although he was the architect of the Middle East’s first and only
nuclear bomb, he was eulogized by western governments and media, including
many in the Left, as a peacemaker, a heroic figure and statesman.
But Peres was the last of the ‘founders of Israel’ generation. That
generation’s approach to war and diplomacy was unique and cannot be
repeated. They were mostly foreign-born; spoke various languages; followed
a unified blueprint in politics and had clear, decisive goals.
In contrast, Netanyahu is the first Israeli Prime Minister to be born in
the country, after its establishment on the ruins of Palestine in 1948.
His diplomacy is as violent as is his conduct on the ground. He seems
fearless insofar as his confidence in his benefactors – namely the United
States government, which has recently pledged to Israel another $38
billion dollars in unconditional military aid over the course of ten
years. With no legal or political accountability whatsoever, and
with unwavering US backing of Israeli actions, no matter how destabilizing
or destructive, Netanyahu’s logic, however lacking, will always prevail.
But considering that Israel is achieving precisely its intended goals
– expanding its illegal settlements, sustaining its Occupation of East
Jerusalem and the West Bank, constantly building up its armament and
advancing its strategic interests at the expense of its neighbors, and
escaping any possibility of legal culpability, why does it always feel as
if Israel is besieged and embattled? Netanyahu’s words give the
impression that his country’s very existence is imperiled. In fact, this
is the same language that is constantly emanating from most Israeli
circles - official, media, academic and even ordinary people. This
perception has continued even after Israel expanded its borders by
occupying the rest of historic Palestine following the disastrous war of
1967; even when Israel claimed massive swathes of Jordanian, Egyptian,
Lebanese and Syrian territories. It seems that the stronger
Israel becomes, the larger in size and more destructive in its military
capabilities, the weaker and more threatened it perceives itself.
Even with their tactless approach to diplomacy, the new generation of
Israeli leaders is still pushing the same mantra: that of a besieged
country facing an existential threat. In 2015, following the
signing of the Iran nuclear deal between Iran and the US - along with
other countries - Israel was denied the central component of its
‘existential threat’ discourse. With an Iranian ‘nuclear
holocaust’ averted – although never convincingly from the Israeli
viewpoint – other imagined threats were pushed to the very top of the
Israeli agenda. Besieged, bombed out and impoverished tiny Gaza
maintained its standing as a major cause for alarm and one of the greatest
threats to Israel’s security. But, strangely, the civil society-led
non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), was quickly
pushed to the top of the ‘existential threat’ pyramid.
Modeled around the anti-Apartheid South African boycott movement, BDS aims
at isolating the Israeli Occupation of Palestine, and, using non-violent
means, ending it. The language used against Iran, Hezbollah,
Hamas and others is now being utilized against BDS. In a conference
organized by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) in New York last month,
Israeli Justice Minister, Ayelet Shaked,
called BDS a ‘terrorist organization.’ “BDS is the new face
of terror,” she said. “While in Gaza (terrorists) are digging underground
tunnels into Israel, the BDS movement is digging tunnels to undermine the
foundations and values of Israel. We have to stop these tunnels as well.”
Like Netanyahu, Shaked too claimed to be “fighting Islamic
extremism”, although BDS supporters come from many countries and profess
no particular religion. In fact, many of them are Jewish activists.
Yet, that does not matter. It never did, because the enemy, for
now, has to remain “Islamic terrorism”, even if it is neither Islamic nor
terrorist. In a response to the Israeli navy interception,
arrest and deportation of a group of women who attempted to break the
Israeli siege on Gaza by using a small boat, Israel's Defense Minister,
Avigdor Lieberman, spun his words to connect the non-violent activists
with something else entirely. “We will not accept any (rocket)
fire, any provocation, against the citizens of Israel by whoever it might
be, or any attack on Israel's sovereignty. Not rocket fire, and not a
flotilla,” Lieberman
said in an army ceremony on October 07. The activists atop
the boat, included Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mairead Maguire, of Northern
Ireland. In Lieberman’s logic, Maguire’s act to end a decade-long blockade
on a poor region is equivalent to the firing of a rocket.
Regardless of the type of criticism Israel faces and the tactics used to
end its Occupation of Palestine, Israel will always connect the proverbial
dots to produce the same outcome: Israel’s existence is at stake, all acts
of resistance, however symbolic, are terrorist, and Israel has to do
whatever it takes to defend itself from looming destruction by rogue
terrorists. Nonetheless, unlike Shimon Peres and his generation
of leaders, the Israeli story as told by Israel’s new leaders is no longer
selling. Gaza, which is rendered uninhabitable by the United Nations come
2020, hardly threatens the existence of Israel, nor are BDS activists, who
demand accountability, vile terrorists. Needless to say, a group
of women atop a small boat, carrying a symbolic amount of supplies to
impoverished Gaza, were not about to take the Middle East’s only nuclear
power down. “The Israeli army then took over the boat. The women
showed no resistance as they wanted to emphasize that their mission was
peaceful. The women cried because they could not reach Gaza,” Al
Jazeera reported. ‘Terrorists’, indeed. - Dr.
Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years. He
is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author
of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His books
include “Searching Jenin”, “The Second Palestinian Intifada” and his
latest “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story”. His website
is www.ramzybaroud.net.
***
Share the link of this article with your facebook friends
|
|
|