Home
Search
עברית
Board & Mission Statement
Why IAM?
About Us
Articles by IAM Associates
On the Brighter Side
Ben-Gurion University
Hebrew University
University of Haifa
Tel Aviv University
Other Institutions
Boycott Calls Against Israel
Israelis in Non-Israeli Universities
Anti-Israel Petitions Supported by Israeli Academics
General Articles
Lawfare
Activists Profiles
Readers Forum
Photographs
Anti-Israel Conferences
How can I complain?
Contact Us / Subscribe
Donate
Number of visitors to IAM
Readers Forum
Why has Pappe still got a job?
Hi,
Thought you might find the following interesting.  Why
has Pappe still got a job?  I wrote none of the
following.  Regards, Tom.
=======================================
a.    The recent UN Conference on the Inalienable
Rights of the Palestinian People (which was attended,
inter alia, by Adam Keller of Gush Shalom, the Israeli
"Peace Bloc") called for economic sanctions against
Israel.

b.    Palestinian peace activists led by Dr. Mustafa
Barghouti call for economic sanctions against Israel.

c.    Israeli academic and peace activist, Ilan Pappe,
recently said (full interview below):.

"There are two agendas that should be put forward by
activists around the world, and also inside Israel. I
don't want to confuse the two agendas.

The first agenda is not a peace agenda. If you are in
the business of protecting the cause of Palestine you
are not just on the business of peace - you have a
much more urgent agenda, which is saving the
Palestinians in Palestine. I'm not sure that you can
prevent the Israeli government from taking its next
steps in its policies of destruction and expulsion by
talking about dialogues for peace.

I think you should start thinking about what an
activist group can do to create an atmosphere in which
Israel is a pariah state as long as these policies
continue. Talk about sanctions, talk about boycotts,
talk about anything that drives home the message that
enough is enough, that such behaviour cannot be
tolerated from a state that claims to be part of the
family of civilized countries.

This is an agenda that requires a lot of coordination
and thinking. There is an impressive movement of
disinvestment now in the US that has been gathering
momentum and which should be looked at as one possible
model. The boycott on South Africa started in an Irish
supermarket, where [an employee] refused to do the
bill for shoppers who had South African goods in their
trolleys."

d.      In a recent email message to me from Attorney
Shamai Leibowitz, the son of the late Professor
Yeshayahu Leibowitz of   the Hebrew University
of Jerusalem (and one of the the outstanding Jewish
intellectuals of the 20th century), Shamai           
wrote:

"I agree with you that boycotting Israel is a moral
imperative, and, practically speaking, it is the only
major factor which can cause Israel to cease its
constant brutalization and oppression of the
Palestinian people."

e.       Please also take a look at
<http://www.ifamericansknew.com/>
http://www.ifamericansknew.com/ and
<http://www.bigcampaign.org.uk/>
http://www.bigcampaign.org.uk/




Israel must be treated as South Africa was: sanctions,
boycotts


Prof. Ilan Pappe


Prof. Ilan Pappe is one of Israel's most prominent
"new historians". In May 2002, Pappe was threatened
with expulsion from his university, the University of
Haifa, for supporting a Jewish graduate student whose
dissertation documented an massacre of Palestinians by
Israeli soldiers. The expulsion proceedings were
suspended due to a protest by international academics.
Green Left Weekly's Nick Everett spoke with Pappe
during his recent visit to Australia.

Green Left Weekly, September 1, 2004.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/596/596p16.htm

Visit the Green  <http://www.greenleft.org.au/> Left
Weekly home page.

What brought about the current intifada (uprising) in
Palestine, and what is the Israeli government's policy
towards it?

The intifada is the result of Palestinians'
frustration [with] the intolerable gap between the
discourse of peace and reconciliation and the actual
reality on the ground. While the diplomats involved in
the 1993 Oslo accords were talking about peace and
independence, on the ground the occupation continued.
In fact, it became worse - more settlements were
built, more roadblocks were introduced and the Israeli
policy in general became harsher and more cruel.

Ever since the outbreak of the second intifada, the
Israeli politicians and generals are using it as a
pretext for trying to affect by force their own idea
of how the Palestine question should be solved. It is
wrong to look at the Israeli government as an
"aberration", as a dramatic shift in Israeli policies.
The government led by PM Ariel Sharon epitomises
Israeli policies rather than deviates from them.

[Sharon has] also learned something that he failed to
understand in his first government - if you employ
words such as withdrawal, Palestinian state and
"peace", you ... can present your own middle way -
annexing parts of the West Bank to Israel in a way
that does not sound fanatical or extreme, but is the
only way to peace.

And this is [why] the UN and of course the US and the
EU are supporting Sharon's "peace plan". And the
Sharon peace plan is very clear - he was very honest
about this - he does not want the Gaza settlements, he
wants only half of the West Bank.

The Labor Party has found the rationalisation to
explain why most of its members are now supporting the
Sharon government, with a huge demonstration in Tel
Aviv supporting Sharon. The peace camp came to the big
demonstration in Tel Aviv to support Sharon. This is
unbelievable. But the reason is because [Sharon]
succeeded in mesmerizing them as well with the words
of "peace", "withdrawal" and "Palestinian state".

There is a consensus within the Israeli political
centre about what this settlement should be: which is
mainly taking over as much of Palestine as possible
and moving Palestinians off it. Which means that the
Israelis are building walls on what they see as the
borders of Israel, which will leave the Palestinians
only 10-15% of original Palestine. They would divide
what is left of the original Palestine into two areas
- the West Bank and the Gaza Strip - and put on it
walls and barriers. It would amount to two prison
camps.

I don't think the Israelis mind calling these two
Bantustans - or prison camps - Palestine and claiming
this is the solution. I think that the Israeli
government feels that it has a window of opportunity
now with the US government [of President George Bush]
and it may not have such a window of opportunity in
the future. This is why I think that the present
policies are directed at solidifying such a "solution"
or settlement.

Another problem [for the Israeli government] is that
... it feels that it has lost the demographic battle.
In other words, it doesn't matter how it shapes the
border - whether 1%, 2% or 10% of the West Bank is
annexed - the demographic balance, which obsesses
[Israeli leaders], is going to change rapidly.

If you compare the growth of both populations, you can
see that in 10 or 15 years, the Israelis are going to
lose their majority. [They realise that] however you
juggle; however you play with all this power, at the
end of the day [the Israeli government is going to
represent] a minority.

Once, talk about transfer and expulsion was the
property of extreme right-wing politicians and was
taboo. It has moved to the centre. Distinguished
scholars, politicians talk openly about the need to
expel Palestinians. They argue that that is the only
way for Israel to survive.

We have an Israeli government that is not going to
negotiate with the Palestinians a final settlement,
but is going to dictate by force what is Israel and
what is Palestine.

What is your reading of the mood amongst the
Palestinian people and their response to this policy

Two agendas are very important here. One is [because
of] the total collapse of the social, political and
economic infrastructure of the Palestinian territories
under occupation. This means that there is a need for
non-government organisations and civil society to
rebuild society from below. It is being done, but it
is being done under occupation - an almost impossible
task. That is one very serious challenge.

The second agenda is democratising the institutions
that would allow the refugee communities to take a
major role in the decision making in the future. The
Oslo accords totally excluded the Palestinian refugee
community - almost half of the Palestinian people -
from any say in their future.

What is the present impact of the international
volunteers in Israel, coordinated by organisations
like the International Solidarity Movement (ISM)? Are
there prospects of a renewed peace movement in Israel
and what kind of international solidarity can we
offer?

The ISM is a very important movement, especially in
the role [of] making people outside Israel and
Palestine aware of what is going on. I don't think it
can stop the occupation, nor is it having a great deal
of effect on Israeli public opinion.

We need to have a stronger political edge with regard
to Israel's position in the world; much of the effort
should be directed to exerting pressure on Israel. The
hope for a peace movement from within [Israel] to
change things is admirable, but is not very feasible.
The dangers facing the Palestinians are so serious and
so grave that it would be helpful if some energy would
go towards helping exert pressure on [Israel] from
outside world.

There are two agendas that should be put forward by
activists around the world, and also inside Israel. I
don't want to confuse the two agendas.

The first agenda is not a peace agenda. If you are in
the business of protecting the cause of Palestine you
are not just on the business of peace - you have a
much more urgent agenda, which is saving the
Palestinians in Palestine. I'm not sure that you can
prevent the Israeli government from taking its next
steps in its policies of destruction and expulsion by
talking about dialogues for peace.

I think you should start thinking about what an
activist group can do to create an atmosphere in which
Israel is a pariah state as long as these policies
continue. Talk about sanctions, talk about boycotts,
talk about anything that drives home the message that
enough is enough, that such behaviour cannot be
tolerated from a state that claims to be part of the
family of civilized countries.

This is an agenda that requires a lot of coordination
and thinking. There is an impressive movement of
disinvestment now in the US that has been gathering
momentum and which should be looked at as one possible
model. The boycott on South Africa started in an Irish
supermarket, where [an employee] refused to do the
bill for shoppers who had South African goods in their
trolleys.

The second agenda is the agenda of the long-term
solution in Palestine. It is important to rethink the
whole idea. Whether we like the idea of a two-state
solution, or whether we don't like the idea, I think
the reality on the ground in a few months is going to
prove that the two-state solution is not feasible
anymore.

What does it mean? How do we go forward? We need to
work on the right of return [for Palestinian refugees
to Israel] as a symbolic idea and as a practical idea.
You cannot have a solution to the question of
Palestine if the refugees are not part of it. And you
cannot have a solution if the Palestinians in Israel
are not part of it.

What do you see as the significance of the hunger
strike of Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli
jails?

The hunger strike of the political prisoners in
Israeli jails - following the example of Irish hunger
strikers in British jails - is a very important
development. First of all, it is a Palestinian
strategy of non-violence. It is very difficult to
practice non-violent tactics in Israel. I am very
fearful of the Israeli reaction to this hunger strike.
The Internal Security Minister, Tzahi Hanegbi, has
said, "They can strike until death".

Israel is being let off for policies that no other
country in the Western world could do. [The hunger
strike] is not enough, but it is a move in the right
direction. I don't think suicide bombs are the right
way, either militarily or politically. As a
non-violent strategy it is the right way to go, but it
has no chance unless we create an international
atmosphere in which Israel is treated as South Africa
was.

*Pappe has written numerous books, few of which have
been translated into Hebrew. His latest is A History
of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples.



Back to "Readers Forum"Send Response
Top Page
    Developed by Sitebank & Powered by Blueweb Internet Services
    Visitors: 97080464Send to FriendAdd To FavoritesMake It HomepagePrint version
    blueweb