Blog

Since October 7 2023 there’s been an explosion of deep and volatile reactions to the war in Gaza -including the use of force and violence through to the use of words and highly emotive propaganda by the many parties involved in the conflict. Each side has sought to justify its actions while demonising those of the other. Both have resorted to extremism in pursuit of this objective. Both sides have killed and maimed thousands of ordinary people either in horribly personal ways (including murder, rape, torture and wanton denigration) or even bigger numbers in equally horrible impersonal ways (bombings, shellings and missile attacks and the blockage of urgently needed aid).We are all aware of the violence.

Words are weapons too. And they’ve been thrown around in gay abandon to excite hatred and division. We too often accept words at face value assuming we know what they mean, without thinking about what gave birth to them or the historical context behind their use in this chapter of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Three such examples are, briefly, discussed here.

The first is the way the words TERRORIST and TERRORISM are used and abused in the battle for minds and hearts. The second is how the phrase FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA has been weaponised. The third examples how quasi legal/official sounding words (in this case the word OCCUPIED) are twisted to support the credibility of political claims and counter claims.

As always your comments on what follows are welcomed.

Please spread the word about BEYOND THE SPIN to your friends if you think they’d be interested .

“TERRORISTS” AND “TERRORISM”

The label ‘terrorist organisation’ triggers many associations. In the West these include fanaticism, violence, cruelty, barbarity, disregard for the rights and lives of the innocent, intolerance -and cowardliness (because terrorists strike out of the blue without warning and retreat before they can be confronted).

Terrorists are always the ‘bad guys’. Those in power, and those with power, are quick to brand any who challenge their power ‘as terrorists’ by reinforcing the above associations.

In modern times, the British had no hesitation in branding the IRA terrorists. The French, Americans (and Australians) once branded North Vietnamese ‘terrorists’. The West did so again, several times, in Afghanistan by branding any group that opposed their varying ambitions as terrorists. The USSR proved a taskmaster of this art by branding many an East European people terrorists. Putin has continued in that tradition.

Yet by 2024 Ireland had become a Democratic Republic, Vietnam a united and independent state, ditto Malaya, Cuba, Timor Leste…and several states in Eastern Europe.

We tend to forget that minorities, or those without a powerful military or a strong resource base, have little option but to fight as guerrillas. Both Palestinians and Jews have -and are still – doing just that and have done so since the First World War. The differences between what they do to each other tend to be differences of degree rather than kind. In modern times Arab terrorists tend to use more barbaric means of killing, Israelis kill in quantity. Both kill, both maim, both demonise and belittle the other.

In the 1930s to 1948 period those hoping to establish a Jewish State formed organisations that the British, the UN, some leading Jewish statesmen (such as Ben-Gurian, later the first Israeli PM) and some world-famous Jews (such as Albert Einstein), categorised as ‘terrorist’. One of those organisations was Irgun.

Yet Irgun (amongst others) was a successful ‘terrorist’ group that helped bring the dream of a Jewish State to fruition. Its leader in the late 1940s (Begin) founded the Likud Party and became the Country’s sixth PM. Netenyahu is the current leader of that Party.

This terrorist organisation indisputably helped win a Jewish homeland – the State of Israel. Many modern terrorist organisations studied and followed the Irgun model. The IRA did. More surprisingly, so did Arafat and the PLO over forty years later. Even the Palestinian Liberation Organisation’s logo was an adaptation of the Jewish Irgun’s. In many ways the Arab terrorist organisations of today are trying to do for their people what Irgun did for theirs.

 History nearly always gives the benefit of doubt to the victorious side, (at least in the short run). That’s why it pays to think about the context behind words before responding to their highly emotive use in slogans and chants.

Hero or terrorist? Depends which side you’re on, when, and why?

FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA

Parties on both ‘sides’ of the conflict in Gaza have used this phrase many times over in the nearly hundred-year history of this contested land. The State of Israel has. Jews have. Zionists have. So too have Palestinians, Muslims, Arab polities and terrorist organisations.

Recently, little  Australian children have been filmed unknowingly, innocently and playfully chanting variations of this chant at pro-Palestinian rallies. Students at several universities have also done so to carry very different messages. Jewish elites all around the world have decried the phrase having interpreted it as a call for the total annihilation of any Jewish State. Other commentators interpret the chant as a call for Israel to cease its occupation and/or control of Palestinian Territories .

All and every participant in this struggle for survival spreads a different spin. What they share in common is a conviction that their use of the line is the real one (ie. a legitimate call for freedom and justice) while its use by their opponents is a call for suppression if not genocide .

This pattern of behaviour is neither new nor specific to this latest chapter in the history of Palestine.

For thousands of years innumerable States in the Middle East (and beyond) have gone to war claiming ‘God’ is on their side. Christian nations often fought against each other under the banner of the same God. Many Muslim nations have done so too under the name of Allah. Ditto with secular concepts such as natural rights, culture, race, political ideology etc.

The Palestinian conflict is a case in point.

Israel claims to be the bulwark of democracy in the Middle East. It is -internally. But with respect to Palestine (The West Bank and Gaza territories) it repeatedly discounts the rights of other peoples in the name of protecting its own security. That’s a slippery slope to be on for very long if you’re claiming some sort of moral superiority. The deeper and longer that way of thinking prevails the more it looks like breaking the Golden Rule of most religions – “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Denying others their rights to secure your own has a hollow ring when it results in so much ‘collateral’ suffering and death amongst ordinary people.

The truth is that both sides have screamed ‘from the river to the sea’ at each other at various times in this long, long conflict.

Around 3000 years ago the Old Testament (Joshua 23.4) promises – “Here, I have allotted to you land for inheritance according to your tribes between Yarden (Jordan) and the great sea in the west (the Mediterranean): it includes the land of nations I have destroyed and the nations which remain”. Followers of this faith find no ambiguity here.

Race ahead to the 1940s and we find Irgun (the Jewish militant freedom fighter/terrorist organisation that was instrumental in bringing about the UN Partition of Palestine, which established the state of Israel in 1948/49) used a logo incorporating a map of the entire area from the river to the sea – with the words “only thus” below). Again, there’s little ambiguity here.

Move ahead to the 1977 election campaign in Israel.

Here the right-wing Likud Party (the Party of the current Israeli PM) had a manifesto that championed the phrase “between the sea and Jordan there shall only be Israeli sovereignty”. Likud (led by Begin, the former and last head of Irgun) won that election. There was no ambiguity of intent here.

Israel has exercised that ‘sovereignty’ by force of arms in many a war since then, by restricting the movement of Palestinians between the Territories (Gaza and the West Bank), by occupation and by “de-developing” the Gazan economy to the point where it can’t sustain its population. Israel has turned Gaza into a vassal non-state, some call Gaza an ‘open prison’.

So before we get too shocked by the 2024 chant “from the river to the sea Palestine shall be free” it pays to remember this history. Both sides have danced to their own version of this catch-cry. Both sides have claimed their fight is an existential one. Both provide plenty of examples of the pot calling the kettle black.

Israeli extremists in government are quite prepared to (and do) kill innocent Palestinians (ostensibly reluctantly) in Gaza to secure their own people’s security. They do so because they have overwhelming military power. Palestinian extremists in command positions would like to do the same to innocent Israelis/Jews, if they had the power to do so.

Both sides seek revenge for the atrocities committed against them by the other. Both sides seem prepared to pursue the strategy of Lt. Calley in the Vietnam War at Mai Lai where he offered the defence that “we had to destroy the village to save it”. This is the thinking of madmen. It’s the thinking that’s been in vogue on both sides for a long time, not just since Oct 7th. It’s the kind of thinking that makes any chance of reaching a peaceful, mutually satisfactory compromise (a two-state solution)a near impossibility.

As long as any of the many tribes and states of this world act as if they (for religious, historical, racial, cultural, economic and/or ideological reasons) are the World’s ‘chosen’ people, the goal of all of us living side-by-side in peace will continue to prove elusive. Unless we accept that we are all equal, and act accordingly, we are doomed to repeat humankind’s history of violence ad infinitum.

The American Constitution’s ideal of,-‘we believe it self-evident that all men are born equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that amongst these are Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”- is (even if you leave out references to the Creator) a fine one more observed in violation than practice. Pity. A pity, not only for Americans, it’s a pity for the peoples of other democracies – indeed, all the peoples of the world.

“OCCUPATION”

In 2005 the Israeli PM (Sharon) announced the withdrawal of Jewish settlers and the IDF from Gaza. The Israeli Supreme Court announced this meant Israel “had no effective control of what happens” in Gaza anymore. Gaza was on its own to plot its own course into the future. The U.N.(amongst others) demurred. The reasons they gave for rejecting the Israeli assertion included,

•    Israel continued to totally control the air and sea space of the territory. Still does.

•    Israel (and Egypt to a lesser extent) continued to control who can enter and leave the territories under what conditions. Still does.

•    The passage of Palestinians between Gaza and their West Bank territories required Israeli permission. That’s still the case.

•    Israel maintained a long-standing policy of economic de-development” in Gaza (see Sara Roy, an expert on the topic). A policy which, amongst other things, consciously sought to put -and keep – Gazan economic interests at a disadvantage. Arab banks in the Territory were closed and replaced by Israeli banks. Gaza was effectively denied its own financial system.

Israel has controlled what can and cannot be imported into and exported from Gaza. A minor example illustrates the depth of this control. When Gazan citrus fruit exports began to eat into Israeli citrus exports to Europe, Israel banned them. Palestinian growers were only allowed to export to Arab nations (usually at lower prices).

The result of this economic policy of control stunted any potential for Gazans to control their own economic destiny while benefiting Israel by providing a cheap source of unskilled labour. Over 50% of Gazan adults are chronically unemployed. Two-thirds of the territory’s income comes from outside sources.

•    As current events show, Israel has near total control of what humanitarian aid enters Gaza. Aid is used as a strategic weapon. Blocking it can have no other purpose than to help bring Gaza to its knees.

•    It is often said that Gaza would have inadequate water and electricity if it weren’t for Israel. That’s true. What is less widely known, or said, is that this support has cost Israeli taxpayers nothing. Gazan taxes pay the fees Israel charges to cover their costs (again, see Sara Roy’s work for more detail. It’s readily accessible online).

On the West Bank Israeli expansion has continued for decade after decade, in spite of international condemnation. At the end of 2023 there were around 700,000 Israelis living in 140+ settlements and 100 outposts. The Israeli government has subsidised settlers to build in occupied territories.

As of today, Gaza are the occupied, Israel is the occupier. No amount of rhetorical gymnastics or legal mumbo jumbo can deny that.

I’ll leave the final word on this subject to the first PM of Israel ,Ben-Gurion the Country‘s founding father ,

 -“Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves- politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves…the country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country…behind the terrorism (of the Arabs) is a movement though primitive is not devoid of idealism or self-sacrifice”-
(Quoted in Chomsky “Fateful Triangle” p91-92)

Israel has been an expansionary state by intent and action since its inception. That’s undeniable.

Both sides want to survive. Both fear extinction at the hand of the other. Both have committed sins against the other. Neither side regards the other as its equal. Neither has shown the maturity to reach a mutually acceptable compromise. Both pursue the suicidal policy of ‘all or nothing’.

Surely both peoples (Israelis and Palestinians) have the right to lead their lives their way, with security, in peace?

War will not achieve that objective for either protagonist. Total war will not defeat the vanquished for very long . The seeds of defeat will always sprout again to stiffen the resolve of the defeated and intensify their hatred of the victor/occupier. That’s what the history of this war has, unfortunately, failed to teach its protagonists.

The leaders on both sides need to reread Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice where Shylock reminds us,
-“If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?”-
and ,
-“I am a Jew! Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is ?”-

Surely this truth applies still when we replace the word ‘Jew’ with ‘Muslim’ or ‘Hindu’ or ‘Christian’ or ‘Buddhist’…or black, yellow, white or brown…or any combination of race, religion, culture, wealth or poverty you may think of.

A FINAL WORD

You may think some of what I’ve written here is either naive or unfairly biased to one side or the other or, God forbid, that I’ve committed both those sins.

 I can’t help the naivety. Indeed, I think naivety is a good thing if it means focusing on core issues with clarity. The pain of personal loss, the machinations of politicians, the intricacies of power plays, the propaganda of opinion makers and the attempted manipulations of those with vested interests only muddy the waters for ordinary people trying to do the right thing.

As to bias. Let me be clear. I’m an advocate for both sides in the sense that I believe Palestinians have a right to their own state, just as Israelis have, that both peoples have the right to live their lives their way in security. I do not believe the security of one side should be bought at the price of the annihilation of the other.

Mine is not a cry for revenge from either side. Mutual revenge policies will only inflict more pain on both sides.

Realists, who pride themselves as being expert players of realpolitik, say the two sides are now so far apart that those still advocating a two-state solution are dreaming. Their suggestion of revisiting a one state solution sounds fine as long (they go on to say ) that State is a liberal democracy, where their peoples are in a majority and there is no apartheid – ie. as long as they are the dominant player in the union. If two peoples cannot live apart what are the chances of them living together?