Can anyone claim (and substantiate their point) that Israel and Palestine are starting from exactly the same starting point and that they have exactly the same responsibility for the fact that bloodshed continues in their region even in the year 2021? The truth is no. Because during the previous two centuries, very important historical events took place, which most people either ignore or do not approach properly. In the discussion we had with Nikolas Kosmatopoulos, the Greek professor at the American University of Beirut unfolded several of the aspects that have affected the relations of the Palestinians with the Jews in the last 200 years. From Napoleon's desire to exterminate the Jews from Europe, the establishment of the State of Israel in 1958, the Seven Day War of 1967 and the Oslo Accords that turned out to be an empty shirt to the current rule of Hamas, the cynical Benjamin Netanyahu but also the naive Greek foreign policy.
K. Kosmatopoulos, thank you for agreeing to have this conversation. I would like to start with the historical review of the Palestinian question, because many people do not know the details which, however, are of great importance...
First of all, let us say that a brief review that I will attempt here certainly does not cover many sides of a particularly complex issue. Crucially, the issue begins long before the establishment of the state of Israel and the Palestinian Nakba - Catastrophe - in 1948. In a sense, it begins with the Napoleonic occupation of Egypt and Syria in 1798, when the French colonialist first formulated the idea of a state of European Jews outside Europe. This particular plan must be understood in the context of both the spread of colonialism on the planet and anti-Semitism in Christian Europe. Faced with this issue and the rise of homogenized nation-states, Jews were seen by national elites as pariahs, towards whom European states pursued different policies, as historian Enzo Traverso has shown in his groundbreaking book on Jewish modernity.
When you say different policies what do you mean?
In France, let's say, the doctrine of the Jews of the state prevailed, the notion that Jews can serve the state in bureaucratic positions. In Germany-Austro-Hungary there were tendencies to exclude them from many strategic occupations, with the result that members of the Jewish communities turned to the sciences - positive and theoretical - and flourished with the classic examples of Freud and Einstein. Euro-colonial anti-Semitism predates Nazi Germany and the Shoah, i.e. the Jewish Holocaust. For many European nationalists of the time, the Jews constituted an equation that remained unresolved. As victims of Euro-colonial racism, Jewish intellectuals debated the best solution, with many of them choosing socialist internationalism as the answer.
However, within the Jewish community - especially in the German-speaking area - there arose a trend which promoted the idea of a Jewish nation, thus turning their religion into an ideal "community of blood" on the model of German nationalism. And so Zionism was born as a combination of the nationalization of the Jewish atrocity and a colonial project outside of Europe in the context of the then evolving colonial expansion of the West throughout the world. Already since 1870 the planet has been divided into zones of domination by the colonialists, Belgians, English, French, Italians, Germans and others. There were various proposals for the place where the state would be founded. There were proposals for South America, parts of Africa, but for historical-theological reasons Palestine was preferred as the best solution.
When is that?
In 1897 we have the first substantial effort in this direction with the Zionist congress in Bern, Switzerland. This solution began to be promoted among the Jewish communities, but also among the European elites. Zionist leaders promoted this idea in collaboration with European colonialism and the ideology of civilizing the barbarians. The possibility of establishing a Jewish national state in Palestine became much more realistic when the Ottoman Empire collapsed in 1914 and the destinies of the wider Middle East region were assumed, as is well known, by the Anglo-French. The League of Nations gave the power of attorney to occupy the area. In 1916 the two great powers, England and France, cut and sewed the Middle East according to their spheres of influence. Palestine passed to the British, Syria to the French, etc.
In 1917 Balfour, the head of British diplomacy, with an official announcement granted the right for a Jewish national home in the land of Palestine. It is important to mention that Balfour was an anti-Semitic minister. Too many supporters of Zionism in Europe were anti-Semitic and wanted the Jews out of Europe. On the other hand, the fathers of Zionism, like Herzl for example, saw the pervasive anti-Semitic racism of Europe as an ally in their plan to convince the Jews of Europe to rally behind the settlement of Palestine. This is the reason for the apparently illogical alliance of anti-Semites and Zionists that exists in different guises even today. For example, Israel's most fanatical allies in the US are fundamentalist Protestant Christians who fund politicians, smear opponents, attack the UN and blindly support Israel.
Ultimately under what conditions do we arrive at the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948?
The Palestinians, as expected, reacted to this plan to establish a Euro-colonial state on their land, very early on. In 1922, however, the League of Nations approved the English plan and essentially offered it the maximum possible legitimacy from the West. In 1933, large protests and strikes by the natives break out and then a magnificent Palestinian uprising, which is suppressed by the British. In 1938 a group of armed Zionists begin attacks on the Palestinians and in 1939 they break up and suppress the Arab Revolt which has been in full swing since 1936.
In 1942, the great meeting of Zionists takes place in New York, and there the USA enters the plan of supporting Zionism. In 1946 the Haganah and the Sterngunk - groups of armed men - begin military action against the British and Palestinians at the same time. In 1947, with UN Resolution 181, the establishment of two states was decided, with which, however, the Israelis took land disproportionately more than their population. The Palestinians reject this plan, and in 1948 an armed conflict begins, led by advance organizations of the later Israeli army. And this is where the plan dalet comes into play, a plan of ethnic cleansing and mass expulsion of the indigenous population and destruction of entire villages and cities (see Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing Of Palestine).
In May 1948, the state of Israel was established, which was immediately recognized by both the USA and the Soviet Union. In my opinion, the Soviets were wrong in their assessment. But then Europe and the world were shocked by the heinous crime of the Holocaust. On the other hand, post-war Europe achieved two victories in one fell swoop. First, by demonizing Hitler he silenced both European anti-Semitism and the Western colonialism that perpetrated genocides and holocausts around the world for centuries. Second, by linking the Holocaust to the founding of Israel, it shifted Western responsibility for the Holocaust onto an indigenous people outside of Europe. At the same time, she emerged as a moral ruler on a global level, reserving for herself the role of ultimate victim and later judge.
Nevertheless, the UN, with resolution 194, makes it clear that the Palestinian refugees must return to their homes, but from then until today these people remain refugees.
In other words, we are talking about three, at least, generations of refugees...
There are people who were born and died in Palestinian refugee camps. To deal with this unprecedented wave of refugees, the West founded the famous UNRWA, which is the model on which the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was built.
What does the six-day war of 1967 signify next?
Let's first look at what the world was like in 1967. At that time there was an emergence of the global south with the anti-colonial movement. We had such movements in Ghana, Cuba, Algeria, Vietnam and elsewhere. There was also the Non-Aligned Movement spearheaded by Nasser's Egypt. At the same time, Israel in no way wanted the Palestinian to be associated with the anti-colonial context. From the beginning of the course of their state, the Israelis wanted to silence the ties of Zionism with colonialism, but also any comparison between Israel and the apartheid of South Africa, which, however, at that time many anti-colonial movements made.
So in 1967 there is not just one conflict between Israel and the Arabs. It is a conflict between colonialism and anti-colonialism. The Palestinian issue, anyway, is a global issue with aspects that concern the entire planet. In this sense, Israel's victory in 1967 was a military and political victory of colonialism against an anti-colonial movement consisting of Palestine, Nasser's Egypt and Syria.
The anti-colonial movement proposed a common state of Jews, Christians and Muslims in the land of Palestine. This is what they meant by the destruction of Israel, the abolition of apartheid, and not of course the mass death of people. A common state for all. This was also envisaged in the PLO draft in 1969, a unitary state against Israel's policy of imposing a "genocide" model on the region.
With the Naksha (defeat) of 1967, the hope for Arab independence and union, which the Westerners fought from the beginning, ends. The Europeans were against any kind of political union in a region with a common language and ubiquitous religions, despite the fact that on their continent they had already begun to implement the plan that later resulted in the creation of the European Union.
How do you explain the primacy of Hamas today in Palestine? How does this come about when in previous years Fatah was very massive and expressed the majority?
We must, initially, go back a little, to 1987, the year in which the first Intifada took place. A little further back, in 1982, Palestinian fighters left Beirut and reached Tunisia. And where everyone thought that the Palestinian issue has ended with the final defeat of the Palestinians (the Israelis were already celebrating the trisection of the Palestinian population) the Intifada began by the Palestinians inside the country and in the occupied territories. Negotiations then began which eventually led to the problematic Oslo agreement in 1993, with which, under the weight of geopolitical change (with the collapse of the Soviet Union), the Palestinians recognize the state of Israel, while they themselves they accept an archipelago of territories and a vague promise of statehood in the future. It was a peace agreement that simply continued the war by other means.
Why do you say that?
Because the Israelis asked the Palestinians to recognize the state of Israel without giving them the right to establish their own state. At the same time, they controlled his political leadership through funding and paved the way for successive settlements through the cantonization of the West Bank. They eventually created a "peace" industry, through which the Palestinian Authority was turned into a contractor for the Israeli occupation. For example, many funds were given to the creation of the Palestinian police, which was routinely used against the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority jailed-and still jails-Palestinian fighters, relieving the occupying power of the trouble and expense. A familiar scenario in colonial situations elsewhere.
So, this is how the popularity of Hamas among the population increases...
Exactly. Hamas emerges as an independent incorruptible movement against the Palestinian Authority's cooperation with Israel and wins the 2006 elections. But the elections, although they were the most democratic ever held in the Arab world, are not recognized by the West and the split takes characteristics of armed intra-Palestinian conflict. The West declares the winner of the election a terrorist and tolerates the Gaza embargo that continues to this day, effectively cutting off the region from the West Bank and the rest of the planet.
In the West Bank, Abbas is effectively becoming a puppet of Israel, continuing the occupation substitution model. At the same time, Israel - and now some countries in the West - have fought tooth and nail against the non-violent BDS movement - Boycott, Sanctions, Divestment - thus blocking the way to any peaceful protest. If you remember, snipers were pointing knees and bare breasts at peaceful Friday marches all the time.
For the events now unfolding in the region, one explanation has to do with the deadlocks Netanyahu faces in Israel's domestic political scene. He is also threatened with imprisonment as he has been involved in important corruption cases. So it pushes the situation to the extreme. Is this explanation sufficient?
Only partially. Netanyahu's politics certainly play a pivotal role, he is a cynical politician who resorts to nationalism, as politicians often do to distract. But it is only part of the problem. It is essential that the populations currently rising, not only in Jerusalem, but also elsewhere in Israel, have been politically isolated and pushed into poverty. They live apartheid in their daily lives through policies which, for example, provide for the underfunding of Israel's Arab schools. Palestinian neighborhoods in the so-called mixed cities are also pushed into violence and lawlessness, thus creating American ghetto conditions, where intra-Palestinian violence prevails, Palestinians against Palestinians.
In Jerusalem, settlement continues as normal. It's just that this time the glass has overflowed and what happens happens. The condemned Prime Minister of Israel wanted to join the far-right nationalists. An attack on the Palestinians brings votes and support from the nationalist camp. However, even the supposed liberal leader, Benny Gantz, says that Gaza must be leveled. This rhetoric of ethnic cleansing does not only concern Netanyahu. In recent years it has expanded to a large political spectrum in the country.
On the other hand, we observe for the first time Palestinians rising up with a common framework of historical analysis which says:We are refugees in our own country, we are victims of an apartheid, an ongoing Nakba. There is a qualitative change in how they perceive themselves as second and third class citizens of the state. The Palestinians living inside understand that they now have nothing to separate from those outside the walls. They see, on the contrary, that everyone is a victim of the institutional racism of the Israeli state.
I would like to close with the stance of Greek foreign policy on the issue over the last 40 years. We arrived from the political "love" of Andreas Papandreou for Yasser Arafat to the trinational schemes with Israel with the aim, obviously, of isolating Turkey. Greek Ministers today publicly state that they fully support Israel. How has this been done? How do you judge Greek foreign policy on this issue?
It is certainly naive on multiple readings. First, it alienates large sections of society in the countries of the region. This is a policy aimed only at the elites. The government says it only cares about governments - mostly dictatorships - and Arab financial elites. This policy is purely cynical and contrary to any concept of international law. Μπορεί να γυρίσει μπούμερανγκ σε περιπτώσεις στις οποίες η Ελλάδα θα ζητήσει την εφαρμογή του διεθνούς δικαίου για την ίδια.
Είναι τραγικό λάθος να ανοίξει μέτωπο με τον Παγκόσμιο Νότο ο οποίος υπερασπίζεται αναφανδόν το δίκαιο στο ζήτημα της Παλαιστίνης. Θα την χαρακτήριζα ακόμα ως μια επικίνδυνη πολιτική, με ανυπολόγιστες συνέπειες για την ειρήνη στην περιοχή. Ο συναγελασμός και η ανοικτή στρατιωτική συνεργασία με χώρες που πρωτοστατούν σε επιθετικούς πολέμους όπως το Ισραήλ, η Σαουδική Αραβία, και τα Εμιράτα είναι πραγματικά αυτοκτονική και βολονταριστική. Είναι πολύ σαθρά τα θεμέλια αυτών των συνεργασιών. Ούτε το Ισραήλ ούτε οι ΗΠΑ πρόκειται να βάλουν πλάτη σε μία ενδεχόμενη σύγκρουση με την Τουρκία. Δεν υπάρχει κανένας λόγος να υπάρξει πόλεμος με την Τουρκία, και ακόμα περισσότερο μια τρελή κούρσα εξοπλισμών δύο χωρών σε βαθιά οικονομική κρίση, είναι πραγματικά καταστροφικό για τους λαούς της περιοχής.
Η δυνατότητα να μπορείς να μιλάς με όλους είναι πολύ σημαντική, ιδιαίτερα στη Μέση Ανατολή. Πρέπει να επιδιώξουμε μία δίκαιη λύση του Παλαιστινιακού, μέσα από την προώθηση του διεθνούς δικαίου, των αποφάσεων του ΟΗΕ και του κοινού περί δικαιοσύνης αισθήματος. Οτιδήποτε άλλο είναι επικίνδυνοι λεονταρισμοί χωρίς συναίσθηση της εκρηκτικότητας της κατάστασης και του απρόβλεπτου μέλλοντος.
Ακολουθήστε το News247.gr on Google News and learn all the first news
Ο Νικόλας Κοσματόπουλος είναι κοινωνικός ανθρωπολόγος, επίκουρος καθηγητής στο τμήμα Πολιτικής στο Αμερικανικό Πανεπιστήμιο της Βυρητού.