I sniggered a bit because the position of those in Europe who support unconditionally the State of Israel and its atrocities is usually very far from what we hear in Israel. In fact the debate in Israel is not about facts any more. The narrative I presented to the committee is accepted in Israel. I agree that the moral implication of that narrative is different from mine but I do not think anyone in Israel denies any more the expulsion of the Palestinians and the fact that Zionism was a colonialist project. The difference between my position and that of the majority of Israelis is that they do not find it morally repugnant whereas as someone whose family survived the Holocaust I cannot tolerate the fact that the state to which I belong behaves in a similar way to the state that behaved against my parents. This is my motivation for doing what I do and not the kind of motivation that Deputy Shatter referred to.
This moral position is winning ground in Israel and with this committee's help by pressuring Israel this position would be enhanced further. There is a feeling in Israel that it was European licence to kill because of the Holocaust that allows Israel to do what it did, including in Gaza. It is Israelis like me who would like the Europeans to tell the Israelis that the licence is not valid any more. This would be very helpful. The narrative that Deputy Shatter responded to is only accepted by very few in Israel. The debate in Israel is between the Liebermans and me, that is, between those who say, “Yes, these are the facts, that is the kind of racist state we have, these are the kind of atrocious policies we are going to pursue because that is the only way to survive, the only way we can have a Jewish State” and those of us who say, “If this is the price for a Jewish State, we want to reconsider whether this is a worthy price”. That is the debate in Israel today not the false debate presented beforehand. The historical facts are no longer debated but rather the moral implications of these facts and in this respect my position in Israel is better than it was ten years ago because nobody has dared to challenge the facts I put in my latest book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, but rather only the moral implications.
It was mentioned that what we should strive for from the perspective of the mainstream Israeli position is for an economically viable Palestinian state. This is not a slip of the tongue. It is as if the only thing the Palestinians need is a viable economy. This is exactly what the paradigm of parity and the balancing act that the committee is also involved in would lead to. The Israelis really believe that the EU thinks the problem is money. The problem in Palestine is not money but the racist ideology of the Jewish State and anyone, Jew or non-Jew, who is a decent person, cannot support what Israel stands for, not ideologically, not morally and not historically. As an Israeli, I say it is time you sent us a different message as you sent to apartheid South Africa. Certain ideology and certain state characteristics are not accepted and you should not be intimidated by people who tell you that this is anti-Semitism. It is anti-semitic to tell Jews they can do what they do in Israel without criticism.
It is not a complex story. Israel used the shield of complexity for too many years to tell us that only Israelis know what happens on the ground. It is a simple story after the time of colonialism. A group of European settlers colonised and settled someone else's land and dispossessed the local population. The local population then resisted, sometimes very violently, and now we are looking for a post-colonial solution. That is a simple story, not a complex one.
What is complex is finding the solution for it in the 21st century. At the beginning of the 20th century there were simple solutions for colonialist projects – the anti-colonials evicting the settlers. In this the President of Iran is wrong. In the 21st century, after generations of Israelis have lived there, one has to seek a solution. I put it to the committee, contrary to what was said before, that the only solution that I believe is possible is a political outfit that would allow equality for everyone. Maybe it would be a bi-national or a democratic state. Contrary to what was said, I do not have a clear idea of what it would look like because I cannot tell people on the ground what exactly the solution should be. I am an academic, not the leader of a movement. My idea is that if one does not respond to the need to allow for the return of the Palestinian refugees, abolish the racist ideology of Zionism and respect the right of the Jews to self-determination, there will be no solution. Is it easy to find a political outfit that would contain the right of return, the right of the Jews to self-determination and everyone to live in equality? No. It is a difficult way forward but it is the only way.
Regarding Israel's support of the founding of Hamas, in the 1970s, as is clear from Israeli documents and, as Senator Norris said, is known among Israelis, the Israeli Government was very worried by the emergence of Fatah as a secular movement. It decided to inject money into the Islamic institutions in the Gaza Strip in the hope they would counterbalance Fatah. However, the Israelis are not supporting Hamas in the way Deputy Ó Snodaigh claimed. It is more about triggering a response from Hamas that would justify Israeli punitive action. Some committee members referred to the Israeli violation of the tahdiya – the truce with Hamas – in a way everyone knew would cause Hamas to launch its primitive missiles into Israel. That by itself provided the Israeli justification for the operation in Gaza.
The genuine reasons behind the operation in Gaza are twofold. First, the Israeli military establishment felt Israel lost its power of deterrence during its poor performance against Hizbollah in Lebanon several years ago. It wanted to send a message through a brutal military operation to the Arab world at large that it is still the thug in the neighbourhood that should not be intimidated because it can react in a very powerful way. For some obscene reasons, unfortunately, most Israelis believe this objective was achieved.
They will find out later it was not and they will have to resort to another punitive action to send a message, thus creating a vicious cycle. Hamas and Hizbollah are the only non-state actors involved in active resistance to the Israeli imposition of its solution on the territory of Israel and Palestine. The Israelis believe they have the military power to eliminate those who resist them, whatever the price for innocent civilians. This twofold mission of deterrence on the one hand and elimination on the other will result in more genocidal policies by the State of Israel. If the western world continues to be silent, as it was recently, and just talks about peace processes rather than stopping Israeli punitive actions, we will see much worse in years to come.
As for the recent election results, committee members should read Israelis' interpretations of their own elections as they are much more interesting than, without offending anyone, those of The Irish Times or the BBC. The basic Israeli interpretation is that the large number of Israelis who went to vote is explained by the fact that there is no difference between the major parties. They are all within the framework of a Zionist perception. It is a pyjama suit with one stripe, a rainbow with one colour. It is a facade of having all kinds of debates. The Israelis are united behind one ideological position, as they have never been before. They have found the formula to live the way they want to live. They want to contain the people in Gaza in one large prison camp and contain the people of the West Bank in a Bantustan.
All that is needed are two things – European and American legitimacy for such a solution and the elimination by force of those Palestinians who oppose it. With this they believe, and they might be right, the world will say forget about the Palestinians; it happens that people are eliminated from history and consciousness. Of course, they are wrong because the whole Arab and Muslim world is engaged in this question. People around the world would find out that the passive position of Europe and the support of America will cost the world instability on an unimaginable scale in 2009.
