All right, y'all.
Welcome back to the show.
It's Anti-War Radio.
I'm Scott Horton.
And next up today is Nev Gordon.
He's an Israeli activist and author of Israel's Occupation.
He can be, uh, his website is, uh, israelsoccupation.info.
The article at Counterpunch is called Erasing the Nakba, Israel's tireless efforts to conceal the historical events leading to its creation.
And this sort of reminds me, uh, when I was reading this article of, um, you know, the way we're taught mostly, I guess I was thinking in public school as kids here in America to think about, um, the eradication of the American Indians and how inevitable it all was and yet how now that it's long over, it's okay to feel bad about it and sort of wish that that had never happened, but not like we're going to actually give the survivors any of their land back or anything like that, but we'll cry at little documentaries that people make every once in a while or something and, and keep them on their reservations.
Um, it's sort of, you know, I was reminded of that because that's what you're talking about in this article is not the actual reality of the situation of the occupation really at all, but just, um, what Israelis are at least led by their government to think about it, um, which is not much when it comes to the origin of how it was that, uh, the European Jews got that land at the end of World War II.
Correct?
Well, I think the analogy only goes so far.
I think the difference is that since the genocide of the, uh, Native Americans, uh, the, uh, about 200 years have passed.
And now when, uh, children study in high school and study the history of the United States, uh, they will, will study about that genocide.
And so basically the citizens of the United States are well aware of it.
Uh, and in Israel, there wasn't really a genocide, but there was, uh, what one could call an ethnic cleansing.
And the difference is that the time lag since Israel was created and since, and until today is only about 65 years, 64 years, and in the school textbook, children will not learn about what happened with the creation of the state.
Meaning that out of a population of 900,000 Palestinians, about, um, 750,000 either fled or expelled across or were expelled across the borders.
And my piece, uh, talks about how the erasure of such a history takes place and basically the argument is that it takes place, uh, through state institutions and apparatuses, but at the same time, it also needs a popular culture to help the state by which I mean, novelists and public intellectual and so forth, for years helped, uh, the state erase this past and what, what I think needs to happen and what is beginning to happen here is a recognition that this is part of the past of the state of Israel.
And, uh, we're talking about the last 10, 15 years where, uh, this kind of recognition is slowly seeping in.
And then, uh, recently last year, uh, the state decided to use its force again in order to reinforce the erasure by legislating a law that schools cannot commemorate the Nakba.
And, uh, so I discuss a bit this law and what its intentions are.
Uh, but I conclude by saying that the erasure, we cannot go back in history in the sense that it cannot be erased again.
And there's more and more recognition of the history of the Palestinians.
So what you're saying is that, um, it was really only in the last generation, people really started to take a revisionist view about, well, was this really a land without people after all kind of thing, but now there's a real right-wing backlash from that.
And the, the Likud government is trying to clamp down on any kind of discussion about who might've been force-marched back in 48.
Exactly.
And how many people did you say was 750,000 people?
Either fled or were expelled across the border.
So basically all the Palestinian cities were, were in a way, uh, uh, they weren't destroyed physically, but there was no Palestinian cities left here.
And so basically what happened is that the leadership left and the Palestinians were dispersed in many countries.
And it took them many years to rebuild, uh, the self-identity as a nation.
And that happened in the, probably around the mid fifties, sixties.
And since then, they've been struggling, uh, uh, to, to receive self-determination, which means that they also want a country and to be citizens like you and me.
Well, and I guess the real question is how successful is the state in trying to re-erase the truth of what happened back then?
Uh, what does the average Israeli believe about, is this just, uh, about that era that really, that it was a land without people or not?
No, they, they think they, they now people recognize that it was a land, uh, uh, with people, but now the discussion is who started the war and who's to blame.
And the claim is that the Palestinians did not accept the partition plan as advised, uh, uh, by the United Nations.
And, and, uh, that, that claim against the Palestinians is a weak claim, if you look at the facts, the facts is that, uh, in 1948, Jews had about 7% of the land and the Palestinians had about 93% of the land.
And let's think about this land as a piece of cake.
So one person has 7% of the piece of cake and another has 93%.
And then the UN comes and says, well, let's divide this cake 50 50.
So the person that has 93% says, why, why, why should I agree to that?
And the person that has 7% says, sure, let's divide it 50 50.
And now everyone's blaming the Palestinians for not accepting that partition.
And I think it's not a fair accusation because the UN partition plan in the eyes of the Palestinians was not a fair partition plan.
Oh, well, and then since 1967, we've had this slow motion knock, but it's, you know, I guess, sped up to real time, uh, every once in a while with a major incursions, but mostly it's just that establishment of facts on the ground, more and more settlements here, more and more roads here, more and more security zones and checkpoints there.
And to the point where, uh, pretty soon, I don't know how long it'll take at the current rate, there'll be nowhere for, uh, for, uh, Palestinians to live in the West bank.
They'll just be in effect, uh, pushed out of there.
Like, uh, in Dr.
Seuss, those snitches that just stand there nose to nose, the South going snitch and the North go, Oh, there's Zacks, North and South going Zacks that come face to face and neither of them will move.
And so the whole society is just built up around them until they have only the land they're standing on.
By the time they want to go around each other, they can't anymore.
I think that's imprecise.
There's a lot of space in the West bank.
The, the, the Israel's trying to create facts on the ground in the sense that it's trying to move more and more of its citizenry into the West bank so that to a point of no return in order to make the space between the Jordan Valley and the Mediterranean into one geographical space.
And I think Israel in many respects has succeeded in that.
And so that today we have about half a million Jewish settlers in the West bank in East Jerusalem.
It's not about the lack of space, but rather about creating facts that, uh, a situation of no return so that a Palestinian state, uh, cannot be created.
In other words, that is the objective of the Israeli government.
And I think they have been an all Israeli governments, whether the labor or the could, I don't think there's much difference between them and they have been succeeding, uh, with that.
In other words, that point of no return means that it would be politically unthinkable in Israel to use force to remove that many settlers.
It's just too many to be removed.
Like they did in Gaza.
I mean, they forced the last of the settlers out of Gaza in 05, right?
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Uh, I mean, think about it in 2005, uh, Israel had to remove 8,000 settlers out of the Gaza strip and it was such a big deal here.
We're talking half a million settlers.
It's a very, very different scene.
And ironically, they were sort of serving as shields, protecting the Palestinians of Gaza.
And as soon as they were out of the way, the clampdown came, which may have been the point all along.
I don't know.
I'm not sure, but, uh, um, I think it's once Israel is out of there, then, uh, I'm not responsible for the infrastructure yet, but there's another point I think that needs to be mentioned.
So this won't be a kind of one sided, uh, perspective.
And that is that is Israeli Jews have to recognize the right of the Palestinians.
They have to recognize the, the, the Nakba and the basically ethnic cleansing that was carried out here in 1948.
They have to recognize that the Palestinians, like every other people in the world, must receive a state of their own that's contiguous and so forth and so forth.
Uh, at the same time, uh, the, the, the Palestinians need to also recognize that, uh, time has passed.
It has not stood still since 1948.
And there's now, I don't know, 6 million Jews living in Israel and these Jews are here and they're not going anywhere.
And there has to be a kind of mutual recognition that, uh, uh, the, the Jew that lives in a house in Haifa that once belonged to a Palestinian will not leave that house and, and to remove that Jew will create another wrong and, uh, uh, two wrongs don't make a right.
And here, Well, I mean, that pretty much is the consensus though, isn't it?
That pretty much everybody agrees on 67 borders and that, you know, nobody's really talking about pushing all the Israeli Jews into the sea or anything like that.
No, I think the consensus among people on the left and, and, uh, uh, and many Palestinians, particularly Palestinians in diaspora, that the two state solution is gone.
Uh, that basically we have to rethink that and we have to think of a kind of, of, of, of a one state by national solution with power sharing between Jews and Palestinians, uh, kind of parity of esteem, the North Island style where, where there was respect for each other's religion and culture and so forth, and maybe some porous borders within it.
But basically, uh, I'm not sure that the two state solution is at all an option.
Well, but whatever form it takes and I'm happy with that.
However, people want to work it out.
I'm just saying that even Hamas has, you know, for example, gone on the Charlie Rose show and said over and over again that we're more than happy to recognize Israel.
Just stop the occupation.
We're not saying that we want to destroy Israel.
We're saying we want to recognize Israel's existence.
And then Netanyahu says, no, you have to call us Jewish or whatever.
He's got to raise the stakes, right?
Well, in that sense, there's no, there's no argument in the idea of, of, uh, demanding the recognition of the Jewish state is basically, again, a negation of the NACB and a negation of the right of return of the Palestinians.
That's clear.
But at the same time, uh, the Palestinians are demanding rights talk, and I think rightfully so, and we have to start talking right.
We have to start talking about equality for the Palestinian citizens of Israel.
We have to start talking about the right of return.
We have to start talking about the right to self-determination of all Palestinians.
Right.
Well, I mean, and this is the important of the whole thing is that this is why to talk about the NACB from back then is that without it in the narrative, um, and, and all you're left with is ever since the Jews got there, the Palestinians have been nothing but aggressing against them.
And so now we have to contain their aggression up there in their occupied West Bank, where that's really not right.
And it's based on, uh, you know, really a lie by omission, the exclusion of important facts about who was there first and what all happened in what order and who's exactly, uh, can claim to be retaliating and who's the aggressor.
Uh, it's not as clear cut as people are led to believe.
Maybe if they understood the truth about the NACB a little bit better, they would have a little bit different view about the occupation right now.
Right.
But I think that all that you and I, and probably most of your listeners agree with, uh, what I'm trying to say is something slightly different.
I'm trying to suggest that exactly like the demand, which is, uh, I think a correct demand to, to talk about these Palestinian rights, we have to be able to talk today of the rights of Jewish Israelis, uh, also, and not in the sense of that it's a balanced situation, not in the sense that there's no balance here.
We all know that the power differential between Israel and the Palestinian is so great, and actually that, that is the major reason why Israel can get away without, uh, giving in on anything and on continuing the occupation and so forth.
But having said that, and I think we need to keep on saying it and reminding ourselves, we have to, in order to, to, to share this space together, which is what I think needs to happen ultimately, uh, there has to be a mutual recognition.
It's clear that today, the powerful side does not recognize the Palestinians, but if the day comes, the Palestinians will also have to recognize Israel.
But that has to be a situation where there's a quality between Jews and Palestinians and, uh, where they can share this space through some kind of power sharing agreement.
Well, why don't you talk a little bit more about that?
I sort of, I hear that debate back and forth about whether it's just completely too late to have, you know, the West Bank and Gaza be considered a separate Palestinian state, or, uh, you know, obviously you have the Hamas problem and, uh, international legitimacy for their government in Gaza and all these things.
Um, but, but what, what could you foresee as a sort of one state solution as you were talking about there?
Can you, can you detail that a little bit?
Let me just interject first and say, it's not too late.
I don't think in politics, anything is necessarily too late.
The problem is that today Netanyahu is for a two state solution.
His two state solution is, uh, not a viable state for the Palestinians.
They will not receive East Jerusalem as their capital.
They will, uh, and the refugees will not receive the right of return, but he's for a two state solution.
Everyone today is for a two state solution.
And therefore negotiations for a two state solution at this point in history, whether we want it or not, are basically entrenching the status quo, deepening the occupation and the settlement project.
And therefore I think it is a critical mistake just from a, even from a problematic point of view to support it at this point of history.
And then we have to start thinking, we have to start imagining what it would look like for a democracy between the Jordan Valley and the Mediterranean.
And there is no democracy because we have three and a half million people living within this space that are, are stateless and they do not have any, any kind of citizenship.
So what would it mean to integrate them into the citizenry?
And how do you create a state or a country of that kind where, where people are equal, where Jews and Palestinians are equal and what you have to think of is probably of a government where there's some kind of power sharing between Palestinians and Jews.
And then you have to, to think of, as I said before, respect for the religion and culture and language and traditions of each side, you have to think maybe of local, local governances, which are either Palestinian or Jewish, and some of them can be again, power shared.
And maybe there might be some internal porous borders within, it's not clear how, but, but we have to sit down and hammer this out and start imagining a future of that kind for, for, for the next generation.
Well, that's nice.
You know, I think so that, you know, well, first of all, my first priority is that it should be none of America's business ever again, not one iota, no money for anybody, no intervention on any side and just leave it at that only, you know, that's my, my dream come true or whatever, but it seems to me like if the only, and this is my libertarian answer to the, to the thing, a single state solution, if you have to have a state at all, if the state's only job is really protecting everyone's individual rights, not as Jews or as Palestinians, Christians, or Muslims, or, you know, Europeans or anyone else.
But just as individuals and everybody's property rights and whatever, and they're all their right to a fair hearing when they're accused or sued or whatever.
Then it doesn't matter who runs the thing.
It doesn't matter who's in the majority, really, if they have limited powers and their only job is protecting everybody as individuals.
And so why not just have a one state solution for everybody there?
Then everybody can share Jerusalem.
Everybody can mix and live in neighborhoods and everybody can just be friends and rub butts in fields of flowers.
What's wrong with that?
Rock the Casbah and all that.
From your words to God.
Yeah.
You know, I saw, geez, I think it was a cartoon, American dad, where the kid had a vision in the desert and he explained, here's how we could solve the problem right here, and he just draws some squiggles on the map and everybody's like, Hey, that really makes sense.
You know, the, the answer is actually right here before us.
We'll just try a little bit of Sinai here and a little bit of West Bank there.
And, oh, it's easy.
I don't know.
Uh, dreams come true sometimes.
I don't know.
It seems like it could work, you know?
Um, anyway, uh, thanks very much for your time.
We're already over time.
Uh, but, uh, it's been great.
Sorry for talking so much and, and letting you talk so little, but, uh, it's been interesting.
All right, everybody.
That's Nev Gordon.
Uh, you can read him at counterpunch erasing the Nakba at a counterpunch.org.
And also you can find his book, Israel's occupation at Israel's occupation.info.
And there's articles and all kinds of other information there as well.
We'll be right back.
