Par Rudolf Bkouche

Les"petits blancs", comme on les appelle souvent avec mépris, sont lessoutiers de la colonisation. Situés au bas de l'échelle descolonisateurs, ils sont d'autant plus solidaires de la colonisationqu'ils savent qu'il y a plus bas qu'eux, les colonisés. Ils pensentainsi partager les bénéfices de la colonisation.

Ainsi ont fonctionné les colonies de peuplement, ainsi fonctionne Israël même si les conditions en sont différentes.

Israël n'est pas un Etat colonial classique au sens où il n'est pasl'émanation d'une métropole. Mouvement de conquête bien plus quemouvement colonial, le sionisme avait pour objectif moins d'exploiterles indigènes de la terre conquise que de les expulser. Mais il luifallait, pour assurer sa politique le soutien des puissancesimpérialistes ce qui l'a conduit à s'allier à celles-ci, la GrandeBretagne d'abord, les Etats-Unis aujourd'hui.

Mouvement nationaliste plus que mouvement colonial, il lui fallaitconquérir "son" peuple, c'est-à-dire les Juifs. Né en réaction àl'antisémitisme européen, le mouvement sioniste su aussi profiter decet antisémitisme pour apparaître, après le grand massacre du milieu duXXème siècle, comme le seul recours contre l'antisémitisme, et fairecroire que l'Etat d'Israël issu de la conquête de la Palestine était lerefuge pour les Juifs. La partie était d'autant plus facile que laplupart des opposants au sionisme, juifs orthodoxes ou juifsrévolutionnaires, communistes ou bundistes, avaient disparu dans legénocide. Le sionisme s'imposait ainsi comme la seule expression juivedans le monde.

L'Etat d'Israël pouvait alors regrouper en son sein la grande majoritédes survivants du génocide, transformant ainsi les parias de l'Europeen un peuple conquérant. Et cela était d'autant plus facile que lejeune Etat bénéficiait du soutien de l'Occident, URSS comprise, mêlantla culpabilité européenne devant les conséquences de l'antisémitisme etles intérêts géopolitiques des puissances.
Les parias de l'Europe se retrouvaient ainsi les petits soldats del'impérialisme, le bastion avancé de la civilisation face à labarbarie, pour reprendre une expression de Herzl ; ce qui n'étaitpeut-être qu'un argument de circonstance pour obtenir le soutien despuissances coloniales est devenu aujourd'hui l'un des points forts dusoutien de l'Occident à Israël. Il est moins question, pour l'Occident,de soutenir un Etat étranger que de soutenir une part de lui-même et larécente décision de "rehaussement" prise par l'Union Européenne nousrappelle que pour celle-ci l'Etat d'Israël fait partie de l'Europe.Cette décision qui renforce les accords d'association antérieurs marquel'entrée officieuse d'Israël dans l'Union Européenne.

Le résultat des dernières élections israéliennes marque unecontinuité politique, moins dans la répartition des voix selon lesdifférents partis que dans la volonté de continuer de tenir à distanceles Palestiniens, de continuer l'occupation et la colonisation etd'assurer l'hégémonie israélienne sur la terre palestinienne. Quelledifférence, en ce qui concerne les Palestiniens, entre un partitravailliste classé à gauche, un parti dit centriste et un parti dit dedroite ? Ils ont tous contribué à renforcer l'hégémonie israélienne,ils ont tous contribué à renforcer la colonisation, ils ont touscontribué à refuser toute possibilité d'une solution reconnaissant lesdroits des Palestiniens. Ils n'ont su qu'exaspérer le sentimentd'insécurité des Israéliens pour mieux l'utiliser pour mener à bienleur politique.

Qu'importe alors qui sera premier ministre, cela relève de la luttede clans entre les divers partis israéliens, mais cela ne changera pasla politique. Pour le comprendre il suffit de regarder l'histoire desdivers processus de paix qui se sont déroulés ces dernières années. Uninvariant marque ces divers processus, la poursuite de la colonisationde la terre. On pouvait expliquer, publiquement, que ces processus,pour aboutir à un règlement général, exigeaient, sinon le démantèlementdes colonies, du moins l'arrêt de leur extension, la colonisationcontinuait au nom d'une croissance démographique proclamée naturelle.Et les Palestiniens voyaient se rétrécir de jour en jour le territoiredont ils disposaient.

Il faut alors comprendre que cette politique ne relève pas d'undébat politique entre les partis. Elle est inscrite dans l'idéologiequi a conduit à la création de l'Etat d'Israël en Palestine. Cet Etatest né de la volonté de conquérir la terre palestinienne et d'enexpulser les habitants. La seule paix possible, pour les leaders dumouvement sioniste, ne peut venir que de l'acceptation pas leshabitants de la Palestine des diktats israéliens.
La proposition d'Arafat acceptant le principe de deux Etats,l'israélien et le palestinien, proclamée en 1988, si elle marquaitl'acceptation du fait accompli, était inacceptable pour l'Etat d'Israëlqui n'y a jamais répondu, y compris lors des Accords d'Oslo. Et lapoursuite de la colonisation montrait combien le droit des Palestiniensne comptait pas pour les gouvernements israéliens, quelle que soit leurcouleur politique.

L'Etat d'Israël est en guerre depuis sa création, guerre au nom de sasécurité, ce maître-mot qui définit la politique israélienne. Et celasonne d'autant plus fort qu'il n'est pas seulement question de lasécurité d'un Etat, mais de la sécurité des Juifs du monde. Car cetteguerre permanente ne se contente pas de développer un chauvinismeisraélien, elle conduit à un chauvinisme juif qui tend à s'imposer àtous les juifs du monde. La question n'est plus de transformer lapopulation d'Israël en "petits blancs" au sens que nous avons ditci-dessus, elle est de transformer l'ensemble de la population juivedans le monde en "petits blancs" solidaires de la politiqueisraélienne. Cette solidarité proclamée par les officines sionistes quesont devenues trop souvent des organisations se proclamant lesreprésentants des communautés juives dans le monde, permet de renforcerl'équation "juif = sioniste" et ainsi un sentiment de solidarité entrel'ensemble des Juifs et la politique israélienne, d'autant que cettevolonté d'israélisation des Juifs est acceptée par les souteneursd'Israël.

C'est le sens de la politique israélienne, c'est aussi le sens d'unvote d'enfermement des Israéliens qui ont choisi, quel que soit leparti pour lequel ils ont voté, la continuité d'une politiquecriminelle.

Rudolf Bkouche,
membre de l'UJFP et du mouvement IJAN
( 23 février 2009 )

 Gaza massacre points to urgent need for viable sanctions

 By Dan Freeman-Maloy

There is every reason to be outraged. But despite the severity of Israeli atrocities in Gaza, we have little right to act surprised. Whatever else can be said, Israel has made it abundantly clear that until its actions are met with credible international sanctions, it will subject Palestinians (and very likely others in the region) to massive, recurring waves of violence.

This was clear when the Obama-Biden campaign helped to lay the political foundation for this assault. It was clear when, amidst threats of such an operation and ongoing colonization in the West Bank, the European Union voted to upgrade relations with Israel earlier this month. For those of us in Canada, it has been clear as the Harper government has sharpened its alignment with Israel in the absence of any sustained parliamentary opposition.

Still, although "Operation Cast Lead" (as the Israeli regime has dubbed its latest assault) extends more or less naturally from longstanding Israeli policies, it is many ways especially despicable. The most obvious issue is its scale. Beginning on the morning of Saturday the 27th, approximately 110 Israeli Air Force (IAF) fighter jets and helicopters bombarded the densely populated Gaza Strip with more than 100 tons of explosives, initiating what may well evolve into an even broader onslaught. By the end of the day, more than 230 Palestinians had been killed, an additional 780+ wounded.

As the death toll from air strikes continues to climb, hundreds of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) infantry and armored corps troops have been deployed on the border with Gaza along with IDF artillery batteries, and several thousands reservists have been called up in preparation for a potential ground invasion.

The assault has been characterized by brazen contempt for civilian life and by crass, cynical diplomacy.

The Israeli daily Ha'aretz reports that the IDF, long planning for such an operation, received final authorization the morning of Friday the 26th. That day, Major General Amiram Levin (res.) spoke on IDF Radio and conveyed the flavour of Israeli military doctrine regarding the then impending attack: "The whole issue of fighting against and bringing down the Hamas regime is a mistake and very difficult to achieve. What we have to do is act systematically with the aim of punishing all the organizations that are firing the rockets and mortars, as well as the civilians who are enabling them to fire and hide."[1] Yoav Galant, the head of Israeli Southern Command and a key commander in the attack, has since stated that a key operational goal is pursuing "the maximum number of enemy casualties [while] keeping Israel Defense Force casualties at a minimum." Recall that Israel has designated the Gaza Strip as a whole an "enemy entity."

It can also not be emphasized enough that, bombardment or no bombardment, Israel is perpetrating a profound and ongoing crime against the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees in Gaza who have been stripped of political and residency rights within what is now Israel, pushed from their homes (mostly in 1948), and concentrated in a densely populated coastal territory under effective Israeli control from the borders and the sky. Military assaults such as these, like the more sustained policies of siege and economic suffocation, aggressively build upon this fundamental crime.

As for the diplomatic component of this assault, there is little question that the timing was cynically calculated in an effort to reduce international pressure. Some are happy with the results. Ha'aretz military correspondent Amir Oren, for instance, writes that "Israel's timing of the offensive is actually pretty good: Both the paratroopers and the Golani brigade, which was going to replace them, maintained a high level of preparedness while most of the international inspectors in the region went home for Christmas -- only 15 remain in Gaza." A similar dynamic has compounded the effects of Israeli restrictions in limiting the presence of foreign media correspondents.

Still, there is no way that the international community can plead ignorance or stubborn gullibility, and responsibility for this ongoing slaughter extends far beyond Israel.

Egyptian officials, some of whom met with Israeli counterparts in the lead-up to the attack, reportedly provided explicit endorsement for Israeli military action against Gaza. Just before the assault, Egyptian forces were sent to reinforce the crossing at Rafah, the one land crossing Gaza has that does not border Israel.

The United States, whose Israeli-piloted aircraft are raining death and destruction upon Gaza (following up on the Obama campaign's dangerous rhetoric), has toed the familiar line. Bush administration officials have blamed the Israeli onslaught on the Palestinians, as the president-elect expresses "appreciation" for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's updates regarding the unfolding crime.[2] Meanwhile, European Union officials have used their upgraded contacts with Israel to issue a toothless call for a ceasefire, persistently packaging the ongoing massacre as a symmetrical conflict.[3]

So-called "Quartet" envoy Tony Blair, for his part, had a week before the invasion already all but openly called for an Israeli assault on Gaza.

Regionally, the effective complicity of some governments and the inaction of others is at least precipitating an outpouring of organized outrage. Whether those culpable in Europe and North America face a sustained domestic backlash will reveal much about the political integrity of civil society sectors and the health of anything worth describing as progressive politics in our societies.

Meanwhile, the Israeli military assault has predictably been paralleled by a diplomatic or Hasbara (propaganda) offensive which has been publicly discussed for some time. "We won't win in the suffering stakes," Yarden Vatikay, head of the Information Directorate of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office, was quoted  as warning advocates on December 26, "but we have to try to move the focus to the Hamas terror attacks against our civilians."[4] Foreign minister Tzipi Livni is stepping up whitewashing efforts in precisely this spirit.

Defense minister Ehud Barak, perhaps betting that association with additional war crimes offers a boost to any candidate in the current Israeli electoral climate (parliamentary elections are slated for February), has also been chipping in on the Hasbara front. In an interview with Fox News, Barak continued to mesh the politics of Israeli aggression with the "war on terror" -- indeed, many Israeli columnists are proudly describing "Cast Lead" as Israel's very own "Shock and Awe." "For us to be asked to have a ceasefire with Hamas is like asking you to have a ceasefire with Al-Qaida," Barak declared to his US audience, adding a direct threat of ground invasion: "If boots on the ground will be needed, they will be there."[5]

The idea that any of this is "needed," that any component of this operation is necessary, is nonsense. But it is nonsense with broad Israeli parliamentary backing. At the far "dovish" end of Jewish Israeli party politics, for example, Meretz joined in calling for an assault on Gaza and was kept informed as the plans were put into effect.[6]

Still, anyone with their eyes open must see the vast gap separating Israeli objectives from the Hasbara so dutifully parrotted throughout the West.

Consider the words of Israeli Brigadier General (res.) Shmuel Zakai, former commander of the IDF's Gaza Division, speaking on IDF Radio a few days before the invasion.

"In Zakai's view," Ha'aretz reported on December 22, "Israel's cen tral error during the tahadiyeh, the six-month period of relative truce that formally ended on Friday, was failing to take advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians of the Strip."

Zakai, stressing that Israel has "made every effort to separate ourselves from the Palestinians," expressed some bewilderment at the apparent Israeli determination to go beyond concentrating Palestinians in a ghettoized Gaza (the right ethnic cleansing move, from his perspective) in order to actively suffocate their economy while using military assaults as the main instrument to force them to starve in peace.

"It's just like after the disengagement," Zakai was quoted as saying. "We left Gaza and we thought that troubles were over. Did we really think that a million and a half people living in that kind of poverty were going to mount the rooftops and sing the Betar hymn? That is illogical." But instead of negotiating a truce based on the limited concessions which Hamas would accept under the circumstances (including opening crossings so that those imprisoned in Gaza can at least subsist), Israel has again opted for escalating violence.

The operative mindset was supportively presented on Saturday by Yaakov Katz, military correspondent and defense analyst for the Jerusalem Post: "The end-strategy is not completely formulated but officials said that if Hamas gets down on its knees and begs Israel to stop, the request will be considered."

This vile, depraved determination to collectively punish and humiliate defies all but effectively genocidal logic.

Such logic may play well in the Israeli electoral arena. Reports indicate that the far-right Israel Beiteinu is siphoning votes from Likud for its resolute calls for escalating violence.[7] Given his perceived role in the invasion, "Barak is back in the political ring," one Ha'aretz report suggests. Perhaps Kadima, enveloping itself in the legacy of Ariel Sharon and visibily orchestrating the invasion Hasbara, can get itself some of the credit. The Israeli military establishment will meanwhile effectively keep formulating and implementing policy.

But if these latest atrocities do not provoke the sort of rage that can be sustained, defended and directed against those European and North American officials who facilitate these crimes, those of us in the West will have less and less ground to credibly disassociate ourselves from massacres such as these.

Whether Israel escalates this massacre with ground troops or pulls back in order to merely confine and suffocate the population of Gaza for a period, it is frighteningly clear that without forceful external pressure, much worse is yet to come.


[1] "Israeli general says Hamas must not be the only target in Gaza; Text of report by IDF Radio on 26 December," December 26 2008, BBC Monitoring Middle East.
[2] "Obama, Rice discuss Israel's strikes against Hamas," December 28 2008, Xinhua News Agency.
[3] "Solana calls for immediate ceasefire in Gaza," December 27 2008, Agence France Presse.
[4] Anshel Pfeffer, "Israel prepares troops and PR offensive to counter Hamas," December 26 2008, the Jewish Chronicle.
[5] "Israel 'cannot accept' ceasefire with Hamas says Barak," December 27 2008, Reuters.
[6] Joshua Mitnick, "Israel threatens offensive in Gaza -- Government tells Hamas to stop rocket attacks, warning 'we are stronger,'" December 26 2008, The Wall Street Journal.
[7] Toni O'Loughlin, "Israeli far right gains ground as Gaza rockets fuel tension," December 27 2008, The Guardian.