'The Hope for Peace' Sharon's Latest Casualty
Interview with Koorosh Modaresi
The Israeli government's extensive onslaught and its indescribable
carnage and brutality against the people of Palestine have shocked
every decent human being. Who is responsible for and what changes
have caused this current situation?
Koorosh Modaresi: As you pointed out, the dimensions of the Israeli
government's atrocities in Palestine is shocking for any decent human
being. Military operations against defenceless civilians, the detaining
of all men and boys between the ages of 14 to 40 years old, lining
them up and numbering them in the exact manner of Hitler's fascists,
the murder of children whose only crime is to protest the occupation
of their country, the 'targeted' assassination of Palestinian leaders
and political activists, the collective punishment of people, the
destruction of suspicious homes and making thousands of families homeless,
etc. are crimes. This must be stopped and the perpetrators must be
tried. If the name of this country was Yugoslavia rather than Palestine,
today Ariel Sharon would be wanted for mass murder and war crimes.
Arbitrary and double standards of the West and the US, however, portray
one as a criminal and the other as a hero.
The unambiguous cause of the current situation is the Israeli government's
policy. Islamic terrorists definitely are accomplices but the re-production
of Islamic terrorism and its ability to recruit new forces, more than
Islamic propaganda, is the result of Israeli government policy. The
Israeli government is not prepared to end the occupation of Palestine,
it wants to maintain Jewish colonies forcibly built on Palestinian
land and homes, and it is not prepared to recognise an independent
Palestinian state with equal rights. The Israeli government does not
want peace; it wants the surrender of Palestinians and their acceptance
of the racist and colonialist policies of this government. This is
the Israeli government's current policy.
In a way, this policy is not a new one. In fact, the Israeli government
has completely returned to its original policy. Over the last 30 years,
its policy has been one of occupation, extensive arrests, collective
punishments, the imposition of nearly complete rightlessness on the
people of Palestine vis-à-vis the Israeli government and Jewish colonies
(which have been given the respectable name of settlements), constant
humiliations and military and police repression. This policy was defeated
by the intifada. This defeat opened the way for the debate on post-Zionism.
The state of Israel was formed on the basis of a Zionist ideology,
which called for Jewish immigration to Palestine and the formation
of a Jewish Israeli state - a history you must be acquainted with.
The establishment of the state of Israel with relative security is
the end of Zionism. Zionism, like any other nationalism, does not
have a clear and realistic argument about the future after the formation
of a nation state. This void was highlighted with the collapse of
the Eastern bloc and particularly after the Gulf war, which changed
the strategic position of Israel and the Arab states in the system
of Western governments, and with the defeat of Israel by the growing
mass movement of the people of Palestine. This was the basis of the
debate called post-Zionism. The core of the debate was defining the
strategy and role of the Israeli government and its position in the
region after its establishment and the relative guarantee of security
for a Jewish state. It was within this framework that the idea or
alternative for peace with Palestinians and through that peace with
the Arab states and becoming the technological and economic centre
of the region and naturally becoming completely absorbed into the
Middle East came about. This viewpoint was the basis for the emergence
of a tendency in the ruling establishment and think tanks for peace
and coming to terms with Palestinians to the extent of recognising
a Palestinian state. Yitzhak Rabin was in fact the politician representing
this tendency. Clearly, it is not an easy task for such a tendency
in an environment and society, which is based and established on a
racial-religious ideology and the cleansing of Palestinians, and for
the interests of those Jews who were immigrating from all over the
world. The Israeli relationship with Palestinians and with Arabs in
general has been shaped on a racial-religious outlook and this outlook
has been the dominant one in Israeli society. To this extent, various
Israeli governments, whether affiliated with Labour or Likud parties,
have always been in line with the most Right-wing and fascistic Jewish
currents in this matter and these parties and groups have been accepted
as legitimate and fit for coalition governments - comparable UK, French
and German parties and groups have been excluded as fascist parties
at least by main political parties and groups. In Israel, this dissociation
never took shape since Zionism was the common basis. In any case,
these factors made possible the Oslo agreement, the coming to terms
with the PLO and the recognition of the existence of both sides.
One significant factor that has made the situation unstable and led
to the current situation, in my opinion, is the peace-seeking tendency's
non-disassociation or better yet its not seriously and comprehensively
confronting the deeply-rooted racist and fascist history and ideology
in Israel. The peace-seekers half-heartedly explained peace as tactically
appropriate in order to control the intifada, while maintaining the
colonies and the right of Jewish settlement on Palestinian cleansed
lands, and a Palestinian state under the control of Israel. They did
not separate their path from that of Jewish fascism; they did not
challenge it. Israeli society did not deal with its own past and put
forth a future that was based on the foundations of its past. This
allowed the Right-wing fascist current, which opposed the peace process,
to rob the process with ease - a current that understood and understands
peace as the subjugation of the Palestinians and saw and sees in Palestinian
independence, not a country but a collection of areas under Israeli
control but of course with Palestinian local management. Even the
labour government during the Barak premiership continued the same
policy with some variations. The colonisation (settlement) policy
continued and the continuation of the occupation of important areas
such as Jerusalem, water resources, maintaining Jewish colonies and
limiting the right of the Palestinians to sovereignty were its basis.
This policy pushed the peace process into an impasse on the one hand
and on the other created an environment of helplessness, gloom and
despair which allowed the terrorist and Islamic fascists to grow,
by continuing the occupation and racist policies and daily humiliation
of Palestinians. Fascism on one side helped the rise of fascism on
the other side. Jewish fascism developed Islamic fascism. As I mentioned,
the Israeli policy is the most important factor in the reproduction
of political Islam and Islamic terrorism not only in Palestine but
also in the entire region. The current policy of Arial Sharon is the
declaration of a return to the policy of suppression, which cannot
have any strategic objective apart from the subjugation of the Palestinians
to the demands of the state of Israel - a policy, which cannot have
anything but more hatred among Israelis and Palestinians, a policy
that has been defeated once before.
Israel justifies its onslaught against the people of Palestine under
the guise of defending its innocent citizens, particularly children,
against suicide bombings and terrorism. Should there not be a condemnation
of the so- called cycle of violence from both sides and a demand for
its end?
Koorosh Modaresi: Of course, terrorism and the killing of innocent
people are condemned. The people of Israel have as much right to be
safe from such killings as the people who live in any other place,
including Palestine. But to explain the current situation with the
term cycle of violence is seriously misleading. This formulation portrays
both sides of this confrontation in a comparable situation. As if
two states are at war. This concealment of the truth is in favour
of the aggressor. Palestine is a land occupied by Israel. It is the
Israeli government that can end the occupation and is not willing
to do. It is the Israeli government which can end the policy of colonising
and ethnic cleansing but continues it. It is the Israeli government
which believes it can impose its will by sheer military bullying,
an illusion that nearly all colonialist states share and are forced
to accept defeat after killing huge numbers of people. Terrorism is
condemned but the protest and struggle by the people of Palestine
against the occupiers are just and right. It is violent because it
is faced with the most despicable violence, i.e. the occupation of
Palestine, ethnic cleansing, colonising, and the enslavement accompanied
by 30 years of humiliation. It is the Israeli government that has
blocked any political means of ending the occupation and has turned
fear, hopelessness and despair into the norm in Palestinian society
- a desperation and hopelessness, which produces Islamic terrorism
in the entire region. This cycle of violence started with Israeli
violence and will end with it. More than anything else, the growth
of Islamic fascism is the result of Jewish fascism. With the resolution
of the Palestinian question, the swamp in which political Islamic
grows will dry up.
In this case, are the peace process and the Oslo agreement defunct?
Koorosh Modaresi: It seems so. It is doubtful that one can talk about
a serious peace process without the definite defeat of the Right-wing
in Israel. It is possible for the hostilities to have its ups and
downs but it seems that the Right in Israel has succeeded in returning
everyone to the starting place with the difference that the Israeli
government has managed to strengthen blind terrorism.
Can Israel be forced to abandon this violent and fascist policy?
Apparently neither the UN resolution nor the people's protests have
any influence on the Israeli government.
Koorosh Modaresi: I believe that the precondition for an end to this
situation is the defeat of the Right-wing in Israel. The Right must
be defeated politically and socially. The force that can defeat the
Right is the resistance of the people of Palestine, the emergence
of a peace movement in Israel itself and its uncompromising, active
militant confrontation with Jewish fascism and finally protests and
struggles in Europe and the US to expose this Right and in defence
of the people of Palestine. The combination of these forces can very
quickly defeat the fascist views in Israel.
The Worker-communist Party of Iran has stated that an end to the
occupation, recognition of the right of the people of Palestine to
sovereignty and the establishment of a Palestinian state will ensure
peace in the Middle East. Will the formation of an independent Palestinian
state resolve the problems of the people in Palestine?
Koorosh Modaresi: The problems of the people of Palestine are not
one and the same. Palestine like any other place including Israel
has worker and capitalist, woman and man, young and old, freedom-loving
and reactionary. It has religious people, communists, liberals and
conservatives. It would be ideal to have Israelis and Palestinians
put aside their national and religious identities, and for the communists
and freedom-loving people of both to organise an equal and free society
without religious, nationalist or ethnic affiliations. This is theoretically
possible but the immediate and practical realisation of this ideal
is doubtful. Nationalism and religious bigotry have created such a
deep rift between the people of Israel and Palestine that an end to
the occupation of Palestine and the formation of a Palestinian state
with equal rights with Israel are the pre-condition for any development.
An end to the occupation of Palestine and the formation of an independent
state of Palestine will end this national-religious and ethnic humiliation
and will return civil identity to the people pf Palestine and will
allow them to intervene in determining their future and organising
their society far from any nationalist prodding. The end to the occupation
and the resolution of the question of Palestine will furthermore allow
the working class and freedom loving and egalitarian forces in Israel
to reach their objectives more quickly with the removal of society
from under Zionism's umbrella.
What do you mean by a government with equal rights?
Koorosh Modaresi: You see today everyone agrees with the idea of
an independent Palestinian state. Even Ariel Sharon and Binyamin Netanyahu
both pledge allegiance to this idea. The problem is that the state
that they have in mind for Palestine is like the governments that
the former racist government of South Africa formed for blacks - cantons
under the supervision of the racist government with black management.
This is a similar situation. If the issue is the resolution of the
Palestinian question then both states must have equal rights as any
conventional state and if there is to be any agreement on limitations
of military force, this limitation must include the Israeli state.
Otherwise, one side will be declared the victor and the other side
the loser and the hostilities will continue. The states of Israel
and Palestine must have equal rights; this is the pre-condition of
the resolution of the question of Palestine.
How would Israel's security be guaranteed? Would the recognition
of the state of Israel and an end to the current military situation
and peaceful co-existence between the Israeli and Arab states particularly
the Palestinian state resolve the problem?
Koorosh Modaresi: Firstly, the security of Israel is as important
as the security of Palestine. But it would an illusion to think that
in the context of the current situation, security is possible for
one side in the absence of security for the other. If this was so
then the occupation of Palestine would have guaranteed Israel's security.
Secondly, security is a relative concept. In an absence of war and
in normal relations the security logic of both parties falls into
the security norms of any other state.
The above is a translated interview first published in Persian in
International Weekly 100.