Edelweiss
15th April 2002, 21:13
I recently read this Interview with the leftist Iraeli punk/hc band 'Dir Yassin' at crustpunk.de (http://www.crustpunk.de), a German punk fanzine. It's by far the best stuff I read for a long time about this whole shit in the middle east. So here are exerpts of the interview:
For us it's quite unusual to hear from bands from countries like Israel. Isn't it very hard for you to exist? How are the reactions and acceptance in Israel? Does the state starts anything measures against you and your political views?
If you're asking me if it's a problem to look like a "punk" (mohawk, leather jackets, combat boots, etc.) in Israel, well i think that even if it's not so accepted as it is in europe, you're probably not going to get beaten up either, especeally in the big cities. Fuck - models and football players have been adopting the "punk" look for some time now.But again, i haven't been dressing like that for more then a decade now, so i don't really know or care. But if you're strictly talking about radical left/ anarchist views, so yes: you're going to encounter lot of criticism, hatred and even violence towards you, if you dare to voice them loud. Especeally if you're critical to the army, then you may get in trouble with the state and the secret police. For example, some members of Dir Yassin and other of our friends published a 'zine which openly talked about refusing to serve in the army and gave tips on how to evade it and got into some serious trouble with the authorities. Prosecution on that, which almost took place, could have meant some years in a very isolated prison. Luckily, it didn't happenned, but i know it's not the only case in which heavy pressure was used for trying to
shut up dissidence.
But again, the fact that we are jewish makes it much easier for us to express our views and to do things, then it is for arab people. It's the arab dissidents those who suffer real persecution and put their lives in danger, so any type of comparation between how we and they have it would be ridiculous. We (jewish citizens of Israel) have a very, very easy life comparing to any palestinian and i think that's our responsability to use our privileges for the destruction of the israeli apartheid system.
You call yourself "antizionist" - what does that exactly mean for you!? What do you think about the present conflict between Palestine and Israel? Who do you think are the aggressors and how could the violence be stopped and how could the problem be solved? I think it's very hard to really side with only one of the two parties, as in my opinion you can find responsibility for the violence on BOTH sides. What do you think?
I hope that nobody is seriously expecting an indepth account of such a complex issue as the israeli /arab - palestinian conflict in a format like this one, but i'll still try to give my opinion on some major problems.
Zionism can bee seen as an adoption of a 19th century european ideology/ies (nationalism) as a solution for problems and discrimination suffered by many jewish communities in west and central europe. Anti zionism means not only the rejection of what the state of Israel seems to stand for (apartheid for arabs in Cisjordania and Gaza) but also a "local rejection" of the notion that nationalism can be a viable solution in the long run. Also a real solution for the problems suffered by palestinians (and by most people in the world) goes well beyond the creation of an independant entity.
So anyway, while being a modern approach but still influenced by older jewish traditions and expectations, the zionist movement (in it's different manifestations) appealed to many jewish people, from religious traditionalists to socialist and communists. But again, it doesn't mean that all the jewish people favored zionism in the late 19th century or later - even in this day and age, most of the jewish people live outside Israel.
While thousands emmigrated from europe to Palestine (Israel of today, which then was part of the Turkish Ottoman empire and later on was ruled by the british) until the beginning of the 2nd world war, there was still an arab majority on the land well into the 40's. Most of it's inhabitants lived there for many generations and even thought there were always jewish communities in Palestine, there were relatively small.
The jewish holocaust was for many jews an affirmation of the fact that jews needed to have their own land. Even though before the arrivals of holocaust survivors and european refugees were plans for the creation of a jewish state in Palestine (as many of the zionist leaders called and wrote for), after WW2, the creation of a jewish state became imminent. The UN voted for a partition of Palestine into two states (a jewish along an arab one) but the (arab) palestinians rejected that propossal. War followed and the result was the creation of the state of Israel in all that territory.
Some may say, like the majority of contemporary israelis, that it was the palestinian's fault that they didn't agreed to the partition and that they brought all the problems on themselves. To that, others may reply to that the whole idea of arab's giving up land their families been living on for several generations for jews that had just arrived (or that were on their way there) was preposterous. Again, i'm putting this in very simple arguments that, for example, don't consider the economic implications of the changes that occured in Palestine since the increased numbers of jewish migrants. There's also people who maintain that the jewish leadership in Palestine wasn't really eager to accept to the partition but the public agreement to the idea was some sort of "salami tactic" for achieving more.
In any case, one of the results of the "War of Independance" (as the israelis call it) or the "Nakba" ("catastrophe" in arabic, as the palestinians put it) of 1948 was the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of
arab Palestinians (to which i will refer as just "palestininas" from now on) to mostly neighboring arab countries, many who, along with their descendents, became refugees. Plenty of them are still refugees. Many others were killed, such as in the massacre of Dir Yassin, a village just outside Jerusalem. The arab population which remained in Israel was subjected to military rule for many years and are still de facto discriminized (for example, by smaller municipal budgets, loans, construction permits, etc) , even if they have israeli citizenship.
After the so called "six day war" in 1967, Israeli gained control of relatively big areas of it's opponents - Egypt, Syria and Jordan. It was then when the "occuppied territories" of Cisjordania and Gaza entered the picture. The Sinai area was returned to Egypt after a peace agreement and the Golan Heights, which belongs to Syria, were formally annexed. The conquest of Cisjordania and Gaza from Jordan (a country which never really wanted to have that specific area and were happy to get rid of it, but that's another story.) , which many refer to as "the occupied territories", brought many Palestinian refugees back into zionist hands. The occuppied territories were never annexed to Israel, meaning that the (arab) citizens were and are still subjected to military rule or anachronistic old laws and not protected by the israeli law. On the other hand, Israel created jewish settlements in the area, in which it's inhabitants enjoy the same rights as the people in Israel, thus creating an apartheid system of jewish supremacy.
In 1987, Palestinians living in the occuppied teritories of Cisjordania and Gaza uprised against the israeli military rule in what came to be known as the "Intifada". Despite military repression, the israeli governments of both the "left" and the right didn't managed to supress it and had to recognize the Palestinians as a people with a right for certain autonomy. That, combined with the will of the PLO to remain the important key player among the palestinians, led to the "Oslo Agreements" and to the so called "Peace Process".
But that "peace" process couldn't really improve the welfare of most of it's inhabitants. The autism and cynicism of the different israeli governments in the mid and late 90's, combined with a corrupt force headed by Arafat, led to a huge discontent within the territories. At a certain point, summer 2000, even Arafat couldn't put up with the meager "concessions" offered bym the then prime minister Barak, and the result was the "El Aqsa Intifada", the current blood shed we have been witnessing for over a year now.
Why i defend the Intifada? Because it's obvious that all the "peace" talks that had been held since the beginnng of the 90's until now hasn't improved the life of the vast majority of palestinians: actually, their situation has deteriorated even before the new "Intifada" started. Don't get me wrong, i'm totally against all deadly actions directed towards israeli civil population: i think they're totally counter productive to the palestinian struggle, and in fact, that's the main reason those insane organizations carry them out. But to put all, or even most, of the struggle as a "religious war" is misleading and false. Still, we need to be aware that the more the palestinians are repressed, the more many seem to support murdering lunatics such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.
The solution for the conflict will only start when israelis will see the palestinians not as a burden they need to get rid to but as people who were victimized for more then half a century by the state of Israel and that
demand peace, freedom and a just compensation. Sadly, even thought it seemed like there was some improvement for that from the mid 90's onward, the last Intifada led to a media demonization of the palestinians, a thing that make that task very hard right now.
In Germany you are often called "anti-Semite" when you critisizes zionism or the violent reactions of the Israelite army - can you understand accusations like this?
I can understand why anything that has to do with jewish people is a very touchy issue in Germany, but i think that even if the most important goal for somebody will be fighting anti - semitism (though i think that the main goal should be freedom for every human), separating between the policies of Israel and the jews is a critical step in fighting anti - semitism. An automatical association between Israel's policies and some amorphous "Jewish Will" can easily increase hatred for jews, something that's already happening.
How do you judge the part of the USA in the Israelite-Palestine coflict?
If anybody thinks that Israel would have been able to maintain it's policies without the approval (and even encouragement) of the US, so he must be mad.
The US aids Israel at the level of between US$ 3 and 6 billion annually (opinions vary on the exact sum), a large ammount of which must be used to purchase weapons made in the US. Many people tend to think that the reason for such a huge financial "help" is the Jewish lobby in Washington and the power of american jewry, but i think that those people are either ignorant, naive or motivated by anti - semitism. In fact, the majority of the powerful people who are actively "Pro Israel" are right wing, fundamentalist WASP's.
Israel, because of it's isolation from it's neighboring countries and it's own "character", is one of the most reliable allies in the area, which happens to be of major importance for many US - based companies and for the
american economy as a whole - i'll also briefly refer to it again in the next question. The US has been considering Israel as essential for the stability of the region for many decades, and despite some ad - hoc
necessities (the need for an arab coalition against Irak / Afghanistan, etc) that may lead to a minor criticism of Israel, the US makes it always clear that it won't tolerate any real pressure towards Israel from nobody. Proof for that are the countless vetoes in the UN that the US has imposed on propositions that were considered "too Pro - Palestinian".
What do you think about the military actions of the NATO against Afghanistan and the US plans to start military actions against the Irak? What are the motivations for this strategy and do you know any alternatives to solve the problems over there?
For me it seems pretty clear that the US atack on Afghanistan had more to do with US's strategical and financial interests then with all the excuses used for justifying the bombings and the intervention which followed. There are several people saying that the US tried to make some sort of arrangement with the Taliban regime for letting US firms use Afghan territory for conducting oil and it's subsequential failure was one of the main reasons for the events that followed. It is a fact that the US backed Bin Laden and his Taliban buddies when they fought against the USSR, so a co-operation between the two wouldn't have been as crazy as it may seem now. The US backed countless of dictatorships while criticized others - for example, somehow the Saudi monarchy is "positive" (even though they're not so far from the Taliban practices) while a country like Cuba is an "evil dictatorship". And while i think that Castro is a dictator, he definately had done less harm then any of all the US governments from the 20th century onwards.
Irak, like the Taliban, are also another example of an old friend who becames a foe the second he dares to step out a little from it's masters orders. While they fought against Iran they were supplied weapons but when they endangered american interests, as the invasion to Kuwait was, they're going too far. So the question could be put as, "when a tyrant is in power and the US is willing to bring him down, what should we(anarchists/ radical
left wingers) do, which side should we support?" Of course it's not easy, as on one side i wouldn't mind seeing such a bloodthirsty megalomaniac like Saddam Hussein being gutted, but on the other side justifying US imperialism may be even a bigger danger on the long run. And people shouldn't be decieved by the rhetoric about "restoring democracies": now that most of the world has "open markets", the only goal for the US foreign policy will be to keep them open, regardless of what the majority of the population will think. Democracies, in Bush's administration eyes, had served their purposes and the US may as well start getting rid of them whenever necessary, even though it will be doneprobably in subtle ways. It'll always be easy to label any alternative to the neo - liberal tyranny as "populist", "demagogue" or "corrupt" and therefore, to be subjected to US intervention.
The only solution i see is to publicly criticize all tyranies and to fight any violation of human rights wherever they be (and i'm not a moral relativist - people's have rights regardless of the culture around them!) but also to fight phoney "moral crusades", as they're done for one sole purpose - the finacial benefit of rich individuals.
Dir Yassin Homepage: http://www.angelfire.com/il/deiryassin/
For us it's quite unusual to hear from bands from countries like Israel. Isn't it very hard for you to exist? How are the reactions and acceptance in Israel? Does the state starts anything measures against you and your political views?
If you're asking me if it's a problem to look like a "punk" (mohawk, leather jackets, combat boots, etc.) in Israel, well i think that even if it's not so accepted as it is in europe, you're probably not going to get beaten up either, especeally in the big cities. Fuck - models and football players have been adopting the "punk" look for some time now.But again, i haven't been dressing like that for more then a decade now, so i don't really know or care. But if you're strictly talking about radical left/ anarchist views, so yes: you're going to encounter lot of criticism, hatred and even violence towards you, if you dare to voice them loud. Especeally if you're critical to the army, then you may get in trouble with the state and the secret police. For example, some members of Dir Yassin and other of our friends published a 'zine which openly talked about refusing to serve in the army and gave tips on how to evade it and got into some serious trouble with the authorities. Prosecution on that, which almost took place, could have meant some years in a very isolated prison. Luckily, it didn't happenned, but i know it's not the only case in which heavy pressure was used for trying to
shut up dissidence.
But again, the fact that we are jewish makes it much easier for us to express our views and to do things, then it is for arab people. It's the arab dissidents those who suffer real persecution and put their lives in danger, so any type of comparation between how we and they have it would be ridiculous. We (jewish citizens of Israel) have a very, very easy life comparing to any palestinian and i think that's our responsability to use our privileges for the destruction of the israeli apartheid system.
You call yourself "antizionist" - what does that exactly mean for you!? What do you think about the present conflict between Palestine and Israel? Who do you think are the aggressors and how could the violence be stopped and how could the problem be solved? I think it's very hard to really side with only one of the two parties, as in my opinion you can find responsibility for the violence on BOTH sides. What do you think?
I hope that nobody is seriously expecting an indepth account of such a complex issue as the israeli /arab - palestinian conflict in a format like this one, but i'll still try to give my opinion on some major problems.
Zionism can bee seen as an adoption of a 19th century european ideology/ies (nationalism) as a solution for problems and discrimination suffered by many jewish communities in west and central europe. Anti zionism means not only the rejection of what the state of Israel seems to stand for (apartheid for arabs in Cisjordania and Gaza) but also a "local rejection" of the notion that nationalism can be a viable solution in the long run. Also a real solution for the problems suffered by palestinians (and by most people in the world) goes well beyond the creation of an independant entity.
So anyway, while being a modern approach but still influenced by older jewish traditions and expectations, the zionist movement (in it's different manifestations) appealed to many jewish people, from religious traditionalists to socialist and communists. But again, it doesn't mean that all the jewish people favored zionism in the late 19th century or later - even in this day and age, most of the jewish people live outside Israel.
While thousands emmigrated from europe to Palestine (Israel of today, which then was part of the Turkish Ottoman empire and later on was ruled by the british) until the beginning of the 2nd world war, there was still an arab majority on the land well into the 40's. Most of it's inhabitants lived there for many generations and even thought there were always jewish communities in Palestine, there were relatively small.
The jewish holocaust was for many jews an affirmation of the fact that jews needed to have their own land. Even though before the arrivals of holocaust survivors and european refugees were plans for the creation of a jewish state in Palestine (as many of the zionist leaders called and wrote for), after WW2, the creation of a jewish state became imminent. The UN voted for a partition of Palestine into two states (a jewish along an arab one) but the (arab) palestinians rejected that propossal. War followed and the result was the creation of the state of Israel in all that territory.
Some may say, like the majority of contemporary israelis, that it was the palestinian's fault that they didn't agreed to the partition and that they brought all the problems on themselves. To that, others may reply to that the whole idea of arab's giving up land their families been living on for several generations for jews that had just arrived (or that were on their way there) was preposterous. Again, i'm putting this in very simple arguments that, for example, don't consider the economic implications of the changes that occured in Palestine since the increased numbers of jewish migrants. There's also people who maintain that the jewish leadership in Palestine wasn't really eager to accept to the partition but the public agreement to the idea was some sort of "salami tactic" for achieving more.
In any case, one of the results of the "War of Independance" (as the israelis call it) or the "Nakba" ("catastrophe" in arabic, as the palestinians put it) of 1948 was the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of
arab Palestinians (to which i will refer as just "palestininas" from now on) to mostly neighboring arab countries, many who, along with their descendents, became refugees. Plenty of them are still refugees. Many others were killed, such as in the massacre of Dir Yassin, a village just outside Jerusalem. The arab population which remained in Israel was subjected to military rule for many years and are still de facto discriminized (for example, by smaller municipal budgets, loans, construction permits, etc) , even if they have israeli citizenship.
After the so called "six day war" in 1967, Israeli gained control of relatively big areas of it's opponents - Egypt, Syria and Jordan. It was then when the "occuppied territories" of Cisjordania and Gaza entered the picture. The Sinai area was returned to Egypt after a peace agreement and the Golan Heights, which belongs to Syria, were formally annexed. The conquest of Cisjordania and Gaza from Jordan (a country which never really wanted to have that specific area and were happy to get rid of it, but that's another story.) , which many refer to as "the occupied territories", brought many Palestinian refugees back into zionist hands. The occuppied territories were never annexed to Israel, meaning that the (arab) citizens were and are still subjected to military rule or anachronistic old laws and not protected by the israeli law. On the other hand, Israel created jewish settlements in the area, in which it's inhabitants enjoy the same rights as the people in Israel, thus creating an apartheid system of jewish supremacy.
In 1987, Palestinians living in the occuppied teritories of Cisjordania and Gaza uprised against the israeli military rule in what came to be known as the "Intifada". Despite military repression, the israeli governments of both the "left" and the right didn't managed to supress it and had to recognize the Palestinians as a people with a right for certain autonomy. That, combined with the will of the PLO to remain the important key player among the palestinians, led to the "Oslo Agreements" and to the so called "Peace Process".
But that "peace" process couldn't really improve the welfare of most of it's inhabitants. The autism and cynicism of the different israeli governments in the mid and late 90's, combined with a corrupt force headed by Arafat, led to a huge discontent within the territories. At a certain point, summer 2000, even Arafat couldn't put up with the meager "concessions" offered bym the then prime minister Barak, and the result was the "El Aqsa Intifada", the current blood shed we have been witnessing for over a year now.
Why i defend the Intifada? Because it's obvious that all the "peace" talks that had been held since the beginnng of the 90's until now hasn't improved the life of the vast majority of palestinians: actually, their situation has deteriorated even before the new "Intifada" started. Don't get me wrong, i'm totally against all deadly actions directed towards israeli civil population: i think they're totally counter productive to the palestinian struggle, and in fact, that's the main reason those insane organizations carry them out. But to put all, or even most, of the struggle as a "religious war" is misleading and false. Still, we need to be aware that the more the palestinians are repressed, the more many seem to support murdering lunatics such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.
The solution for the conflict will only start when israelis will see the palestinians not as a burden they need to get rid to but as people who were victimized for more then half a century by the state of Israel and that
demand peace, freedom and a just compensation. Sadly, even thought it seemed like there was some improvement for that from the mid 90's onward, the last Intifada led to a media demonization of the palestinians, a thing that make that task very hard right now.
In Germany you are often called "anti-Semite" when you critisizes zionism or the violent reactions of the Israelite army - can you understand accusations like this?
I can understand why anything that has to do with jewish people is a very touchy issue in Germany, but i think that even if the most important goal for somebody will be fighting anti - semitism (though i think that the main goal should be freedom for every human), separating between the policies of Israel and the jews is a critical step in fighting anti - semitism. An automatical association between Israel's policies and some amorphous "Jewish Will" can easily increase hatred for jews, something that's already happening.
How do you judge the part of the USA in the Israelite-Palestine coflict?
If anybody thinks that Israel would have been able to maintain it's policies without the approval (and even encouragement) of the US, so he must be mad.
The US aids Israel at the level of between US$ 3 and 6 billion annually (opinions vary on the exact sum), a large ammount of which must be used to purchase weapons made in the US. Many people tend to think that the reason for such a huge financial "help" is the Jewish lobby in Washington and the power of american jewry, but i think that those people are either ignorant, naive or motivated by anti - semitism. In fact, the majority of the powerful people who are actively "Pro Israel" are right wing, fundamentalist WASP's.
Israel, because of it's isolation from it's neighboring countries and it's own "character", is one of the most reliable allies in the area, which happens to be of major importance for many US - based companies and for the
american economy as a whole - i'll also briefly refer to it again in the next question. The US has been considering Israel as essential for the stability of the region for many decades, and despite some ad - hoc
necessities (the need for an arab coalition against Irak / Afghanistan, etc) that may lead to a minor criticism of Israel, the US makes it always clear that it won't tolerate any real pressure towards Israel from nobody. Proof for that are the countless vetoes in the UN that the US has imposed on propositions that were considered "too Pro - Palestinian".
What do you think about the military actions of the NATO against Afghanistan and the US plans to start military actions against the Irak? What are the motivations for this strategy and do you know any alternatives to solve the problems over there?
For me it seems pretty clear that the US atack on Afghanistan had more to do with US's strategical and financial interests then with all the excuses used for justifying the bombings and the intervention which followed. There are several people saying that the US tried to make some sort of arrangement with the Taliban regime for letting US firms use Afghan territory for conducting oil and it's subsequential failure was one of the main reasons for the events that followed. It is a fact that the US backed Bin Laden and his Taliban buddies when they fought against the USSR, so a co-operation between the two wouldn't have been as crazy as it may seem now. The US backed countless of dictatorships while criticized others - for example, somehow the Saudi monarchy is "positive" (even though they're not so far from the Taliban practices) while a country like Cuba is an "evil dictatorship". And while i think that Castro is a dictator, he definately had done less harm then any of all the US governments from the 20th century onwards.
Irak, like the Taliban, are also another example of an old friend who becames a foe the second he dares to step out a little from it's masters orders. While they fought against Iran they were supplied weapons but when they endangered american interests, as the invasion to Kuwait was, they're going too far. So the question could be put as, "when a tyrant is in power and the US is willing to bring him down, what should we(anarchists/ radical
left wingers) do, which side should we support?" Of course it's not easy, as on one side i wouldn't mind seeing such a bloodthirsty megalomaniac like Saddam Hussein being gutted, but on the other side justifying US imperialism may be even a bigger danger on the long run. And people shouldn't be decieved by the rhetoric about "restoring democracies": now that most of the world has "open markets", the only goal for the US foreign policy will be to keep them open, regardless of what the majority of the population will think. Democracies, in Bush's administration eyes, had served their purposes and the US may as well start getting rid of them whenever necessary, even though it will be doneprobably in subtle ways. It'll always be easy to label any alternative to the neo - liberal tyranny as "populist", "demagogue" or "corrupt" and therefore, to be subjected to US intervention.
The only solution i see is to publicly criticize all tyranies and to fight any violation of human rights wherever they be (and i'm not a moral relativist - people's have rights regardless of the culture around them!) but also to fight phoney "moral crusades", as they're done for one sole purpose - the finacial benefit of rich individuals.
Dir Yassin Homepage: http://www.angelfire.com/il/deiryassin/