Several days into Israel's military operation in Gaza, The Real News Network speaks to Phyllis Bennis about the conflict. After giving a brief background on the events that led to the invasion of the Gaza Strip, Phyllis explains the various ways in which the United States facilitates Israel's activities. According to Phyllis, it is the unquestioning military and political support from Washington that makes Israel's actions possible. BioPhyllis Bennis is a Senior Analyst at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC. She is the author of Before and After: US Foreign Policy and the September 11 Crisis , Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power. and Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer. Comments from Registered Members | (Register or log in to make your comment.) | wehl3318 2009-01-10
"Wehl3318 If those in power use religion as a means of influencing the people, that a tool- not the cause. Important-you are right." AZPatty. Even if we don't agree on the wording, I think its important for everyone to recognize the truth behind it. | AZPatty 2009-01-09
if you don't recognize that Hammas thrives on religion for its power and the Israelis thrive on both fundamentalist Christians and Jewish peoples for their power you are not addressing the actual root of the problem. Wehl3318
If those in power use religion as a means of influencing the people, that a tool- not the cause.
Important-you are right. | wehl3318 2009-01-09
The religious or cultural struggle may be an artificial one, but it is the one that holds the biggest influence over the people involved. Many of us may not see it as a religious struggle, but if you don't recognize that Hammas thrives on religion for its power and the Israelis thrive on both fundamentalist Christians and Jewish peoples for their power you are not addressing the actual root of the problem. | Noé 2009-01-08
Go back and back in history over this conflict and previous violence has always justified new violence. Is a never ending cycle that nurtures itself. In History this conflicts usually end in subjection unless powers tend to balance: The Arab culture against Israel supported by the West. Then we have THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS. But it is an artificial construction. Jewish, Arab and Christian religion/civilization have fundamental ideological coincidences, but those are not accountable. We prefer dominance of one to another instead of creation from exercising pluralism. So far we believe in power instead of humanism. Palestine should be the territory where tolerance and a new civilization will born.
I hope some day we will change the course of history as it is the result of human will and not the determinant force that guides our actions.
Mexico City | AZPatty 2009-01-08
This is not religion, this is control- and with it POWER! There is nothing religious about this | JanT 2009-01-07
wehl3318: religion, really? | wehl3318 2009-01-07
Think about everything involved here: chosen people, homeland, jihad, occupation, Jehovah, Allah, democracy, hamas, holocaust, genocide, terrorists, lies. This conlfict has religious tones to many non Jewish and non Palestinians alike. No one ever wants to acknowledge that. Sometimes its obvious that some posts are influenced more by a religious view than a rational one and in some posts its obvious the poster believes religion has nothing to do with this conflict. What happens when there's a proxy war between two religions? What should the solution look like? | ANZAC68 2009-01-07
The more Americans that see TRNN and UNDERSTAND their hand in this conflict (and others like it) around the world the less they will cry and whinge when US soldiers and civilians are targeted for killing by terrorists originally inspired by just this type of event in their young lives.
We also have to keep in mind now that Obama’s team, ready for takeover in 2 weeks, is shaping up to be the most pro-Israel the office has ever has been and so don't expect it to do anything substantial about Israel and thus, the cycle will continue.
| cds48 2009-01-06
Shel, I don't think anyone would disagree that if rockets were being fired into our country from Mexico, we would do the same exact thing. The problem with the Israeli attacks is that the Israelis cut off the water and food supply into the territory long before going in, have bombarded schools, hospitals, and mosques, and seem to have no regard for the safety of the Palestinian civilians. Even if their military doesn't mean to, the situation is now looking more like genocide as time goes on. | shel_tr 2009-01-06
BTW: ALL governments make war plans, far in advance of needing them. To do otherwise would be irresponsible in the extreme. In this case, the plan was only implemented after Israel had repeatedly warned Hummus, and after Hummus had resisted impassioned pleas from its own Arab brethren to end its incitement. This is a non-issue, a Bennis specialty. Ditto for the Arms Export Control Act. Israel IS acting in self-defense (those rockets aren't being launched at Sderot, Ashkelon, Ashdod, etc., by themselves!!). She's wondering why the Act isn't being used to end Israel's actions. Keep wondering Phyllis! | shel_tr 2009-01-06
Once again, Bennis is selective in her presentation of data. How about we go back, over the last 8 years, the course of which has witnessed over 10,000 rockets into Israel? And let's go back further, to the Six Day War. From that time, until the Second Intifadah, Palestinians were allowed in to Israel. In fact, many Pal's relied on their jobs in Israel. Israel only prohibited Gazans entry once Gazans had amply demonstrated that they were an unceasing security risk. If Bennis wants to base the future on the past, then no progress will ever be made -- there is too much historical evidence, on both sides, that can be used to justify violence. The violence will only end once both sides accept the legitimacy of the other. Here's a simple place to start: Education systems that promote understanding. | tony_atkins 2009-01-06
excellent work the "Real News" team - i have not heard anything like this from for eg. the BBC.
in this matter they have forgotten the historical context - and sadly they do it (forget context) on a daily basis. - that is why you the "Real News" team are so important to us all. - many thanks and keep up the good work.
tony - nottingham uk. | AnHonestActivist 2009-01-06
When I watch this unfold, I can't help but wonder what the blowback effects will be – not only for the Israelis, but for millions of American citizens as well. I can't help but think: How many of these young Palestinian children — those innocent children currently watching in horror as their friends and families are being slaughtered around them — will one day join the ranks of the terrorists organizations to kill more Western people? Looks like a hopeless, never-ending cycle of bloodshed to me.
"Thank you" Israel for exercising restraint and diplomacy. And most of all, "thank you" U.S. Govt. for being so impartial in our affairs with foreign countries! | DJ2008 2009-01-06
heartofsword1980 , fat chance. As Bennis rightly reveals, Israel *started planning for this latest incursion weeks ago* before any rockets were fired from Gaza. These are systematic efforts by Tel Aviv to eventually appropriate that land. Plus, you don't cut off food and water to those people unless you are purposefully BAITING THEM into conflict. *Any* arguments on behalf of Israel in this latest conflict are moot. | heartofsword1980 2009-01-06
TO AMS. The point here is the suffering of the Palestinians. Your arguement is invalid. When Egypt and Israel were fighting over Gaza in 1967 and the Palestinians were caught in the middle of the fighting. What does that have to do with todays situation of the invasion by Israel? Have Israel been just and granted statehood to the Palestinians since 1967 when Egypt was defeated? Have the Palestinians suffering alleviated since then? Thus it seens to me the war of 1967 just continued with the Palestinians as Israels new enemy (well continued enemy since Israel's creation on Palestinian lands in 1948 which is also on the timeline of events). The only solution for peace here is a two state solution with the Palestinians have true soveriegnty over its lands and Israel completelt uninvolved uninvolved in its affairs | JanT 2009-01-06
Hi AMS
Could you post some links to the information you are talking about here. Also: your post over-ran - please continue it.
Thanks | AMS 2009-01-06
Unfortunately I do not share AZPatty's enthusiasm with this piece, nor do I share Phyllis Bennis's analysis of the Hamas-Israel war. Let me start by saying that I oppose the Israeli incursion of Gaza, but Phyllis Bennis is, unfortunately, intellectually dishonest. She claims that the main question is when do you start history and she points to the 1967 occupation of Gaza by Israel as the beginning of history. This is misleading twice: First, she makes it seem as if Israel decided one day out of the blue to occupy Gaza in 1967. That is of course not the case, the 1967 war has a history as well and there are some very interesting books published of late about it that are worth reading and I'd be glad to recommend them to her or any other interested party. Second, why start in 1967? Why not in 1948 when Egypt occupied Gaza and refused to grant Palestinian independence? The occupation of 1967 took place as a result of a war with Egypt, not with the Palestinians. So from an intellectual | AZPatty 2009-01-06
This woman is genious- e-mail this to everyone- she explains this so great. I love my country- but this sickens me. My tax dollars support this.People don't hear this because propaganda has blinded them. Even the most liberal news programs leave out certain inconvienient truth. Donate to ANERA, the Red Cross or some other relief org.- Is there any other way to support these people in our country? You will be called an anti-semite, and worse. Probably if you wrote your congressman or Pres, you woild get put on a terrorist list. Supporting terrorists. Yeah, with my tax dollers- I guess I am! My heart aches. |
TranscriptHistorical amnesia and Gaza
JESSE FREESTON (VOICEOVER), TRNN: As the Israeli military continues to push deeper into the Gaza Strip, The Real News spoke to Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies to get her take on the events.
PHYLLIS BENNIS, INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES: The key question is where we start, because when you decide to start the clock determines how you define the crisis. If you start the clock on the day that a rocket from Gaza, whether it was Hamas or someone else, hit something in Sderot, then everything Israel is doing is a reasonable response to that reality, to rockets. If you take a step back, you could begin with one week before the military strikes began, when the six-month-old ceasefire had begun to fray somewhat on both sides. And Israel responded by cutting off all entry and exit to the Gaza Strip—no food, no electrical fuel, no nothing. And people began eating bread that was made from animal food ground into flour 'cause there was no more wheat, and no trucks with anything of the humanitarian necessities—no medicine, no nothing—could get into Gaza. You could go back six months and look at when the Israeli military, the Ministry of Defense, began planning for this attack, just as they were negotiating the ceasefire, according to the Israeli paper Haaretz. That was the beginning of the planning for this attack. It was not because the ceasefire didn't work. They were planning this attack even as the ceasefire was being implemented. But ultimately you could go back and back, and you need to go back to 1967, when Israel occupied the Gaza Strip. And what you have is military occupation. The fact that in 2005 Sharon pulled out the settlers and the soldiers from the territory of Gaza did not end the occupation. It was a good move if it had been the beginning of a real end to occupation. But instead Israel maintained control of the borders, of the airspace, of the seas surrounding Gaza, of the port. Everything remained under Israeli control. So the occupation continued despite the fact that the settlers had been pulled out and soldiers were no longer permanently on the ground—they would enter, they would kill people, and they would leave. It's that context and it's that time line that we need to start with. So the question of where do we start is exactly the most important question that is not being asked.
FREESTON: The stated goal of Israel's military operation is to end Hamas's ability to launch rockets into southern Israel. Are there any examples where similar operations with a similar goal have been successful?
BENNIS: I don't think so. I think the idea that you can bomb your way to peace really flies in the face of reality. It's what the US is trying to do in Afghanistan, and what are we seeing? We're seeing that the Taliban is gaining more support. Now, Hamas is not the Taliban. Hamas was elected by a majority of not only Gazan but of the West Bank Palestinians as well. But I think that the parallel is that bombing doesn't turn people against those who are the relatively powerless governing structures; they turn people against those who were bombing. In this case, it turns people against the Israelis and it turns people against the United States, because every time someone in Gaza dares to put their head out the window and look to the skies, what do they see? It's F-16 fighter bombers, it's Apache helicopters, it's TOW missiles, all of them made in the US, provided by US tax dollars, uncritical grants of military aid to the tune of almost $3 billion a year. And that's what people see. So the antagonism will not be towards Hamas; the antagonism will be and is towards Israel and the United States, who's making the Israeli violations of international law possible.
FREESTON: Now, US law states that countries like Israel who are receiving US military aid can only use that aid for self-defense within their own borders. Is that correct?
BENNIS: That's right. The Arms Export Control Act is very clear on the limitations on how another country uses arms and military equipment that's provided by the United States. The problem is somebody has to enforce it; somebody in Congress has to say we should cut our $3 billion a year in military aid to Israel because they're violating it; someone in the administration has to say we need the Justice Department to confirm that this is indeed a violation of the Arms Export Control Act. But what we hear from Washington is silence. And as long as there's silence, the fact that Israel is violating US law as well as international law means very little. The laws are only pieces of paper. They are tools. And if we don't use them, if we don't pick them up and make them our instruments, they're worth nothing.
FREESTON: Is it conceivable that Israel could pull off this kind of operation without US support?
BENNIS: There is no question that the Israeli military attack could not have happened without US support, both military and diplomatic. The direct support, the military support, is that the US provides military grants of almost $3 billion a year to Israel, of which 75 percent is spent on US-produced military hardware—weapons, planes, bombers, bombs, etcetera. Twenty-five percent of the US' money, all of which comes from our taxes, is used for Israel to invest in their own weapons production facility. But this is very directly involved. Between 2001 and 2006, for instance, Washington provided Israel with $200 million dollars' worth of spare parts just for the F-16 fleet that has been involved in this recent set of bombings in Gaza. The bunker buster bombs that are able to penetrate deeply into the ground—partly because they include depleted uranium that gives them extra weight—are provided from a number of US corporations. They're paid for by US tax money. Companies like Raytheon, companies that make the TOW and Hellfire missiles, all of them are involved. This is a direct level of complicity. Indirectly, you have the US protection of Israel at the United Nations. The fact that Israel knows that the US will ensure that they are not held accountable in any serious way, in the Security Council or any other agency with any teeth in the UN (the US can't prevent resolutions from being passed in the General Assembly, but they can try to prevent them from being implemented, and they can prevent them from being passed in the Security Council), that gives Israel a kind of protection that no other country enjoys. So that's a kind of indirect complicity. But there is no doubt that the US government, through its payments, through its military support, through its economic and political and diplomatic support, is absolutely complicit in these war crimes.
DISCLAIMER:
Please note that TRNN transcripts are typed from a recording of the program; The Real News Network cannot guarantee their complete accuracy. | |
 
You must log in as a registered user to save articles, or to view articles you have saved. Not a registered user yet? Register Here  
|
