With the eyes of the world focused on the Russian/Ukrainian crisis; ISIL in Syria and Iraq; and the spread of Ebola in West Africa, the Israeli government decided to seize 1000 acres of land near Bethlehem, in the Occupied Palestinian territories. With no great fanfare, the Netanyahu government decided to take the risk of antagonizing not only the Palestinian Authority but also Israel’s allies in Europe and North America in what was a flagrant disregard of international law and precedent.
Before going too far it is important to remind the reader that the seizure of land by an occupier is outlawed by post-World War II international law. It is on that basis, for instance, that the Russian government was chastised and later sanctioned for taking control of the Crimea, despite the fact that a case could be argued that it was historically Russian territory. Nevertheless, Crimea was internationally understood to be part of the sovereign territory of Ukraine and, in the absence of a legitimate, internationally supervised popular plebiscite, the annexation of the Crimea was illegal.
Since the June 1967 war between Israel and its Arab neighbors, the Israeli government has undertaken a slow but steady expansion of settlements and the corresponding expulsion of Palestinians from their land, in the territory that the Israeli government came to occupy. The seizure of the land near Bethlehem happens to have been the most expansive in over thirty years.
The response of the USA to this land-grab has been anything but vitriolic. Though the land-grab has been criticized, quite predictably little has been done, at least in part due to the overwhelming sentiment in the Congress in favor of Israel doing anything that it wishes to do regardless of the legal and/or human consequences and costs to the Palestinians. The Obama administration has failed to take a principled stand against the Netanyahu government on its settlement policy—and certainly its war of aggression against Gaza—either due to its conscious support for the actions or its fear of crossing the Zionist lobby. In either case, the Israeli political establishment is quite comfortable that it can get away with ‘murder’ since the supportive USA will block any other international actors who wish to intervene.
“Shane”
The Israeli land seizure and the muted US response is not only a matter of the relative quiet of the US government. There was, simply put, little to no outrage from any significant part of the US political and media establishment. While the seizure was reported in the media, commentators did nothing approaching the near hysteria that one witnesses in connection with the Russian/Ukrainian crisis. By way of example, the Washington Post’s Anne Applebaum, in addressing the Ukrainian crisis, suggested that Ukraine and Eastern Europe needed to prepare for TOTAL WAR with Russia. Leaving aside the lunacy of such an approach in the nuclear age, there has been nothing approaching such indignation in connection with this blatant act of aggression by the Israeli government.
In order to better understand the relative silence in the USA it is not enough to focus on the Zionist lobby, with groups such as AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), that have an admittedly significant role in US politics. One of the dangers of an overemphasis on the Zionist lobby is that it can play into hands of those who articulate the anti-Semitic nightmare of alleged Jewish control of the USA. The reality is quite different and speaks to a strategic symbiosis between the US and Israeli political establishments. But it also speaks to something that resonates at the popular level: a common heritage of settlerism.
Both the USA and Israel are states that arose through settler colonialism, and at that, a settler colonialism of a particular type. Neither the settlers of the 13 North American colonies—which later became the USA—nor the Zionist settlers of Palestine—which later became the largest chunk of historic Palestine—had no interest in reaching any accommodation with the native populations. Their attitude was one of seeking the removal, by any means necessary, of the native populations. As opposed to the European invasion of Latin America, there was no interest in intermarriage or interbreeding with the native populations. There was no desire or a perceived need in either English North America (and later the USA) or with the Zionist settlement and later colonization of Palestine, in the creation of a stratum of ‘mixed race’ peoples.
Associated with a process of native removal was a common myth, and herein lies the imagery of Shane. The 1953 film with Alan Ladd about a retired gunfighter in the Rocky Mountains region of the USA remains compelling and cinema-graphically-speaking, quite beautiful to watch. Yet there are a cast of characters who are noticeably missing from this film: Native Americans/First Nations.
Shane revolves around contradictions between farmers and cattle herders. All of the characters are white and there is not even a mention of Native Americans, despite the fact that this land had been inhabited by various Native American tribes/nations dating back thousands of years. There is no explanation given for the absence of Native Americans. Rather it is simply taken for granted by the film-makers and the viewers that the Native Americans were either never there or that they are simply not there. They are, simply put, not relevant.
Shane epitomizes the myth surrounding the growth and expansion of the USA. The suggestion was/is that the land was there for the taking and that, at best, the Native Americans were an inconvenient element. This same sort of myth exists in Zionist and now Israeli story-telling. The famous aphorism that pre-1918 Palestine was allegedly a land without people waiting for a people without land is the equivalent of the imagery connected with Shane. The land was waiting there for the settler, allegedly granted by a deity, a point repeatedly used in justification of settler expansion in both North America and with the Zionist colonization of Palestine.
Settler blindness
The common European-originated settler colonial heritage helps us to understand that the silence in the face of Israeli aggression is neither accidental nor the result of some sort of maniacal Jewish conspiracy. There is an important sense of identity that exists within large parts of white America—and, truth be told in some other parts of the USA as a whole—with the Israeli project of expansion. The expansion resonates, both consciously and unconsciously, with the experience of the people of the USA given the creation of the United States as a white settler-based republic. While it is certainly the case that the Zionist lobby plays on Islamophobia, racism against the Arabs, etc., that would not work at the mass level were it not connected to something deeper.
The settler mythology places the center of experience and reality within the context of the settler. The experience of the native population, whether in North American or Palestine, is irrelevant. It is not only that the native population is an irritant, from the standpoint of the settler, but the native population stands in the way of settler-defined progress. The native “sounds” different than the settler; dresses differently; has a less familiar religion and culture; and, in general, has little with which the settler believes that they share in common.
Looking at Palestine from this side of the Atlantic, the Israeli expansion seems to parallel the US experience with the idea of nation-building and progress. A largely European population is supposedly trying to ‘civilize’ a region of uncertainty and terror. Presented and understood that way, the silence in the USA is as understandable as it is hideous. As such, it cannot be confronted in the absence of challenging both the racial construction of the Israeli project as well as the construction of the project known as the United States of America. To put it another way, race is as important in the constitution of Israel, and understanding its ambitions, as is race in the emergence of the United States. To destroy settler mythology we must tackle race.
All of this also helps us understand that the characterization of Israel (and its occupation) as a form of apartheid is neither euphemistic nor inaccurate. Rather, it links the Israeli experience of settlerism not only with that of the USA, but also with another critically important settler state: pre-1994 South Africa. This historic and strategic assessment has contributed to the successful rise, over the last several years, of what has come to be known as the Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions Movement (BDS) as a global means to challenge the Israeli settler regime. Regardless of intent, the BDS movement has helped to open discussion of questions such as these that have been largely swept aside.
As we have found in the USA, challenging the foundations of settlerism are among the most difficult of tasks facing progressives. It is a source of profound discomfort for settlers and those who are the descendants of settlers, which can be demonstrated in efforts to not only mythologize US history but to prohibit an open and honest discussion of the realities of the US experience. The Israelis call this “de-legitimation.” We should understand what it really is: “truth telling.”
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is the host of The Global African on Telesur-English and is a racial justice, labor and global justice activist and writer. Follow him on Facebook and at www.billfletcherjr.com.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate