ga('send', 'pageview');
John Passant

Site menu:

October 2012



RSS Oz House



Subscribe to us

Get new blog posts delivered to your inbox.


Site search


My interview Razor Sharp 18 February
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace on Razor Sharp on Tuesday 18 February. (0)

My interview Razor Sharp 11 February 2014
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace on Razor Sharp this morning. The Royal Commission, car industry and age of entitlement get a lot of the coverage. (0)

Razor Sharp 4 February 2014
Me on 4 February 2014 on Razor Sharp with Sharon Firebrace. (0)

Time for a House Un-Australian Activities Committee?
Tony Abbott thinks the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is Un-Australian. I am looking forward to his government setting up the House Un-Australian Activities Committee. (1)

Make Gina Rinehart work for her dole

Sick kids and paying upfront


Save Medicare

Demonstrate in defence of Medicare at Sydney Town Hall 1 pm Saturday 4 January (0)

Me on Razor Sharp this morning
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace this morning for Razor Sharp. It happens every Tuesday. (0)

I am not surprised
I think we are being unfair to this Abbott ‘no surprises’ Government. I am not surprised. (0)

Send Barnaby to Indonesia
It is a pity that Barnaby Joyce, a man of tact, diplomacy, nuance and subtlety, isn’t going to Indonesia to fix things up. I know I am disappointed that Barnaby is missing out on this great opportunity, and I am sure the Indonesians feel the same way. [Sarcasm alert.] (0)



Ilan Pappe: one democratic State for Palestinians and Jews

Pappe, reports Josh Kamil in Socialist Alternative, argues for a single democratic state in which both Jews and Palestinians may live as equal citizens, where the both can live free from injustice and oppression

It was truly a jaw-dropping exposé – from its beginning to its thunderous closure. Ilan Pappe, like a slightly hunched, greying rock star in a brown suede jacket and droopy jet-lagged eyes, had managed to fill one of Melbourne University’s largest lecture theatres to capacity.

Spectators, young and old, spilled into the isles and down the exit passages. Not until I had the chance to see Pappe in action was I so aware of the respect he commands as one of Israel’s “New Historians”. These researchers and academics form the bloody thorn in the side of the Zionist propaganda machine.

After 50 years gathering dust in Israel’s state archives, sensitive diplomatic documents have been released for scrutiny. These documents shed light on the history that Israelis would rather forget; a history whose very nature undermines the heroic myths of the struggle for Israel.

Pappe came not only to dispel the myths but also to realign the discussion. He presented a view that, until recent years, has been deemed either too radical or simply impossible: the view of a single democratic state in which both Jews and Palestinians may live as equal citizens, where the both can live free from injustice and oppression.

Today, Israel privileges its Jewish citizens over its Arab citizens, whether they are Bedouin communities in the country’s south, or Palestinians in the north. Beyond the state-sanctioned discrimination, Arabs have become the targets of countless racist attacks and denied access to work, are often imprisoned without reason, and are the regular victims of police harassment and brutality.

Yet this seems pale compared to the lot of their brothers and sisters living in what would become the Palestinian state. Israel occupies the bulk of the land that every recent peace agreement has sought to secure as the future Palestinian homeland. If the land is not directly under military occupation, barbed wire fences, checkpoints and concrete barriers enclose it. Littered between these enclaves, and growing like a cancer, is the array of strategically placed Jewish-only towns and cities. They are funded by both Jewish and Arab taxpayer shekels, and sit on land confiscated from the remaining Palestinians. In effect, as Pappe flatly declared at the opening of the lecture “not a single inch of Palestinian land has been liberated yet: Israel occupies both the land and the agenda of the people”.

But despite Israel’s ongoing policy, which ravages the prospects for separate Palestinian and Jewish states, there remains a chorus of supporters for such a solution. Big names like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, once the targets of Zionist hate, have fallen into line behind the so-called “peace process”. As Pappe explains, they’ve even gone as far as to condemn those who seek an alternative as undermining the struggle for Palestinian liberation.

However, the release of some of these formerly classified state documents in recent years led to a tidal wave of doubt about how innocent Zionist aims really were before and after 1967. The material has given historians like Pappe the material to explain what Palestinians always knew: Zionism sought a land without a people, and on whatever land it chose, they are not welcome.

Pappe referred back to the period before to Israel’s 1967 war to understand the origins of the language of a “two state solution” and whether it was ever relevant. Internal state documents from 1963 and 1964 show that Israel began to change its policy towards the Arab population already under its control. The rulers in the Arab communities were asked if they would “consider running the Palestinian towns in the West Bank and Gaza strip the same way as the Arab towns in Israel”. In 1948 Israel knew that it would have the capacity to occupy the West Bank. As Pappe explains, the then Prime Minister David Ben Gurion was in favour of acquiring the West Bank and Gaza as part of rebuilding “the ancient Jewish homeland”.

In the year immediately following the creation of Israel, a lobby emerged to push for the annexation of all of historic Palestine. This lobby was to exercise significant influence in Israeli politics for decades. A cabinet meeting with Yitzhak Rabin four days before the 1967 war discussed what gains could be made once the Arab armies were defeated. The outcome was a decision to occupy the Golan, West Bank, Gaza and the Sinai. Israel, and the Zionist movement generally, saw this as an historic opportunity to take all the land it wanted. Pappe summarises it as the “completion of the 1948 war”.

The assumption underlying the two state solution is that the 1948 partition left a non-expansionist Israel existing in limbo within the Arab world. But Israel was always expansionist. The broader strategy of 1967 – systematic ethnic cleansing – has still not changed, but the balance of power and the specific methods have.

After 1967 there was not one dramatic policy revision in the Israeli political elite. While the occupation continued, there was unanimous agreement that it shouldn’t end. However, Israeli politicians came to realise that they could not ethnically cleanse the West Bank and Gaza, as was done under the cover of Israel’s 1948 War of Independence.

Now the world media could expose ethnic cleansing as it happened, and beam it into the living room of every Western household. Israel’s leaders, concerned with the country’s international reputation, needed to reaffirm its position in the Middle East as a civilised and democratic state. They decided to keep the Palestinians either incarcerated in an open prison, or if they resist, punished with a maximum security prison. This is the difference between Ramallah and Gaza today. Pappe continued,

“The Israeli government played the charade of the peace process. They never accepted a new Palestinian state. The two state solution is an Israeli tactic and it is not realistic. The first Israeli tactic is to turn Palestinians into citizenless people who won’t revolt. The second method is to colonise the land and not allow a two state solution into feasibility. And all this came wrapped in a new ‘diplomatic language’.”

The Israeli government that agreed to take the West Bank and sign peace accords was composed of Communists, the Labour Party, left and right alike – and they were unanimous on the question of stealing of Arab land.

So much Palestinian land has been taken that the occupation must literally tear them out of their homes and replace them with fanatic Jewish settlers to complete the Zionist dream of 1948. Horrific scenes of this occurring in Hebron and East Jerusalem litter social media each day. And despite this coverage, both faces of American politics are tripping over each other to shower Israel with billions of dollars in military aid. This is because, regardless of Democrat or Republican in the US Congress, Israel serves the strategic interests of the West as a stable and pro-American state in the heart of the Arab world.

Professor Pappe was in Melbourne to promote his new book, The Bureaucracy of Evil.



Comment from Peter Hindrup
Time October 8, 2012 at 12:51 pm

I attended Professor Ilan Pappe’s address: ‘Israel is an Apartheid State’ in Sydney; Sunday 23 September. Brilliant!

What I have not heard addressed in any discussion regarding either the discredited two state solution or the more logical one democratic state is the question of compensation to all expelled Palestinians, or how the opening up to ‘Israel’ to the returning Palestinians will be addressed.

Nobody could possibly imagine that the returning Palestinians ought somehow squeeze into whatever cracks they can find while Israelis continue to occupy property that properly belongs to the Palestinians. It matters not whether they are what was existing Palestinian structures, or whether the villages were destroyed and the Israelis built over them, the land is still the property of the Palestinians.

Forget the ‘facts on the ground’ argument. A thousand years, more or less of Palestinian occupation never deterred the Israeli from driving the inhabitants out, or from murdering those who refused to leave. In light of this a mere 60 odd years of occupation of stolen land is a mere bagatelle.

Perhaps title to all property could be figuratively, put in a barrel, and a draw take place: 10 draws to the Palestinians, one to Israelis. Those being tipped out who damaged property could be detained in working gangs until all such damage was restored.

Israelis would be free to leave, but only with what they could carry, all Israeli assets to be frozen. Anyone attempting to evade these conditions, or anyone colluding with others in attempting to evade these conditions to be stripped of all assets and jailed.

Remaining Israeli Jews who cannot trace their ancestry in Palestine prior to 1860 ought pay a repartition tax — say ten percent of gross income — to go into a Palestinian compensation fund.

Logically all Palestinian place names would be restored, with perhaps a concession that the Israeli names be given a secondary placing. Eventually common usage would settle this issue, with I believe a mix becoming accepted.

Comment from gary
Time October 9, 2012 at 5:53 pm

“A thousand years, more or less of Palestinian occupation never deterred the Israeli from driving the inhabitants out, or from murdering those who refused to leave. In light of this a mere 60 odd years of occupation of stolen land is a mere bagatelle.’

What poppycock. Perhaps you should watch the history of Jerusalem on SBS TV (Friday, 8.30 pm).

First, palestine as we know it was conquored 18 times. There is no 1000 year history – 1000 years ago the Assyrians or the Mumlucks controlled that land, or was it the Greeks, Romans, Ottomans?

Do the 700,000 jews expelled from Arab countries in 1948-9 also have the same rights, and if so, cannot this be done at the same time? Will Iraq, Iran & Syria grant land and compensation to expelled Jews, and if not, why should Israel be the only country to this is. Wouldn’t that be … well racist, apartheid, anti-semitism or some form of discrimination if expelled Jews were not given the same rights as expelled Arabs?

Will Palestinians who cannot trace their history prior to 1860 be refused right of return. After all, more Arabs emigrated to Palestine 1900-1938 than Jews, so the Arab population has greater immigrant forebeards than the Jewish population.

Can the Jews also have the rights to their temples, houses, land, farms that were destroyed and built over by Muslim invaders too?

Comment from John
Time October 9, 2012 at 6:33 pm

Ilan Pappe or you? Hmmm..tough choice. And what about the answer – one democratic state? All your bluff and bullshit fades away when presented with that.

Comment from Gary
Time October 11, 2012 at 6:59 pm

True – but under your BDS, Ian Pappe would be banned from coming to Australia to talk.

The BDS clearly calls for a boycott of Israeli academics and university contacts. It doesn’t say a ban on only some with certain views (which woulld be discrimination) but for all Israeli academics.

So you would ban Pappe from Australia?

Comment from John
Time October 11, 2012 at 8:27 pm

Not true. The boycott is of institutions, not individuals. Here’s what the site says, if you don’t believe me. ‘In July 2004, the Campaign issued a statement of principles, or what became known as the PACBI Call, addressed to colleagues in the international community urging them to comprehensively and consistently boycott all Israeli academic and cultural institutions until Israel withdraws from all the lands occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem; removes all its colonies in those lands; agrees to United Nations resolutions relevant to the restitution of Palestinian refugees rights; and dismantles its system of apartheid. PACBI has consistently advocated a boycott of institutions, not individuals.’

Write a comment