TANYA REINHART VA TERRIBLEMENT NOUS MANQUER
(English)
Publié le 18-03-2007
http://www.europalestine.com/article.php3?id_article=2562
Chères amies, Chers amis,
Nous sommes bouleversés d’apprendre la mort soudaine de notre amie Tanya
Reinhart, hier à New York, d'un accident vasculaire
cérébral. Les mots nous manquent tant nous sommes
atterrés par la perte de notre amie, de cette grande dame, de cette
militante infatigable contre la politique du gouvernement israélien, de
cette femme chaleureuse qui n’a jamais cessé de dénoncer l’injustice et le
mensonge, au travers de ses articles, de ses livres, et de ses actes.
Il nous est particulièrement difficile de parler de Tanya au passé. Tanya,
qui nous avait fait le grand plaisir de venir inaugurer la librairie
Résistances à Paris le 7 décembre dernier, en y donnant une conférence
extraordinaire avec son compagnon, le grand poète Aharon Shabtai. Tanya,
qui a été de tous les combats contre la colonisation et l’occupation de la
Palestine, et qui a été l’une des analystes les plus lucides de la
politique criminelle du gouvernement de son pays.
Tanya Reinhart aurait pu se contenter d’être une brillante linguiste et de
parfaire sa carrière universitaire en Israël. Mais elle a fait le choix de
dénoncer, de résister aux pressions. Dans sa tribune bi-mensuelle dans le
quotidien israélien Yediot Ahoronot, comme dans ses livres, "Détruire la
Palestine" et "L’héritage de Sharon", elle a brossé un tableau sans
concession de la terrible situation créée par les dirigeants de son pays,
avec une faculté d’anticipation rare.
"Détruire la Palestine" (Editions La Fabrique) est une description
magistrale de l’ensemble des stratagèmes utilisés depuis toujours par les
dirigeants israéliens pour ne pas s’engager dans un véritable processus de
paix, et pour faire croire que la responsabilité en incombe aux
Palestiniens. Tanya Reinhart décortique notamment les 7 ans que durèrent
les "accords d’Oslo" et montre la distorsion entre ce qui fut présentée
comme "l’offre généreuse" de Ehoud Barak, et la réalité. C’est à dire à la
fois le resserrement de l’étau autour des Palestiniens dans le même temps
(entre 1993 et 2000), et les "propositions" totalement inacceptables des
Israéliens, car ne permettant aucune viabilité pour un Etat palestinien
qui se serait retrouvé morcelé, sans continuité territoriale, et privé de
Jérusalem Est.
Plus récemment, Tanya Reinhart fut la première à dénoncer la "poudre aux
yeux" que constituait l’annonce du "désengagement" de la Bande de Gaza par
Sharon, auquel elle n’a jamais cru. "Derrière l’écran de fumée du
’retrait’ de Gaza se profile le transfert des Palestiniens", écrivait-elle,
tandis que nos gouvernants saluaient le "grand homme de paix".
Tanya fut également l’une des rares opposantes israéliennes à soutenir le
boycott des institutions de son pays, notamment universitaires. "Nous
cesserons de redouter le boycott quand nous respecterons le droit
international", répondait-elle non seulement à l’establishment israélien,
mais aussi à cette "gauche" israélienne timorée, soi-disant pacifiste, qui
accepte l’impunité dont jouissent l’Etat d’Israël et l’ensemble de ses
institutions. Tanya Reinhart n’hésita pas à apporter son soutien à
l’université Paris 6, lors du vote par son conseil d’administration, en
2003, de la suspension de ses relations privilégiées avec les universités
israéliennes.
Lors de sa dernière conférence en France, le 7 décembre dernier à la
librairie Résistances, elle dénonça violemment l’embargo imposé au peuple
palestinien, expliquant que les pays européens, dont la France où nous
nous trouvions, n’avaient pas le droit de couper ainsi les vivres aux
Palestiniens. "Ce n’est pas un acte de générosité que l’Europe aurait la
faculté de poursuivre ou pas, expliquait-elle. C’est un choix qui a été
fait de se substituer aux obligations de l’occupant israélien auquel le
droit international impose de veiller au bien-être des populations
occupées. L’Europe a choisi de ne pas obliger Israël à respecter ses
obligations, et a préféré verser de l’argent aux Palestiniens. En cessant
de la faire, elle viole le droit international".
Fatiguée, Tanya s’était "excusée" de ne plus avoir la force de rester en
Israël où, indiquait-elle, la répression physique contre les vrais
opposants, était devenue de plus en plus brutale. Elle avait donc décidé
d’aller enseigner aux Etats-Unis et venait de s’installer à New York.
Cette femme merveilleuse, que nous avions eu la joie d’accueillir lors de
plusieurs de nos meetings et concerts, va terriblement nous manquer. Nous
exprimons toute notre douleur et notre sympathie à son compagnon, Aharon
Shabaï, un homme de grand coeur et de talent.
CAPJPO-EuroPalestine
http://www.europalestine.com
English text (translated by Robert Thompson)
We are going to miss Tanya Reinhart terribly badly.
We were staggered to learn of the sudden death of our friend Tanya Reinhart,
yesterday in New York (she had a stroke). Words fail us because we are so
stricken by the loss of our friend, of this great lady, of this
indefatigable militant against the policy of the Israeli government towards
the Palestinians, of this warm woman who never stopped denouncing injustice
and lies, through her articles, her books, and her actions.
Ii is particularly difficult for us to speak of Tanya in the past tense.
Tanya, who gave us so much pleasure when she came to the opening of the
Résistances book-shop in Paris on 7th December last, when she gave an
extraordinary address with her companion, the great poet Aharon Shabtai.
Tanya, who took part in all the battles against the colonization and the
occupation of Palestine, and who was one of the most lucid analysts of the
criminal policy of her government.
Tanya Reinhart could have been content to be a brilliant linguist and to
perfect her university career in Israel. But she made the choice of
denouncing and resisting pressures. In her weekly column in the Israeli
daily Yediot Ahoronot, as in her books, "Destroy Palestine" and
"Sharon’s
Heritage", she systematically painted a picture which made no concession to
the terrible situation created by the rulers of her country, with a rare
faculty for anticipating the future.
"Destroy Palestine" (in French "Détruire la Palestine" published by the
Editions La Fabrique) is a masterly description of all the stratagems always
used by the Israeli rulers to avoid engagement in a genuine peace process,
and to make believe that this was the sole fault of the Palestinians. Tanya
Reinhart especially examined in detail the 7 years during which the "Olso
agreement" lasted and showed the contrast between what was presented as
being the "generous offer" of Ehud Barak, and its reality. This was to show
how the vice was being closed around the Palestinians during the same period
(between 1993 and 2000), and the totally unacceptable "proposals" put
forward by the Israelis, since they allowed for no viable Palestinian state
which would instead find itself in pockets, without territorial continuity,
and deprived of East Jerusalem.
More recently, Tanya Reinhart was the first to denounce the "red herring" of
the announcement by Sharon of the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, in which
she never believed. "Behind the smokescreen of the ’withdrawal’ from Gaza
can be seen the transfer of the Palestinians", she wrote, while our rulers
praised the "great man of peace".
Tanya was also one of the rare Israeli opposition personalities to support
the boycott of her country’s institutions, especially the Universities. "We
shall stop having to worry about the boycott when we respect international
law", she replied not only to the Israeli establishment, but also to that
timid, supposedly pacifist, Israeli "left-wing" which accepted the impunity
from which the state of Israel and all its institutions benefited. Tanya
Reinhart did not hesitate to give her support to the Paris 6 University,
when its Administrative Council, in 2003, voted to suspend its special
relations with Israeli Universities.
During her last lecture in France, on 7th December last at the Résistances
book-shop, she violently denounced the embargo imposed on the Palestinian
people, explaining that the European countries, including France in which we
live, had no right to cut off food supplies from the Palestinians. "It was
not an act of generosity which Europe could either carry on or not", she
explained. "It was a choice which had been made to take on the obligations
imposed by international law on the Israeli occupier to see to the
well-being of the occupied populations. Europe chose not to oblige Israel to
respect its obligations, and preferred to pay money to the Palestinians.
When it put an end to this, it breached international law".
Tired out, Tanya "apologised" for not having the strength to remain in
Israel where, she let it be known, physical repression against genuine
opponents had become more and more brutal. She had therefore decided to go
to teach in the United States and had just settled in New York.
This marvellous woman, whom we had the joy of welcoming to several of our
meetings and concerts, is going to be terribly badly missed by us. We
express all our sadness and our sympathy to her companion, Aharon Shabaï, a
man with a great heart and talent.
We’ll organize an evening in her honour in Paris, at the Bookshop "Librairie
Résistances" on the 27th of March, from 7 pm.
CAPJPO-EuroPalestine
|
|
CounterPunch, October 2, 2006
http://www.counterpunch.org/hazan10022006.html
An Interview with Tanya Reinhart
The Roadmap to Nowhere
By ERIC HAZAN
Your new book, Roadmap to Nowhere, covers the history of the Israeli
occupation of Palestine in the last three years, a period dominated by
Ariel Sharon's leadership. You argue that during this period it became
evident that in Israel, decisions are taken by the military, rather than
the political echelons. Can you elaborate?
Israeli military and political systems have always been closely
intertwined, with generals moving from the army straight to the
government, but the army's political status was further solidified during
Sharon's ascendancy. Senior military officers brief the press (they
capture at least half of the news space in the Israeli media), and brief
and shape the views of foreign diplomats; they go abroad on diplomatic
missions, outline political plans for the government, and express their
political views on any occasion.
In contrast to the military stability, the Israeli political system is in
a gradual process of crumbling. In a World Bank report of April 2005,
Israel is found one of the most corrupt and least efficient in the Western
world, second only to Italy in the government corruption index, and lowest
in the index of political stability. Sharon personally was associated,
together with his sons, with severe bribery charges, that have never
reached the court. The new party that Sharon founded, Kadima, and which
now heads the government, with Olmert as Sharon's successor, is a
hierarchical agglomeration of individuals with no party institutions or
local branches. Its guidelines, published in November 22 2005, enable its
leader to bypass all standard democratic processes and appoint the list of
the party's candidates to the parliament without voting or approval of any
party body.
The Labor party has not been able to offer an alternative. In the last two
Israeli elections, Labor elected dovish candidates for prime ministry--Amram
Mitzna in 2003, and Amir Peretz in 2006. Both were initially received with
enormous enthusiasm, but were immediately silenced by their party and
campaign advisors and by self imposed censorship, aiming to situate
themselves "at the center of the political map". Soon, their program
became indistinguishable from that of Sharon. Peretz even declared that on
"foreign and security" matters he will do exactly as Sharon (but he will
also bring a social change). Thus these candidates helped convince the
Israeli voters that Sharon's way is the right way. In the last years,
there has never been a substantial left-wing opposition to the rule of
Sharon and the generals, since after the elections, Labor would always
join the government, providing the dovish image that the generals need for
international show.
With the collapse of the political system, the army remains the body that
shapes and executes Israel's policies. During the recent Israeli attack on
Lebanon (not covered in the book), it became common knowledge in Israel
that the military is leading the government, with Peretz, now Defense
minister, often appearing on tv looking like a puppet operated by the
generals surrounding him.
Sharon is widely viewed in Israeli and Western discourse as a leader who
has undergone a transformation from a philosophy of eternal war to
moderation and concession. This is not quite the picture that emerges from
your book.
One of the questions in the book is how it happened that Sharon, the most
brutal, cynical, racist and manipulative leader Israel has ever had, ended
his political career as a legendary peace hero. The answer, I argue, is
that Sharon has never changed. Rather, the birth of the Sharon myth
reflects the present omnipotence of the propaganda system in manufacturing
consciousness.
During his four years in office, Sharon stalled any chance of negotiations
with the Palestinians. In 2003 - the road map period -the Palestinians
accepted the plan and declared a cease fire, but while the Western world
was celebrating the new era of peace, the Israeli army, under Sharon,
intensified its policy of assassinations, maintained the daily harassment
of the occupied Palestinians, and eventually declared an all-out-war on
Hamas, killing all its first rank of military and political leaders.
Later, as the Western world was holding its breath again, in a year and a
half of waiting for the planned Gaza pullout, Sharon did everything
possible to fail the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, who was elected
in January 2005. Sharon declared that Abbas is not a suitable partner
(because he does not fight terror) and turned down all his offers of
renewed negotiations.
The daily reality of the Palestinians in the occupied territories was
never as grim as in the period of Sharon. In the West Bank, Sharon started
a massive project of ethnic cleansing in the areas bordering with Israel.
His wall project robs the land of the Palestinian villages in these areas,
imprisons whole towns, and leaves their residents with no means of
sustenance. If the project continues, many of the 400.000 Palestinians
affected by it will have to leave and seek their livelihood in the
outskirts of cities in the center of the West Bank, as happened already in
northern West Bank town of Qalqilia. The Israeli settlements were
evacuated from the Gaza Strip, but the Strip remains a big prison,
completely sealed from the outside world, nearing starvation and
terrorized from land, sea and air by the Israeli army.
Sharon's legacy, as it unfolds in the period covered in this book, is
eternal war, not just with the Palestinians, but with what the Israeli
army views as their potential network of support, be it Lebanon now, or
Iran and Syria tomorrow. At the same time, what Sharon's legacy has
brought to perfection is that war can be always marketed as the tireless
pursuit of peace. Sharon proved that Israel can imprison the Palestinians,
bombard them from the air, steal their land in the West Bank, stall any
chance for peace, and still be hailed by the Western world as the peaceful
side in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Did the Road Map plan of 2003, with which your book opens, offer any real
prospect for peace?
To answer this question, it is necessary first to refresh our memory
regarding what the conflict is about. From Israeli discourse one might get
the impression that it is about Israel's right to exist. On this view, the
Palestinians are trying to undermine the mere existence of the state of
Israel with the demand to allow their refugees to return, and they are
trying to achieve that with terror. It seems that it has been forgotten
that in practice this is a simple and classical conflict over Palestinian
land and resources (water) that Israel has been occupying since 1967. The
Road Map document as well manifests complete absence of any territorial
dimension. In the final, third phase, of the plan the occupation should
end. But the plan's document doesn't put any demands on Israel at this
third phase. Most Israelis understand that there is no way to end the
occupation and the conflict without the Israeli army leaving the
territories and the dismantlement of settlements. But these basic concepts
are not even hinted at in the document, which only mentions freezing
settlements expansion and dismantling new outposts, already at the first
phase of the plan.
Nevertheless, the road map plan is substantial and important because of
what it determines should happen in its first phase. This phase repeats
the cease-fire plan proposed by then CIA head George Tenet, in June 2001.
The essence of this phase is that to restore calm, a cease-fire should be
declared, to which both sides should have to contribute. The Palestinians
should cease all terror and armed activity, and Israel should pull its
forces back to the positions they held before the Palestinian uprising, in
September 2000. This is a substantial demand of Israel, because in
September 2000, there were large areas of the West Bank that were under
Palestinian autonomous control. Implementing the demand to restore the
conditions that existed then, should mean also lifting the many road
blocks and army posts that Israel has placed in these areas since that
time.
There is no doubt that fulfillment of this demand would contribute greatly
to establishing some calm, and creating, at least, conditions for
negotiations. But, as I mentioned, Israel refused to accept even that
much, and stalled the road map in the same way that it had stalled the
Tenet plan before.
A central event that you cover in the book is the Gaza pullout and the
evacuation of the Gaza settlements. But your analysis of what went on
behind the scenes of the pullout is quite different than the way it was
perceived even in critical circles.
A prevailing view in critical circles is that Sharon decided to evacuate
the Gaza settlements because maintaining them was too costly, and he
preferred to focus efforts on his central goal of keeping the West Bank
and expanding its settlements. There is no doubt that Sharon openly used
the disengagement plan to expand and strengthen Israel's grip of the West
Bank. But I argue that there is no evidence that he decided to give Gaza
up because keeping it proved too costly.
Of course, the occupation of Gaza has always been costly, and even from
the perspective of the most committed Israeli expansionists, Israel does
not need this piece of land, one of the most densely populated in the
world, and lacking any natural resources. The problem is that one cannot
let Gaza free, if one wants to keep the West Bank. A third of the occupied
Palestinians live in the Gaza strip. If they are given freedom, they would
become the center of Palestinian struggle for liberation, with free access
to the Western and Arab world. To control the West Bank, Israel had to
stick to Gaza. From this perspective, the previous model of occupation was
the optimal choice. The Strip was controlled from the inside by the army,
and the settlements provided the support system for the army, and the
moral justification for the soldiers' brutal job of occupation. It makes
their presence there a mission of protecting the homeland. Control from
the outside may be cheaper, but in the long run, it has no guarantee of
success.
Furthermore, since the Oslo years, the settlements were conceived both
locally and internationally as a tragic problem that, despite Israel's
good intentions to end the occupation, cannot be solved. This useful myth
was broken with the evacuation of the Gaza settlements, which showed how
easy it is, in fact, to evacuate settlements, and how big the support is
in Israeli society for doing that.
I argue that Sharon did not evacuate the Gaza settlements out of his own
will, but rather, that he was forced to do so. Sharon cooked up his
disengagement plan as a means to gain time, at the peak of international
pressure that followed Israel's sabotaging of the road map and its
construction of the West Bank wall. Even then, there are some indications
that he was looking for ways to sneak out of this commitment, as he did
with all his commitments before. But this time he was forced to actually
carry it out by the Bush administration. Though it was kept fully behind
the scenes, the pressure was quite massive, including military sanctions.
The official pretext for the sanctions was Israel's arm sale to China, but
in previous occasions, the crisis was over as soon as Israel agreed to
cancel the deal. This time, the sanctions were unprecedented, and lasted
until the signing of the crossing agreement in November 2005.
But currently there is no sign of any U.S. pressure on Israel?
Yes, U.S. pressure ended right with the evacuation of the settlements, and
Israel was given a free hand to violate all the agreements signed
ceremonially in November 2005, under the supervision of Condoleezza Rice.
Since then, the U.S. has given full backing to Israel, as it turned the
Gaza strip into an open-air prison, and began to starve and bombard the
besieged Palestinians. We should note that at no stage, did Sharon take a
commitment to actually give up the full Israeli control of the Gaza strip.
From its outset, the disengagement plan, as published in Israeli media in
April 16, 2004 determined that Israel would maintain full military control
of the strip from the outside, as before the pullout.
From the U.S. perspective, its goal was achieved with the evacuation of
the settlements. As long as international calm is maintained, Palestinian
suffering plays no role in US calculations. To maintain the Iraq
occupation, while preparing its next steps in the "war on terror",
it was
important for the U.S. to appease the world's sentiment that something
should be done to end the Israeli occupation. This goal was achieved for
the time being. The Western world, or at least its leaders and media, were
euphoric with the new turn in the Middle East. The dominant world-view in
the Western media is still that Israel has done its part, and now it is
the Palestinians' turn to show their peaceful intentions. With the victory
of Hamas in the Palestinian elections, this view has even strengthened.
Israel's eternal claim that it has no partner for peace is now having a
renewed impact. Those who have accepted for years Israel's claim that
Arafat was not a partner, and then that Abbas was not, are certainly
willing to hear also that Hamas is not.
Since the end of 2005, the Bush administration has seemed determined to
move its planned "Iranian campaign" into high gear, so Israel's stocks
have been rising again. In its concerted campaign to prevent international
recognition of the new Hamas administration, and to impose tough sanctions
on the Palestinians, Israel has been exploiting the Islamophobic
atmosphere that resurfaced in the US. Israeli security officials flooded
the West with reports on the dangers of Hamas' future ties with Iran and
Syria, painting a disturbing picture of a global fundamentalist Islamic
threat. The conditions were ripe for such propaganda. On February 3, the
Pentagon released its 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), where it lays
out its vision for what it describes as a long war: "Currently, Iraq and
Afghanistan are crucial battlegrounds, but the struggle extends far beyond
their borders. With its allies and partners, the United States must be
prepared to wage this war in many locations simultaneously and for some
years to come".
With the drums of the long war banging, Israel's line on Hamas has been
well received. The US administration urged European and Arab countries to
freeze direct aid to the Palestinian Authority, and on February 15, the
U.S. congress started moves in the same direction. Israeli security
officials had been involved for quite some time before in urging the U.S.
administration to increase its operations in Iran, including covert acts
of regime change - efforts that were yielding their fruits in 2006. As was
disclosed by Seymour Hersh and others, during Israel's recent war on
Lebanon, the U.S. administration has viewed this as preparation, and a
"test" for the option of an attack on Iran.
What has been the role of the Pro-Israel lobby in shaping U.S. policies?
Interestingly, in 2005, during the whole period of U.S. heavy pressure on
Israel, AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and other
lobby groups were completely silent. As I detail in the book, this
compliance was helped by the investigation, and later the indictment of
two AIPAC officials - its policy director, Steven Rosen, and Iran
specialist Keith Weissman. It transpired that the powerful Pro-Israel
lobby could be silenced easily, if the White House so desired. This
confirms what Chomsky and others have been arguing for years - that the
Pro-Israel lobbies are powerful only as long as their pressure is in line
with U.S. policies.
But the renewed wave of Islamophobia has also bolstered AIPAC's newfound
self-confidence. Its annual policy conference in March 2006 was held in an
atmosphere of neocon celebration, with star appearance of several of the
most hard-line administration officials, including Vice President Dick
Cheney and Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton. The Jewish
newspaper Forward noted at the time that AIPAC "appears to be out of step
with the American Jewish community on Iraq... 70% of American Jews oppose
the Iraq war, according to a poll commission by the American Jewish
Committee at the end of 2005." But regardless of the opinions of the
Jewish community they are supposed to represent, the leaders of the
Pro-Israel lobby "are optimistic that, paradoxically, the drop in Bush's
approval ratings in American public opinion will force him to adopt the
hard line advocated by AIPAC and Israel".
Despite the grim events described in the book, the overall feeling that
comes through is that of hope. Why?
I argue that the reason that the U.S. exerted even limited pressure on
Israel, for the first time in recent history, was because at that moment
in history it was no longer possible to ignore world discontent over its
policy of blind support of Israel. This shows that persistent struggle can
have an effect, and can lead governments to act. Such struggle begins with
the Palestinian people, who have withstood years of brutal oppression, and
who, through their spirit of zumud -sticking to their land - and daily
endurance, organizing and resistance, have managed to keep the Palestinian
cause alive, something that not all oppressed nations have managed to do.
It continues with international struggle--solidarity movements that send
their people to the occupied territories and stand in vigils at home,
professors signing boycott petitions, subjecting themselves to daily
harassment, a few courageous journalists that insist on covering the
truth, against the pressure of acquiescent media and pro-Israel lobbies.
Often this struggle for justice seems futile. Nevertheless, it has
penetrated global consciousness. It is this collective consciousness that
eventually forced the U.S. to pressure Israel into some, albeit limited,
concessions. The Palestinian cause can be silenced for a while, as is
happening now, but it will resurface.
You note that since 2003, a new form of struggle has been formed along the
route of the West Bank wall?
Largely unreported, there is a growing non-violent popular struggle aimed
at stopping, or at least slowing down, Israel's massive work of
destruction that, once completed, will disconnect 400,000 Palestinians
from their land and means of sustenance. In the Palestinian Nakba
(catastrophe) of 1948, 730,000 Palestinians were driven out of their
villages. But rather than waiting for the history books to tell the story
of the second Palestinian Nakba, the Palestinians along the wall are
struggling to save their land. Armed only with the marvelous spirit of
people who have held to their land one generation after the other, they
stand in front of one of the most brutal military machines of the world.
An amazing development of the last three years is that Israelis have
joined the Palestinian struggle. For the first time in the history of the
occupation, we are witnessing joint Israeli-Palestinian struggle.
For almost two years now, the center of struggle has been the village
Bil'in, in the center of the West Bank, whose lands are being transferred
to the Israeli settlement of upper Modi'in. Every Friday there is a
central demonstration that gathers the whole village as well as Israelis
and internationals. The army has used brutal force to try to stop the
protest, but the demonstrations continue. Along with Israel of the army
and the settlers, a new Israel-Palestine is forming along the route of the
wall. In the last chapter of the book I survey in detail the development
of this joint struggle -- the history of the people, which emerged along the
history of the powerful. |
