Logo of the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in Durban, South Africa.

There is no doubt that the first Durban conference was an anti-Israeli platform: these were the days of murderous oppression in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), in which every day young Palestinians were killed by Israeli soldiers and Border Police officers, and the international media was full of horrific acts against a helpless civilian population. Together with the United States, Israel was accused of war crimes and for violating the UN General Assembly Resolution against Racism and the International Convention against Apartheid; moreover, South Africans know very well to identify a regime built on racial, ethnic or national discrimination, even if use of the concept of apartheid in the Israeli-Palestinian context is partial, there exist more than a few points of comparison between the former apartheid regime and current Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people in the OPT and within Israel.  

Indeed, the Durban Conference was not infected by anti-Semitism, and this accusation was a planned part of a cynical counter-attack by Israel and its allies throughout the world, in order to avoid providing a response to the serious accusations of racism. The head of the Jewish community in France at the time, Roger Cukierman, announced in an interview to the Israeli press that to confront the serious international criticism in light of the destruction and murder in the OPT (what was later dubbed “Operation Defensive Shield”), there existed a need to shift the debate, to move the accusation to the other side: what is easier than the accusation of anti-Semitism, half a century after the genocide of European Jewry by the Nazis?

Palestinians fleeing the fighting in 1948. Following the ceasefire, they the newly formed Israeli government disallowed them to return to their homes and properties.

“As a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I prefer one state over two states!” How many times do I hear such a statement in my public meetings abroad?!  And the more I hear it, the more upset I get: who cares what you prefer, and it also does not matter what I prefer. Did you ask the Palestinians what THEY want, what are THEY fighting for?

No doubt, the Palestinian people have the legitimate right to demand and to fight for national sovereignty on their historical homeland, i.e. the land of Palestine, from the sea to the river, a homeland from which they have been dispossessed by the Zionist colonial enterprise. And the role of progressive forces throughout the world is, indeed, to support them in this legitimate and extremely difficult struggle.

In 1988 the PLO, at its National Council in Algeria and under the leadership of Yasser Arafat, adopted its “historical compromise,” which was based on an equation composed of two elements: a solution to the conflict with Israel and the time factor. What is better, asked the President of the PLO, the full realization of the national rights of the Palestinian people in a century, or a small independent state now? The opinion of the President and, after a tough political discussion, of the great majority of the PNC, was to spare decades of suffering, death and destruction for the next Palestinian generations at the price of a painful and unjust compromise with Israel, in which the Palestinian people renounce implementation of their legitimate rights on more than three-quarters of their land.

Beirut in the aftermath of an Israeli bombing raid during the war in the summer of 2006.

While I risk being considered an Israeli Cassandra, I reiterate my claim that war is on the agenda in the Middle East. In other words, I take very seriously the statements of Ehud Olmert and company that a war is unavoidable, in order to remove the threat of  radical Islam and the risk of a full nuclearization of Iran. The fact that Ehud Barak—the most irresponsible adventurist in the Israeli ruling establishment—sits in the Israeli cabinet as Defence Minister, makes the eventuality of such a war even more probable. 

Foolhardy but not very brave, the Israeli PM doesn’t intend to strike Iran, which has powerful means of retaliation, but rather Syria, or, once again, Lebanon.

Easy targets?                                          

Easier than Iran, obviously, but the last war on Lebanese soil should have taught us that there are no longer easy and unilateral wars, and even a country as weak as Lebanon or a relatively small militia such as Hezbollah can hit back and provoke heavy damages as retaliation for any Israeli aggression.

Nevertheless, the Israeli neocons, supported—and sometimes even incited—by their American comrades, are pushing towards a new military aggression. Before leaving the White House, George W. Bush is eager to have a successful fourth try in his global preemptive war against (Muslim) terrorism: the war in Iraq is a fiasco, the Lebanese war in 2006 was a failure, and the attempts to smash Hamas power in the occupied territories haven’t succeeded.

Jewish residents of Tel Aviv on 29 November 1947, following the United Nations vote in favor of partitioning Palestine into two separate states, one Jewish and one Arab.

Throughout the world, Israel is celebrating the 60^th anniversary of its birth. These commemorations are based on a double omission that renders theses celebrations unacceptable from any ethical perspective. First, they avoid mentioning the terrible fact that the creation of the State of Israel was made possible and intrinsically linked to the dispossession of the indigenous Arab population and its transformation into a people of refugees. Speaking about the creation of Israel while ignoring the fate of the Arabs of Palestine is like speaking about the creation of the United States of America while ignoring the Native Americans, a historical falsification and an ethical failure. Second, this anniversary is not celebrated in a vacuum, but at a moment during which Israel is one of the states systematically violating the basic rules of international law, humanitarian law and human rights, as confirmed by the International Court of Justice. 

Neither its genesis nor its present behavior provides a good reason to celebrate the State of Israel or to make it the guest of honor of international book fairs, in Paris or in Turin. Israel is a guest of dis-honor, and as such justifies the calls for boycott that were made by Arab writers and others. To boycott Israel or not is not a principled decision but a tactical question, depending on one criterion only: how can one be the most efficient in denouncing Israel and isolating it in the international arena. Personally, I have twice changed my position concerning an eventual boycott of the Paris book fair. Originally I decided not to attend, stating though that I do not consider those making the opposite choice as being wrong. After having been used by fundamentalist supporters of the boycott in their accusations against progressive non-boycotters (like Amira Hass, Eyal Sivan, Yael Lerer and others) as collaborators (sic), I decided to change my mind and attend the Paris book fair.