Transcripts For LINKTV Democracy Now 20140901

Today, an hour with henry head of the former Synagogue Council of america. You may be surprised about what says about the council about the situation in gaza. Ask those saying this is necessary for israel to survive. That it is based on the slaughter of innocents on a scale that we are watching these days on television that is really a profound, profound crisis and should be a profound crisis in the thinking of all of us who were committed to the establishment of the state into it success. For the hour. An all of that and more coming up. Welcome to democracy now , democracynow. Org, the war and peace report. Im amy goodman. Today, a special with Henry Siegman, long described as one of the nations big three jewish organizations along with the American Jewish committee and the Antidefamation League. He was born in 1930 and frank for, germany. Three years later, the nazis came to powerful stop after fleeing nazi troops in belgium, his family then eventually moved to the United States will stop his father was a leader of the European Zionist Movement that pushed for the creation of a jewish state. In new york, siegman studied the religion and was ordained as an orthodox rabbi by yeshiva torah vodaas, later becoming head of the Synagogue Council of america. After his time at the American Jewish congress, siegman became a senior fellow at the council on foreign relations. He now serves as president of the u. S. Middle east project. Over the years, Henry Siegman has become a vocal critic of israels policies in the occupied territories and has urged israel to engage with hamas. He has called the palestinian struggle for a state the mirror image of the Zionist Movement that led to the founding of israel in 1948. In july, he wrote a piece for politico headlined israel provoked this war. Shaikh nermeen and i sat down with him. I started by asking him if he could characterize the situation in gaza at the moment. Yes, it is disastrous. It is disastrous both in political terms, which is to say the situation cannot conceivably , certainly in the short run lead to any positive results, to , an improvement in the lives of either israelis or palestinians, and of course its disastrous in humanitarian terms, the kind of slaughter thats taking place there. When one thinks that this is what is necessary for israel to survive, that the zionist dream is based on the slaughter of repeated slaughter of innocents on a scale that were watching these days on television, that is really a profound, profound crisis and should be a profound crisisin the thinking of all of us who were committed to the establishment of the state and to its success. It leads one virtually to a whole rethinking of this historical phenomenon. What do you believe, mr. Siegman, what do you believe the objectives of israel are in this present assault on gaza . Well, they have several objectives, although im not sure that each of them is specifically responsible for the carnage were seeing now. It has what seems on the surface a justifiable objective of ending these attacks, the rockets that come from gaza and are aimed its hard to say theyre aimed at civilians, because they never seem to land anywhere that causes serious damage, but they could and would have, if not for luck. So, on the face of it, israel has a right to do what its doing now, and, of course, its been affirmed by even president of the United States, repeatedly, that no country would agree to live with that kind of a threat repeatedly hanging over it. But what he doesnt add, and what perverts this principle, undermines the principle, is that no country and no people would live the way gazans have been made to live. And consequently, this moral equation, which puts israel on top as the victim that has to act to prevent its situation from continuing that way, and the palestinians in gaza, or hamas, the organization responsible for gaza, who are the attackers, our media rarely ever points out that these are people who have a right to live a decent, normal life, too. And they, too, must think, what can we do to put an end to this . And this is why in the politico article that you mentioned, i pointed out the question of the morality of israels action depends, in the first instance, on the question couldnt israel be doing something in preventing this disaster that is playing out now, in terms of the destruction of human lives . Couldnt they have done something that didnt require that cost . And the answer is sure, that they could have ended the occupation, with results whatever the risks are, they certainly arent greater than the price being paid now for israels effort to continue and sustain permanently their relationship to the palestinians. When you say that israel could end the violence by ending the occupation, israel says it does not occupy gaza, that it left years ago. I wanted to play a clip for you from msnbc. It was last week, and the host, joy reid, was interviewing the israeli spokesperson, mark regev. Listen, if youll allow me to, i want to take issue with one important word you said. You said israel is the occupying authority. Youre forgetting israel pulled out of the gaza strip. We took down all the settlements, and the settlers who didnt want to leave, we forced them to leave. We pulled back to the 1967 international frontier. There is no Israeli Occupation of the gaza strip. We havent been there for some eight years. Henry siegman, can you respond . Ok, yeah. That is of course utter nonsense, and for several reasons. First of all, gaza is controlled completely, like the west bank, because it is totally surrounded by israel. Israel could not be imposing the kind of chokehold it has on gaza if it were not surrounding, if its military were not surrounding gaza, and not just on the territory, but also on the air, on the sea. No one there can make a move without coming into contact with the israeli idf, you know, outside this imprisoned area where gazans live. So, theres no one i have encountered who is involved with International Law whos ever suggested to me that in International Law gaza is not considered occupied. So thats sheer nonsense. But theres another point triggered by your question to me, and this is the propaganda machine, and these official spokespeople will always tell you, take a look at what kind of people these are. Here we turned over gaza to them. And youd think they would invest their energies in building up the area, making it a model government and model economy. Instead, theyre working on rockets. The implication here is that they, in effect, offered palestinians a mini state, and they didnt take advantage of it, so the issue isnt really palestinian statehood. That is the purpose of this kind of critique. And i have always asked myself, and this has a great deal to do with my own changing views about the policies of governments, not about the jewish state qua jewish state, but of the policies pursued by Israeli Governments and supported you know, they say israel is a model democracy in the middle east, so you must assume or the public has to assume some responsibility for what the government does, because they put governments in place. So, the question i ask myself what if the situation were reversed . You know, there is a talmudic saying in pirkei avot, the ethics of the fathers al tadin et chavercha ad shetagiah lemekomo dont judge your neighbor until you can imagine yourself in his place. So, my first question when i deal with any issue related to the israelipalestinian issue what if we were in their place . What if the situation were reversed, and the Jewish Population were locked into, were told, here, you have less than 2 of palestine, so now behave. No more resistance. And let us deal with the rest . Is there any jew who would have said this is a reasonable proposition, that we cease our resistance, we cease our effort to establish a jewish state, at least on onehalf of palestine, which is authorized by the u. N. . Nobody would agree to that. They would say this is absurd. So the expectations that palestinians and im speaking now about the resistance as a concept im not talking about rockets, whether they were justified or not. Theyre not. I think that sending rockets that are going to kill civilians is a crime. But for palestinians to try, in any way they can, to end this state of affair and to expect of them to end their struggle and just focus on less than 2 to build a country is absurd. That is part of thats propaganda, but its not a discussion of either politics or morality. One of the things thats repeated most often is, the problem with the palestinian unity government is, of course, that hamas is now part of it, and hamas is considered a terrorist organization by israel and also by the United States. Id just like to read you a short quote from an article that you wrote in 2009 in the london review of books. You said, hamas is no more a Terror Organisation than the Zionist Movement was during its struggle for a jewish homeland. In the late 1930s and 1940s, parties within the Zionist Movement resorted to terrorist activities for strategic reasons. Could you elaborate on that and what you see as the parallels between the two . Well, im glad i said that. In fact, i repeated it in a letter to the New York Times the other day, a week or two ago. The fact is that israel had, prestate in its prestate stage, several terrorist groups that did exactly what hamas does today. I dont mean they sent rockets, but they killed innocent people. And they did that in an even more targeted way than these rockets do. Benny morris published a book that is considered the bible on that particular period, the war of the israeli historian. Sorry . The israeli historian, benny morris. The israeli historian, right, then in the book righteous victims, in which he said i recall, when i read it, i was shocked in which heparticularly in his most recently updated book, which was based on some new information that the israels defense the idf finally had to open up and publish, that israeli generals received direct instructions from bengurion during the war of independence to kill civilians, or line them up against the wall and shoot them, in order to help to encourage the exodus, that in fact resulted, of 700,000 palestinians, who were driven out of their left their homes, and their towns and villages were destroyed. This was terror, even within not just the terrorist groups, the prestate terrorists, but this is within the military, the israeli military, that fought the war of independence. And in this recent book, that has received so much public attention by ari you know, my promised land. Shavit. Ari shavit. He describes several such incidents, too. And incidentally, one of the people who according to benny morris, one of the people who received these orders and they were oral orders, but he, in his book, describes why he believes that these orders were given, were given to none other than rabin, who was not a general then, but heand that he executed these orders. Meaning . Meaning . What did it mean that he executed these orders, rabin . That he executed civilians. And the rationale given for this when shavit, some years ago, had an interview with benny morris and said to him, my god, you are saying that there was deliberate ethnic cleansing here . And morris said, yes, there was. And he says, and you justify it . And he said, yes, because otherwise there would not have been a state. And shavit did not follow up. And that was one of my turning points myself, when i saw that. He would not follow up and say, well, if that is a justification, the struggle for statehood, why cant palestinians do that . Whats wrong with hamas . Why are they demonized if they do what we did . I want to go to the israeli Prime Minister earlier this month, Benjamin Netanyahu, vowing to punish those responsible for the killing of mohammed abu khdeir, the Palestinian Teen who wasas burnd alive following the murders of three israeli teens. But in doing so, netanyahu drew a distinction between israel and its neighbors in how it deals with, quote, murderers. I know that in our society, the society of israel, there is no place for such murderers. And thats the difference between us and our neighbors. They consider murderers to be heroes. They name public squares after them. We dont. We condemn them, and we put them on trial, and well put them in prison. That was israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talking about the difference. Henry siegman, can you respond . Well, the only difference i can think of is that in israel they made the heads of the two major prestate terrorist groups Prime Ministers. So this distinction hes drawing is simply false its not true. The heads of the two terrorist groups, which incidentally, again, going back to benny morris, in his book, righteous victims, he writes, in this prestate account, that the targeting of civilians was started by the jewish terrorist groups, and the arab and the arab groups followed. Youre talking about irgun and the stern gang. Yes, yes. And as you know, both the head of the irgun and both the head of the stern gang im talking about begin and shamir became Prime Ministers of the state of israel. And contrary to netanyahu, public highways and streets are named after them. Henry siegman, former head of the American Jewish congress. Well continue our conversation with him in a minute. [music break] this is democracy now , democracynow. Org, the war and peace report, as we continue our conversation with Henry Siegman, president of the u. S. Middle east project, former head of the American Jewish congress. Id like to turn, Henry Siegman, to khaled meshaal, the leader of hamas, who was speaking to charlie rose of pbs. He said hamas was willing to coexist with jews but said it who was speaking to charlie rose of pbs. He said hamas was willing to coexist with jews but said it would not live, quote, with a state of occupiers. [translated] i am ready to coexist with the jews, with the christians, and with the arabs and nonarabs, and with those who agree with my ideas and also disagree with them, however, i do not coexist with the occupiers, with the settlers and those who put a siege on us. Its one thing to say you want to coexist with the jews. Its another thing you want to coexist with the state of israel. Do you want to coexist with the state of israel . Do you want to represent do you want to recognize israel as a jewish state . [translated] no. I said i do not want to live with a state of occupiers. That was khaled meshaal, the leader of hamas, speaking to charlie rose. Henry siegman, could you respond to that, and specifically the claim made by israelis repeatedly that they cant negotiate with a Political Organization that refuses the state of israels right to exist in its present form . Yes. It so happens that in both International Custom and International Law, political parties, like hamas, are not required or even ever asked to recognize states, whether they recognize a state or not. The question is whether the government of which they are a part and that makes policy and executes policy, whether that government is prepared to recognize other states. And this is true in the case of israel, as well, the government of israel, any government. I, incidentally, discussed this with meshaal, not once, but several times, face to face, and asked him whether he would be part of a government that recognizes the state of israel, and he says and he said, yes, provided they had a proviso he said, provided that the palestinian public approves that policy. And he repeated to me the fact that he said, youre absolutely right. He says, people ask us will we recognize the state of israel, and will we affirm that its legitimately a jewish state. He said, no, we wont do that. But we have never said that we will not serve in a government that has public support for that position, that we will not serve in such a government. But a more important point to be made here and this is why these distinctions are so dishonest the state of israel does not recognize a palestinian state, which is to say there are parties in netanyahus government very important parties, not marginal parties including his own, the likud, that to this day has an official platform that does not recognize the right of palestinians to have a state anywhere in palestine. And, of course, you have Naftali Bennetts party, the habayit hayehudi, which says this openly, that there will never be a state, a palestinian state, anywhere in palestine. Why hasnt our government or anyone said, like hamas, if you have parties like that in your government, you are not a peace partner, and you are a terrorist group, if in fact you use violence to implement your policy, as hamas does . So the hypocrisy in the discussion that is taking place publicly is just mindboggling. Henry siegman, youre the head, the former head, of one of the leading jewish organizations, the American Jewish congress. Two of them, also of the Synagogue Council of america. So, these are major establishment jewish organizations. You said you went to see khaled meshaal, the head of hamas, not once, but several times to meet with him. The u. S. Government calls hamas a terrorist organization. They will not communicate with them. They communicate with them through other parties, through other countries, to talk to them. Talk about your decision to meet with khaled meshaal, where you met with him, and the significance of your conversations. Well, first of all, it should be noted that the u. S. Has no such policy of not meeting with terrorist organizations. It has a policy of not meeting with hamas. Thats quite different. Were very happy to meet with the taliban and to negotiate with them. And they cut off hands and heads of people, and they kill girls who go to school. And that didnt prevent the United States from having negotiations with the taliban, so thats nonsense that we dont talk to terrorist organizations. We talk to enemies if we want to cease the slaughter, and were happy to do so and to try to reach an agreement that puts an end to it. And why hamas should be the exception, again, i find dishonest. And the only reason that we do that is in response to the pressures from aipac and, of course, israels position. Henry sigman, as you are for most, theiar than argument made by israel and supporters of israel is that what might be construed as a disproportionate response by israel to hamas has to do with the historical experience of the persecution of the jews and, of course, the holocaust. So how do you respond to those kinds of claims . Well, i dont accept that at all, because the lesson from the persecutions would seem to me and certainly if you follow jewish tradition, the lesson of those persecutions, we have always said, until the state of israel came into being, is that you do not treat people in that kind of an inhumane and cruel way. And the hope always was that israel would be a model democracy, but not just a democracy, but a state that would practice jewish values, in terms of its humanitarian approach to these issues, its pursuit of justice and so on. I have always felt that, for me, the holocaust experience, which was important to me, since i lived two years under nazi occupation, most of it running from place to place and in hiding i always thought that the important lesson of the holocaust is not that there is evil, that there are evil people in this world who could do the most unimaginable, unimaginably cruel things. That was not the great lesson of the holocaust. The great lesson of the holocaust is that decent, cultured people, people we would otherwise consider good people, can allow such evil to prevail, that the german public these were not monsters, but it was ok with them that the nazi machine did what it did. Now i draw no comparisons between the nazi machine and israeli policy. And what i resent most deeply is when people say, how dare you invoke the nazi experience . The point isnt, you know, what exactly they did, but the point is the evidence that they gave that decent people can watch evil and do nothing about it. That is the most important lesson of the holocaust, not the hitlers and not the ss, but the public that allowed this to happen. And my deep disappointment is that the israeli public, precisely because israel is a democracy and cannot say, were not responsible what our leaders do, that the public puts these people back into office again and again. You mentioned your experience as a holocaust survivor. Could you just go into it a little more deeply . You were born in 1930 in germany. And talk about the rise of the nazis and how your family escaped. Well, i dont consider myself a holocaust survivor, in the sense that i was not in a concentration camp. But i lived under nazi occupation. I was born in 1930, but the nazis came to power in i think in 1933. And shortly thereafter, we lived in germany at the time. My parents lived in germany, in frankfurt. And they left. My father decided to give up a very successful business and to move to belgium then, and on the assumption that belgium was safe, that we would be escaping the nazis. But in 1940, the germans invaded belgium, and they invaded france. That was in early 1940, i believe. And so, its a long story, but for the next from that point on until february 1942, when we arrived, finally arrived in the United States. And how my father pulled that off is a miracle to this day, i dont fully understand, because there were six children that he had to bring with him, and my mother, of course. We ran from place to place. First we were at dunkirk, where the classic evacuation, memorable evacuation took place, and the french and the british soldiers withdrew to across the channel. We happened to find ourselves there at the time. And then we were sent back by the when the nazi troops finally caught up with us in dunkirk, they sent us back to antwerp. And then my father had connections with the police chief, because of his business interests in antwerp before the nazis came. He was tipped off the morning that we were supposed to be the gestapo was supposed to come to our house to take all of us away. And so we just picked up, and we managed to get to paris. And from paris, we crossed we were smuggled across the border into occupied vichy france, and we were there for about a year, again without proper papers and in hiding. Then we tried to cross into spain. And we did, but when we arrived at the spanish border, they finally closed the border and sent us back into france. So, then we managed to get a boat to take us from marseille to north africa, where we were interned briefly in a camp in north africa. And then the what i believe was the last ship, a portuguese, a neutral ship, taking refugees to the United States stopped in north africa. We boarded that ship. And we were on the high seas for two months, because the nazi subs were already busy sinking the ships that they encountered. So we had to go all the way around to avoid various nazi submarineinfested areas. So after two months on the high seas, we arrived in new york, where we were sent to ellis island, which was full of bundists, who had been german bundists, who were arrested and were being sent back to germany. But as we walked into ellis island into that hallway, something i will never forget, were in america at last and those bundists were greeting each other in the hallway, heil hitler so the heil hitlers that we were trying to escape in europe was the first thing we encountered as we landed on ellis island. And how did you end up becoming head of one of the countrys or, as you said, countrys two major jewish organizations . And what was your position on zionism after world war ii . Well, my father was one of the leaders of european zionism. He was the head of the mizrachi in the religious Zionist Movement, not just in belgium, but in western europe. And the leaders, the heads, the founders of the mizrachi mayor of berlin himself, gold, many others were guests in our house in antwerp. And they used to take me on their knees and teach me hebrew songs from israel. So, i had i was raised on mothers milk, and i was an ardent as a kid even, an ardent zionist. I recall on the ship coming over, we were coming to america, and i was writing poetry and songs i was 10 years old, 11 years old about the blue sky of palestine. In those days we referred to it as palestina, palestine. And so, into adulthood, not until well after the 1967 war, when i came across and i got to know rabin and others, and i came across a discussion in which i was told by israelis, by the israeli people who i was talking to, government, senior government people, that they had an initiative from sadat about peace and withdrawal and so on. And rabin said, but clearly, the israeli public is not prepared for that now. And that hit me like a hammer. I always had this notion drilled into me that if only the arabs were to reach out and be willing to live in peace with israel, that would be the time of the messiah. And the messiah came, and the israeli leadership said, no, Public Opinion is not ready for that. And i wrote a piece then in moment magazine if you recall, it was published by leonard fein and he made it a cover story, and the title was, for the sake of zion, i will not remain silent. And that triggered my reexamination of things i had been told and what was going on on the ground. Prior to that, your sense had always been that if the arabs reached out, there would be two states palestine and israel. I had no doubt about that. I mean, that was, you know, just a given, that we are sharing. The resolution said, you know, two states. The resolution, which israel the partition resolution, which israel invoked in its declaration of independence, planted, rooted its legitimacy in that it cited the palestinian the partition plan. But when someone these days says, but theres a partition plan that said that the rest of it, that was not assigned to israel, is the legitimate patrimony of the Palestinian People, the answer given is, ah, yeah, but they voted they would not accept it, and the partition plan was never officially adopted. Well, why are you quoting it then in your declaration of independence, if you consider it to be null and void and not anyway. And the response of or the slogan, the idea that was put forward so much in the founding of the state of israel palestine is a land without people for a people without land . Well, that was the common understanding and referred to repeatedly in ari shavits book and in others, that the Zionist Movement, at its very birth, was founded on an untruth, on a myth, that palestine was a country without a people. And as he says, obviously and he recognizes in his book that it was a lie. And therefore, from the very beginning, zionism didnt confront this profound moral dilemma that lay at its very heart. How do you deal with that reality . And as a consequence of that, one of the ways in which they dealt with it was to see to the expulsion of 700,000 people from their cities, from their towns and villages, and the destruction of all of them, which, to his credit, ari shavit writes about very painfully and honestly. OfHenry Siegman, former head the American Jewish congress will stop we will continue our conversation with him in a minute. [music break] this is democracy now , democracynow. Org, the war and peace report, i am amy goodman, as we continue our conversation with Henry Siegman, president of the u. S. Middle east project, former head of the American Jewish congress. Nermeen shaikh and i sat down with him on july 27. I asked him about his claim that israel and others are firing on gaza. My response is that they wouldnt be firing those rockets if you werent out if you my response is that they my response is that they sent out to break up the new unity government. Why would they do that . Why would they want to do that . To do that,d want for years i have been suggesting and arguing that they would want to do that because they are intent on preventing the development of the palestinian state. Lightly, they won all of it. They want all of palestine. Anythat openly and without withouts without any reservations when he was in when he was not in government. He wrote about it, published a book about it, his opposition to a palestinian state, that israel could not allow that. The difference between the time incidentallyd he opposed not just palestinian statehood. He opposed peace agreements with egypt. And when he came into the office as Prime Minister, he understood that it was not a smart thing to say that israels policy is to make the occupation permanently. So the only difference between his position in the past and his position now is that he pretends he would really like to see a two state solution, which as you know is the affirmation he made bars socalled speech several years ago. And some naive people said you know, redemption is at hand, went to his own people he went and made clear, as i just read recently, i did not know that, that it is on record that his of course he did not mean it. He will attach conditions that will make it impossible. But that was his tactic. This tactic was to say we are all in favorite but, but if only we had a palestinian partner. In fact they have had a palestinian partner that is willing and able they set up institutions that the world bank has said are more effective than most states that are members of the u. N. Today. And that, of course, made no difference. And he continued to say we do not have a partner because you have nearly 2 million palestinians in gaza who are not represented, so the unity government became a threat to to beactic of pretending in support of a palestinian state. In a response to the piece that you wrote for politico that was headlined israel provoked this war, the Antidefamation League writes hamas has a charter which they live up to every day calling for israels destruction. Hamas has used the last two years of relative quiet to build up an arsenal of rockets who sold purpose is to attack israel. Hamas has built a huge network of tunnels leading into israel with the purpose of murdering large numbers of israelis and seizing hostages. Can you respond . What i would point out to my former friend, a foxman of the is israels to charter or at least the policies of this government in any previous government, which is to prevent the emergence of a palestinian state, and they have built up their army and their armaments to implement that policy, and the difference and the state of israel is that the state of israel is actually doing it. And are actually implementing it. They are actually preventing a palestinian state, which does not exist. And millions of palestinians who live in this subservient position without rights and without security, without hope and without a future. Thats not the state ofthe state of israel is a very successful state, and happily jews live there with a thriving economy and with an army whose main purpose is preventing that palestinian state from coming into being. Thats their mandate. But sadly and shockingly, they can stand by, even though International Law says if youre occupying people from outside of your country, you have a responsibility to protect them. I mean, the responsibility to protect is the people you are occupying. The soldiers who are there, ostensibly to implement that mandate, will watch settler violence when it occurs when they attack palestinians in the occupied territories, and they wont do a thing to prevent it. They wont intervene to protect the people they are supposed to protect, and they will tell you, thats not our job. Our job is to protect the jews. On the question of the support, the successive u. S. Administrations supporting israel, id like to again quote from something you said in a 2002 New York Times interview with chris hedges. You said, the support for israel, in the United States, fills a spiritual vacuum. If you do not support the government of israel then your jewishness, not your political judgment, is in question. So could you explain what you mean by that and what the implications of that have been, in terms of u. S. Governments supporting Israeli Government policy . Well, what i meant by that, and that was an interview quite a while ago 2002, yes. I see, ok, which is not all that long ago, for me anyway. I meant by that something quite simple, that for Many American jews and, i suspect, for most American Jews israel has become the content of their jewish religious identification. It has very little other content. I rarely have been at a Shabbat Service where a rabbi gives a sermon where israel isnt a subject of the sermon. And typically, they are the sermons are not in the spirit of an isaiah, you know, who says, my god, is this what god wants from you . Your hands are bloody theyre filled with blood. But he doesnt want your fast. He doesnt want he despises the sacrifices and your prayers. What he wants is to feed, to feed the hungry, to pursue justice and so on. But thats not what you hear from rabbis in the synagogues in this country. So, what i meant by that is that theres much more to judaism and to the meaning that you give to your jewish identity than support for the likes of netanyahu. And Henry Siegman, what do you think the Obama Administration has done since his First Administration . And what do you think he ought to be doing differently, on the question of israelpalestine and, in particular, his response to this most recent military assault on gaza . Look, i have written about this for years now. Its not all that complicated. It is quite clear that, left to its own devices, if israel if the United States says to the palestinians, hey, you guys have got to talk not to us youve got to talk to the palestinians, to the israelis, and you have to come to an understanding thats how peace is made, but we cant interfere. You know, we cannot tell israel what to do left to their own devices, there will never be a palestinian state. And the question is i have very serious doubts that we have not gone beyond the point where a palestinian state is possible. The purpose of the Settlement Movement was to make it impossible. And i believe they have succeeded that project has achieved its goal. The jewish settlements. The jewish settlers have achieved the irreversibility of the Settlement Movement, in terms of the vast infrastructure that has been put in place. So, even if there were a leftist government, socalled leftist government, that came to power, it would not be able to do it, because of the upheaval that would be necessary to create such a state. There is only one thing as far as im concerned, there are only two things that could happen that could still, perhaps, produce a palestinian state. The first one is for the because the United States remains absolutely essential in terms of israels security, to its continued success and survival. If at some point the United States were to say, you have now reached a point we have been your biggest supporters. We have been with you through thick and thin. And we have based we have treated you you know, a lot of people say, criticizing the u. S. And the international community, that we have double standards, that we expect things of israel that we dont expect of the rest of the world. We do have double standards, but it works the other way around we grant israel privileges and tolerate behavior that we would not in other allies. We may say theres nothing we can do to change that, but we dont give them billions of dollars. And we dont go to the u. N. , at the security council, to veto when the internationalefforts by the United Nations to prevent that bad behavior. So we have double standards, but it works the other way. But if the United States were to say to israel, its our common values that underlie this very special relationship we have with you and these privileges that we have extended to you, but this cant go on. We cant do that when those values are being undermined. The values what you are doing today contradicts american values. We are a democratic country, and we cannot be seen as aiding and abetting this oppression and permanent disenfranchisement of an entire people. So, youre on your own. The issue is not america sending planes and missiles to bomb tel aviv as punishment the issue is america removing itself from being a collaborator in the policies and a facilitator, making it easy and providing the tools for israel to do that. So, if at some point the United States were to say what is said in hebrew, ad kan, you know, so far, but no further. We cant this is not what we can do. You want to do it . Youre on your own, that would change that could still change the situation, because the one thing israelis do not want to do is have the country live in a world where america is not there to have their back. And the other possibility, which i have also written about, is for palestinians to say, ok, you won. You didnt want us to have a state. We see that youve won. You have all of it. So our struggle is no longer to push the border to to maintain a 1967 border, where nobody is going to come to their help, because borderlines International Opinion doesnt mobilize around those issues. But this is a struggle against what looks and smells like apartheid we want citizenship, we want full rights in all of palestine and make that the struggle. If palestinians were to undertake that kind of a struggle in a credible way, where the israeli public would see that they really mean it and they are going to fight for that in a nonviolent way, not by sending rockets, for citizenship, i am convinced and ive seen no polls that contradict that belief that they would say to their government, wait a minute, that is unacceptable, in fact, for us, and we cannot allow that. We dont want a majority arab population here. Ive talked to palestinian leadership and urged them to move in that direction. There is now a growing Movement Among younger palestinians in that direction. And that, i hope, may yet happen. Now, it has to be a serious movement. It cant just be a trick to get another state, but only if it is serious, where they are ready to accept citizenship and fight for it in a single state of all of palestine, is it possible for the israeli public to say, this we cannot want, too, and we have to have a government that will accept the two states. Henry siegman, i wanted to ask you about Media Coverage of the conflict right now in gaza. In a comment to close the cbs show face the nation on sunday, the host, bob schieffer, suggested hamas forces israel to kill palestinian children. In the middle east, the Palestinian People find themselves in the grip of a terrorist group that is embarked on a strategy to get its own children killed in order to build sympathy for its cause a strategy that might actually be working, at least in some quarters. Last week i found a quote of many years ago by golda meir, one of israels early leaders, which might have been said yesterday we can forgive the arabs for killing our children, she said, but we can never forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. That was the host, the journalist bob schieffer, on face the nation. You knew Prime Minister golda meir. Yes, i did. I wasnt a friend of hers, but i knew her, and i heard her when she made that statement. And i thought then, and think now, that it is an embarrassingly hypocritical statement. This statement was made by a woman who also said palestinians . There are no palestinians i am a palestinian. If you dont want to kill palestinians, if thats what pains you so much, you dont have to kill them. You can give them their rights, and you can end the occupation. And to put the blame for the occupation and for the killing of innocents that we are seeing in gaza now on the palestinians why . Because they want a state of their own . They want what jews wanted and achieved . I find that, to put it mildly, less than admirable. There is something deeply hypocritical about that original statement and about repeating it on the air over here as a great moral insight. President ofman, the middle east project, former head of the American Jewish congress and the Synagogue Council of america. He recently wrote a piece for political headlined israel provoked this war it is up president obama to stop it. You can go to our website to get a full copy of the interview. Special thanks to. Ur website is democracynow. Org i am amy goodman. Thank you so much for joining us. Democracy now is looking for feedback from people who appreciate the closed captioniupwqcxe