From jad@ckuxb.att.com Ukn Jan 29 09:02:03 1993 Received: from att-out.att.com by css.itd.umich.edu (5.67/2.2) id AA06533; Fri, 29 Jan 93 09:02:00 -0500 Message-Id: <9301291402.AA06533@css.itd.umich.edu> To: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 08:56:16 EST From: jad@ckuxb.att.com Status: RO X-Status: Article 19844 of alt.conspiracy: Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa Subject: Part 7, NOAM CHOMSKY: The New World Order Message-ID: <1993Jan28.183331.29217@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Followup-To: alt.conspiracy Keywords: NOAM CHOMSKY: The New World Order Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU Organization: UVA. FREE Public Access UNIX! Lines: 152 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (continuation) NOAM CHOMSKY: It's U.S. turf. Nobody is allowed in. So no international conference. Two: All international efforts to advance the peace process have at least a rhetorical commitment, whether anybody believes it or not. But they have some rhetoric about self-determination for the Palestinians. And that's unacceptable to the United States, not because the U.S. has anything in particular against the Palestinians, (basically, they don't exist) but because that would entail Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, and it's been U.S. policy that they should essentially maintain continued control over those territories. Therefore, for those two reasons, the U.S. has always blocked the peace process. Now, turning to Madrid, you'll notice that it overcomes these two defects. It's completely unilateral. Nobody else is allowed in. Actually, to be more precise, Gorbachev was invited in, but that's because he is the completely powerless leader of a non-existent state, and therefore, he could provide a certain propaganda cover that people could talk about in the international conference. But anyone who had even met the minimal condition of existence would not be allowed in. Secondly, you'll notice again that there was nothing for the Palestinians. In fact, that's built into the very structure of the conference. They are part of a joint Palestinian-Jordanian delegation, which is the traditional U.S. policy that there is no independent Palestinian nationalism, hence, no issue for them to talk about. And the outcome of both that meeting and any aftermath will be determined by U.S. policy. So, going back to that: What is U.S. policy? Well, here you can find out, actually. There, the U.S. Government has been kind enough to inform us. There's the public record. You can't find it in the media, as far as I'm aware, but it's there. You can pull out the documents. Some of it is even in the media occasionally. The U.S. position was made very clear in the fall of 1989 by James Baker with what was then called "the Baker Plan". The Baker Plan then had to do with negotiations between Jordan, Israel and Egypt, with some Palestinians, whom we like, allowed in. Baker presented five points, and the five points were that .... you can read them in the State Department bulletin, but one point was directed at the Palestinians. It said that any Palestinians who are permitted in by their overseers, the United States and Israel, will be permitted to discuss one topic; namely, implementation of the so-called Shamir Plan. In public statements, at the same time, Baker made it clear and explicit that, as he put it, the only plan under consideration is the Shamir Plan. There is no other initiative on the table. So if we want to find out what U.S. policy is, we turn to the Shamir Plan which is, in fact, the Shamir-Peres Plan -- the coalition plan of the Labor-Likud Government (two major parties in Israel) -- which had been put forth in May and was now endorsed. The Shamir-Peres Plan (actually, the Shamir-Peres-Baker Plan) has three basic principles. Principle One says (I'm quoting it): "There can be no additional Palestinian state," meaning there already is a Palestinian state: Jordan; and if Palestinians, Jordanians and the rest of the world don't agree, that just shows they're anti-Semites or ignorant Arabs, or something like that. So there's no issue of Palestinian self-determination. There already is a Palestinian state. That's Jordan; and there cannot be an additional one. There can be no change in the status of the Occupied Territories (they don't call it "Occupied" Territories, but "territories", meaning the Gaza Strip and the West Bank) except in accordance with the basic guidelines of the Government of Israel which bar any form of Palestinian self- determination. Point Number Three says: "no PLO", meaning that Palestinians can't pick their own representatives, even to sign a capitulation. Point Four says: there will be what are called "free elections", run under Israeli military control (and if you've ever looked at a television set, you know what that means), with most of the Palestinian national leadership rotting away in prison camps without charges. Those are "free elections." So that's it. That's the Shamir-Peres-Baker Plan. Nothing much has changed. Sometimes it's called autonomy. That's the current term for it. In the Israeli Press, more honest than here, one of the leading and most respected Israeli journalists, Danny Rubinstein (right in the mainstream, and no particular dove) just a couple of weeks ago described autonomy as "the kind of autonomy that exists in a prisoner-of-war camp" (I'm quoting it), "where the prisoners are autonomous to cook their own meals and run cultural events." Furthermore, he went on to say that the autonomy is exactly what the Palestinians have now; namely, the right to run their own services. And there's a reason for that, he explained. He's pointed out that even the most extreme expansionists ("Greater Israel" enthusiasts) don't call for literal annexation of the Territories because that would have a problem associated with it. It would mean that you would have to extend to the Territories Israeli law, including the minimal services that are provided for the second-class citizens of Israel itself, the Arab citizens. Obviously, that would bankrupt the treasury and, he estimates, would probably double the income in the Territories. So it's much more efficient to have heavy taxation, but to provide nothing in return under autonomy; namely, the autonomy of a prison camp. Well, that's what's being offered now, exactly as it was offered at Camp David. That's why it's so praised in the United States. Well, there's a history to this. Somebody stop me if I go on too long. But I'll give a little bit of history. It's worth looking at. U.S. policy has undergone some changes. From 1967 to 1971, U.S. policy was right in the mainstream. It called for what was then the international consensus, which meant a political settlement on the pre-1967 borders, with the wording that I just read. That was actually drawn from the resolutions at the time, reiterated in 1976: territorial guarantees, and security, and the right to live in peace, and so on and so forth. At that time, there was nothing for the Palestinians. They weren't part of it. It was just a settlement on those borders. Official U.S. policy said that there might be minor territorial adjustments which would, furthermore, be mutual. "Minor" and "mutual" territorial adjustments, just to fix things up, but that was the position. (to be continued) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A 90-minute video documentary, from which this transcript was made, is available exclusively from JCOME. In addition to the full Chomsky lecture, the documentary contains background information about Chomsky and JCOME -- the only Jewish-American organization that has Chomsky on its Advisory Committee. JCOME is extending a special offer at this time. To get a copy of the video documentary simply send a check for $20 (only $15 for the documentary and $5 shipping) and indicate you read about Chomsky and JCOME on Internet or e-mail. Send to: The Jewish Committee on the Middle East P.O. Box 18367 Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone orders cannot be taken. But for additional information about JCOME -- including copies of recent magazine ads and the MID-EAST REALITIES newsletter that can be sent directly to your fax machine -- call JCOME 24-hours daily to: (202) 362-JCOME (202) 362-5266 E-mail: jcome@mcimail.com FAX: (202) 362-6965 [JCOME on MCIMail] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + JCOME would be grateful to you for posting the installments of this transcript to computer bulletin boards, as well as posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Transcribed for JCOME by John DiNardo. ***********************************