-
by Giuseppe Savagnone*
Just
over a month after the start of the Palestinian crisis, some disturbing issues
emerge, probably destined to weigh on the future, even when the conflict on the
field is over.
The
first of these issues arises from the methods of reaction of the Jewish State
which, from being a victim of atrocious violence - and therefore an object of
unconditional solidarity (in the eyes, at least, of the Western world) - have
progressively made it appear, to a large extent of public opinion in the West
itself, a perfect counterpart, opposite and symmetrical, of its aggressors. In
this regard, the front page headline of an Italian newspaper is significant:
«Anti-terrorism begins. It's a lot like terrorism."
The
same blind ruthlessness. The same absolute contempt for civilians and the
international laws that protect them. With the blocking of vital supplies of
water, electricity and medicines to two and a half million people, the
peremptory injunction to almost half of them (more than a million!) to vacate
their homes, lands and workplaces within 24 hours , and to move
"elsewhere", the deadly indiscriminate bombings that destroyed
civilian homes, hospitals, schools, churches, and killed ten thousand
civilians, almost half of whom were women and children.
Rather
than an operation aimed at preventing, in a defensive logic, other attacks, the
Israeli one thus gave the impression of being revenge. And not in the form of
"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", but in the more archaic
form of vengeance without measure of which the Bible speaks, putting in the
mouth of Lamech, descendant of Cain (not by chance!), a statement which is at
the same time a program: «I killed a man for my scratch and a boy for my
bruise. Cain will be avenged seven times, but Lamech seventy-seven times"
(Genesis, 4, 23-24).
The
law of retaliation, despite its brutality, was later established in ancient
legislation precisely to limit this uncontrollable immoderation, allowing the
offended party to respond only within the limits of the damage received.
Israel's
response, more than this logic, resembles that of Lamech . Even more
disproportionate, if we consider that, according to the Israeli government
itself, the person responsible to be punished is Hamas and not the Palestinian
population, who would only be its hostage.
For
their part, Western governments, first and foremost that of the United States,
refused to talk about "revenge" and initially tried to justify this
reaction by appealing to "Israel's right to defend itself". In this
logic, they showed great tolerance for the "collateral damage" that
this right could entail, limiting themselves to generic recommendations to
respect human rights and international laws of war, even if it was clear that
both were widely violated by the Israeli reaction.
Netaniahu
's government did not intend to even slightly mitigate its devastating action,
the UN secretary general, Guterres, officially intervened to remind us of the
need to respect international law and ask for a "ceasefire ” that would
spare the lives of civilians.
The
reaction of the Jewish State was extremely harsh and even resulted in a refusal
to grant entry visas to representatives of the United Nations.
At
this point even President Biden - probably also urged by the vast protest
movement that has developed throughout the Western world, and also in the
United States, in defense of the Palestinian people - felt he had to intervene
more decisively, pressuring the Israeli government so that at least
"humanitarian pauses" were granted.
Receiving
a sharp refusal from Prime Minister Netaniahu , who only after endless
humiliating insistence from both the American president and his envoy Blinken
made some concessions, but in any case to a minimal extent compared to the
request. A sensational "disgrace" by Israel to its most trusted and
important ally, which will not soon be forgotten.
In
this circumstance, America is seeing its image as a hegemonic power compromised
and its political line appears weak and uncertain. Also because President Biden
finds himself faced with the less than rosy situation of having to choose, a
year before the elections, between the Jewish lobbies, whose support depends on
their support for Israel, and his electorate, especially young people, who
contest him for this support.
And
Israel also finds itself increasingly isolated, not only, as in the past, with
respect to the South of the world and Islam, but also, to a certain extent,
with respect to its traditional Western supporters, which continue to repeat
that they consider it the victim of aggression and an advanced outpost of
democracy, but they cannot help but recognize, with growing embarrassment, that
the continuation of the systematic massacre of civilians we are witnessing can
no longer be accepted.
But
what divides Israel from its more traditional and faithful American ally is not
only the ruthless harshness of the military reaction. The ongoing crisis has
also raised the question, which had been removed for some time, of the
definitive political settlement of the entire region. And here it is impossible
to ignore the UN resolution of 1947, which envisaged the creation of a Jewish
state - which was born - and a Palestinian one, which never saw the light.
The
problem is that in reality neither Israelis nor Palestinians have ever accepted
this perspective. Both want all the territory for themselves. With the
difference that Israel has had the military strength to get ever closer to this
objective, while the explicit refusal of the Palestinians to accept forming
their own state on the territories assigned by the UN has produced as the only
result their progressive expulsion even from most of these, now occupied by the
Israelis.
An
expulsion that was implemented both through military campaigns and with the
multiplication of new Israeli settlements on the lands of the West Bank which
should have prospectively been part of the new Palestinian state. Just on the
eve of October 7th, another one was launched, this time also arousing
resistance (also unheeded) from the United States.
Not
to mention the status of Jerusalem, which the UN expected to be - as the holy
place of all three great Abrahamic religions - an international city, and which
instead Israel, in 1980, strengthened by its military successes, unilaterally
proclaimed as its capital , with a decision that the UN declared illegitimate,
and which was recognized by a few governments, including the United States,
which moved its embassy there,
Once
the war is over, will Washington, so far so yielding to the Israeli government,
ever be able to convince it to give up part of its current territory to allow
the formation of a Palestinian state?
And
what will be, if they succeed, the reaction of the seven hundred thousand
Israeli settlers who in recent years, with the approval of the government (and
the West) have illegally settled on that territory, taking it away from their
legitimate inhabitants?
And
what will happen to Jerusalem, which Israel has considered its capital for more
than forty years, but where Palestinians also live, and to which Islam
attributes the same religious value as Jews and Christians?
A
third issue - connected to the second and also relating to the relationship
between Israel and the United States - is the question of the future of the
Gaza Strip.
The
fact is that, if it really succeeds in destroying Hamas, it will be the Israeli
army that will be on the territory and in control of it.
Furthermore,
the American proposal does not take into account the fact that today the (too)
moderate and corrupt Abu Mazen is completely disqualified in the eyes of the
Palestinians (even those he continues to govern in the West Bank), who see
Hamas as the the only alternative to the marginalization and submission to
which Israel had reduced them with the support of the United States.
And
it would certainly be even more so if the president of the Palestinian
Authority entered Gaza after having been complicit in the liquidation of Hamas
by the Israelis and with the support of the Americans.
An
unofficial and unconfirmed document from the Israeli government hypothesizes
that the current inhabitants of Gaza will move to Egypt, in the Sinai. And this
would also explain the recent trials of expulsion from one part of the Strip
and the actions aimed at making their lives impossible, already forcing them,
in some way, to emigrate.
But,
apart from the obvious resistance of the government in Cairo, which does not
intend to take on two and a half million refugees, could the international
community accept a solution which, although not a genocide, would still be a
clear example of ethnic cleansing?
Not
even the acrobatics carried out in recent weeks by Western governments and
press organizations to minimize the seriousness of the violence against the
Palestinian people - accusing those who denounce them of forgetting the October
7 massacre, or even of being anti-Semitic - would probably be sufficient to
justify the silence in such a hypothesis.
However,
the difficulty of finding other ways remains. The task cannot be avoided once
again. The West cannot continue to turn a blind eye, now that it is reaping the
bitter fruits of this behavior in past decades. Even if there is the risk that,
once the journalistic news has passed, the attention of governments and public
opinion will go back to being distracted, as has always happened in the past,
waiting for another crisis to cause thousands more innocent victims and shake
the new, for a few weeks, our indifference.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento