Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:10:34 GMT
 |
Ramzi Baroud |
Ramzy Baroud is a Palestinian-American journalist and the acclaimed author of books such as My Father Was a Freedom Fighter. Professor Noam Chomsky has lauded his analytical and researching skills as well as his insight into the region, especially as the Editor-in-Chief of the Palestine Chronicle.
The following is the transcription of a Press TV phone interview with Baroud:
Press TV: Thank you Mr. Baroud for joining us. Israeli army chief Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi said today that IDF soldiers were justified in shooting nine activists onboard the Turkish flagship of the Freedom Flotilla. He even commended them for showing restraint and morality. What is your take on the matter?
Baroud: Well this is very much a typical Israeli response to any sort of atrocity that they commit. In fact, if you go back to recent history, after the massacre in the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank in 2002, this is in fact exactly what they said.
In fact, it was Ashkenazi himself who said that we behaved as the most moral army in the world. After the massacre of civilians in Gaza, this is the term that they also used, with the exact terminology. So it is pretty much predictable, you can always be assured that Israelis are going to commit crimes and that that they will always investigate their crimes, to say that we are a democracy and we do investigate our own actions.
And they always absolve themselves, and they are always behaving morally. So there is absolutely nothing surprising about this whatsoever.
The antagonizing part is that they get away with murder and they get away with that explanation all the time and there is very little that the international community is doing in response.
Press TV: Why isn't the international community ever pushing for more action. Why don't they conduct their own investigations or at least have one representative?
Baroud: In order for a murderer to get away with murder, two things would have to be achieved. First of all the murderer must have absolutely no remorse whatsoever and he has to be very adamant in carrying on with his crime. But the other component, that is very important, is that the international community -- even if there is a will to actually punish Israel for its war crimes - is stopped by the United States.
The Arabs are fragmented and Muslim countries around the world do not have the kind of political leverage that they could manipulate, which they could if they wanted to but they lack the unity and they lack the platform and they lack the political will to in fact translate their solidarity with the Palestinians to any serious actions.
So what ends up happening is that there is always a lot of fury and anger. There are lots of lawyers out there who come and champion the cause and speak of human rights and they quote international law, but at the end of the day, we are always going to hit the same wall.
The problem is the US support of Israel and Israel's adamancy in repeating the same crimes, and the lack of any meaningful platform to actually punish Israel for its crimes.
And until there is a paradigm shift, this same scenario is going to be repeated over and over again.
Press TV: There is also the Israeli side. Two videos are circulating on Youtube; one of them shows four people, four people seemingly activists as it is shot from above, waving their impromptu self-defense gear--wooden and metal bars-- while a group of armed Israeli navy commandos are trying to board the ship.
And in the second one, we see two IDF soldiers beating someone and then shooting them execution-style, fatal shots. Can Israel justify that its soldiers did not use excessive force when the soldiers clearly chose to kill rather than detain?
Baroud: Before we even discuss Israeli justification over using excessive force or not using force at all, there is one question that precedes that question.
And that is: did Israel even have the right in the first place to interfere in the work of activists who are in international waters carrying cement and medicine and wheelchairs to a besieged nation in the Gaza Strip.
There is absolutely no justification for that in the first place. So I feel like if we enter into this kind of foray of trying to explain or understand or even sympathize with Israeli claims or the activists' response, I think we sort of enter into the kind of dilemma that Israel has created out of nothing.
There is actually no dilemma there. Israel should have never interfered in the work of those peace activists in the first place.
Now, whether they used excessive force, I think that the term "excessive force" is also tricky, because if we say that Israel had no right to use excessive force, it is as we are saying that Israel had the right to use force but not in an excessive degree. And I do not think Israel should have been there in the first place, regardless of what they have been saying ever since.
Press TV:But some people are arguing that the ship intended to go to Gaza to break the blockade. But people are saying that Israel supposedly has a right to have stopped the ship?
Baroud: Again we enter into the legal element here; the element of preemption. If you are walking in the street and you see someone who appears suspicious from your point of view do you have the right to attack that person? This is the same issue.
Because we were on the way there, therefore we have the right to...Well we could expand this argument even further. Do they have the right to, say, attack Irish activists in Dublin who are intending to go to Gaza or are thinking of or discussing the possibility of going to Gaza? Based on Israeli preemption rationale, Mossad agents have the right to go and start hitting these activists left and right all over the world, violating international law.
Even then, those activists were not in the process of violating…entering Israeli territorial waters. Absolutely not. They were on their way to Gaza, and the Gazan government, which is democratically elected by the Palestinian people, was really welcoming and ready for these activists to enter into Gaza waters.
Therefore, even based on the preemption logic, also has no right to interfere in the work of these activists.
Press TV: You covered my next question on the issue of the international waters. So Israel seems to be getting away with murder once again with this justification.
Baroud: There is only one way of not allowing Israel to get away with murder, and that is that for us as civil societies and people of conscience around the world not to allow Israel to intimidate us.
Israel will only get away with murder, if we say there is nothing we can do about it; we have tried and we have failed, and several activists got killed. But Israel will lose the moment we carry on with our campaign so the siege on Gaza is broken.
This is the only way that we can prevent this dreadful scenario of Israel getting away with murder from actually happening.
Press TV: Could an international committee be set up which could work for the Palestinian cause, so that their voice is heard in the United Nations?
Baroud: In recent years, I think the work of civil society has advanced very significantly, from ordinary people getting together and trying to do the best they can, to actually reaching out to the various legal bodies…and getting other governments involved, for example I know of Turkey and Iran among others.
This is how we can cross this boundary that separated us from the world and the work of other active societies out there. I think it is very important that we do so.
There is a lot of interest out there and there are a lot of sympathetic governments out there, whether in the Middle East or South America, and others who are in fact playing the role of the political body which is capable of taking the issue to the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, and in fact try to translate this solidarity and the support that the Palestinians have in the civil society into political and legal action.
This is happening, I know. We know of the governments who are ready to do this, Turkey, Iran and others, but also in South America, there is so much solidarity with the Palestinians, whether in Bolivia, Venezuela and others. And they are all ready to play that role. It is so very important that we reach to these governments and allow them to play that role; otherwise the civil society will continue to build solidarity but fail to translate that into any meaningful and political work.
Press TV: Thank you and just one more question. Recently, Ofcom, the British media regulator, rapped Press TV for breaching impartiality rules over an episode of the "Remember Palestine" program, in which Ms. Lauren Booth and her guests discussed the flotilla attack. Do you think it is right to refer to the deadly incident as an Israeli interception instead of an attack? Are "massacre" and "barbarous attack" overstating it? Isn't this a new form of censorship?
Baroud: It is not a new form of censorship. It is the same form of censorship that has been taking place for many years. When the terminology does not suit the taste of the expectation of those in power, it becomes the issue of journalistic integrity and they make a big deal out of it.
But in reality, I am in Washington right now and whenever you turn the TV on, regardless of which TV channel, CNBC, FOX, CNN, the propaganda machine is working day and night.
And there are so little protests out there over the kind of terminology they use and the sort of assumptions that they make and the kinds of terms of reference that they are constantly finding.
But when it comes to Press TV, because of very clear political affiliations they worry about, they try to censor Press TV and they attack Press TV from left and right and these attacks are not going to cease.
I think Lauren Booth is doing a wonderful job and I have been interviewed on her program, and I think it is very morally focused and very morally clear, and that we need to see more of this as opposed to actually try to censor such important programs.
Press TV And the Program's name is “Remember Palestine,” so could one argue that it is not actually biased and is clearly stating what kind of views it is investigating.
Baroud: Of course. In television there so many programs out there that speak in solidarity and in support of various causes and nations. Who are we to come and say to Lauren Booth that you should not have a program that is in solidarity with the Palestinian civilians and try to empower them morally and politically or otherwise? I think it is very hypocritical and very much self-serving. I do not think that we should be in anyway careful and self-censoring so that we do not become victims of such an attack in the future.
The following is the transcription of a Press TV phone interview with Baroud:
Press TV: Thank you Mr. Baroud for joining us. Israeli army chief Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi said today that IDF soldiers were justified in shooting nine activists onboard the Turkish flagship of the Freedom Flotilla. He even commended them for showing restraint and morality. What is your take on the matter?
Baroud: Well this is very much a typical Israeli response to any sort of atrocity that they commit. In fact, if you go back to recent history, after the massacre in the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank in 2002, this is in fact exactly what they said.
In fact, it was Ashkenazi himself who said that we behaved as the most moral army in the world. After the massacre of civilians in Gaza, this is the term that they also used, with the exact terminology. So it is pretty much predictable, you can always be assured that Israelis are going to commit crimes and that that they will always investigate their crimes, to say that we are a democracy and we do investigate our own actions.
And they always absolve themselves, and they are always behaving morally. So there is absolutely nothing surprising about this whatsoever.
The antagonizing part is that they get away with murder and they get away with that explanation all the time and there is very little that the international community is doing in response.
Press TV: Why isn't the international community ever pushing for more action. Why don't they conduct their own investigations or at least have one representative?
Baroud: In order for a murderer to get away with murder, two things would have to be achieved. First of all the murderer must have absolutely no remorse whatsoever and he has to be very adamant in carrying on with his crime. But the other component, that is very important, is that the international community -- even if there is a will to actually punish Israel for its war crimes - is stopped by the United States.
The Arabs are fragmented and Muslim countries around the world do not have the kind of political leverage that they could manipulate, which they could if they wanted to but they lack the unity and they lack the platform and they lack the political will to in fact translate their solidarity with the Palestinians to any serious actions.
So what ends up happening is that there is always a lot of fury and anger. There are lots of lawyers out there who come and champion the cause and speak of human rights and they quote international law, but at the end of the day, we are always going to hit the same wall.
The problem is the US support of Israel and Israel's adamancy in repeating the same crimes, and the lack of any meaningful platform to actually punish Israel for its crimes.
And until there is a paradigm shift, this same scenario is going to be repeated over and over again.
Press TV: There is also the Israeli side. Two videos are circulating on Youtube; one of them shows four people, four people seemingly activists as it is shot from above, waving their impromptu self-defense gear--wooden and metal bars-- while a group of armed Israeli navy commandos are trying to board the ship.
And in the second one, we see two IDF soldiers beating someone and then shooting them execution-style, fatal shots. Can Israel justify that its soldiers did not use excessive force when the soldiers clearly chose to kill rather than detain?
Baroud: Before we even discuss Israeli justification over using excessive force or not using force at all, there is one question that precedes that question.
And that is: did Israel even have the right in the first place to interfere in the work of activists who are in international waters carrying cement and medicine and wheelchairs to a besieged nation in the Gaza Strip.
There is absolutely no justification for that in the first place. So I feel like if we enter into this kind of foray of trying to explain or understand or even sympathize with Israeli claims or the activists' response, I think we sort of enter into the kind of dilemma that Israel has created out of nothing.
There is actually no dilemma there. Israel should have never interfered in the work of those peace activists in the first place.
Now, whether they used excessive force, I think that the term "excessive force" is also tricky, because if we say that Israel had no right to use excessive force, it is as we are saying that Israel had the right to use force but not in an excessive degree. And I do not think Israel should have been there in the first place, regardless of what they have been saying ever since.
Press TV:But some people are arguing that the ship intended to go to Gaza to break the blockade. But people are saying that Israel supposedly has a right to have stopped the ship?
Baroud: Again we enter into the legal element here; the element of preemption. If you are walking in the street and you see someone who appears suspicious from your point of view do you have the right to attack that person? This is the same issue.
Because we were on the way there, therefore we have the right to...Well we could expand this argument even further. Do they have the right to, say, attack Irish activists in Dublin who are intending to go to Gaza or are thinking of or discussing the possibility of going to Gaza? Based on Israeli preemption rationale, Mossad agents have the right to go and start hitting these activists left and right all over the world, violating international law.
Even then, those activists were not in the process of violating…entering Israeli territorial waters. Absolutely not. They were on their way to Gaza, and the Gazan government, which is democratically elected by the Palestinian people, was really welcoming and ready for these activists to enter into Gaza waters.
Therefore, even based on the preemption logic, also has no right to interfere in the work of these activists.
Press TV: You covered my next question on the issue of the international waters. So Israel seems to be getting away with murder once again with this justification.
Baroud: There is only one way of not allowing Israel to get away with murder, and that is that for us as civil societies and people of conscience around the world not to allow Israel to intimidate us.
Israel will only get away with murder, if we say there is nothing we can do about it; we have tried and we have failed, and several activists got killed. But Israel will lose the moment we carry on with our campaign so the siege on Gaza is broken.
This is the only way that we can prevent this dreadful scenario of Israel getting away with murder from actually happening.
Press TV: Could an international committee be set up which could work for the Palestinian cause, so that their voice is heard in the United Nations?
Baroud: In recent years, I think the work of civil society has advanced very significantly, from ordinary people getting together and trying to do the best they can, to actually reaching out to the various legal bodies…and getting other governments involved, for example I know of Turkey and Iran among others.
This is how we can cross this boundary that separated us from the world and the work of other active societies out there. I think it is very important that we do so.
There is a lot of interest out there and there are a lot of sympathetic governments out there, whether in the Middle East or South America, and others who are in fact playing the role of the political body which is capable of taking the issue to the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, and in fact try to translate this solidarity and the support that the Palestinians have in the civil society into political and legal action.
This is happening, I know. We know of the governments who are ready to do this, Turkey, Iran and others, but also in South America, there is so much solidarity with the Palestinians, whether in Bolivia, Venezuela and others. And they are all ready to play that role. It is so very important that we reach to these governments and allow them to play that role; otherwise the civil society will continue to build solidarity but fail to translate that into any meaningful and political work.
Press TV: Thank you and just one more question. Recently, Ofcom, the British media regulator, rapped Press TV for breaching impartiality rules over an episode of the "Remember Palestine" program, in which Ms. Lauren Booth and her guests discussed the flotilla attack. Do you think it is right to refer to the deadly incident as an Israeli interception instead of an attack? Are "massacre" and "barbarous attack" overstating it? Isn't this a new form of censorship?
Baroud: It is not a new form of censorship. It is the same form of censorship that has been taking place for many years. When the terminology does not suit the taste of the expectation of those in power, it becomes the issue of journalistic integrity and they make a big deal out of it.
But in reality, I am in Washington right now and whenever you turn the TV on, regardless of which TV channel, CNBC, FOX, CNN, the propaganda machine is working day and night.
And there are so little protests out there over the kind of terminology they use and the sort of assumptions that they make and the kinds of terms of reference that they are constantly finding.
But when it comes to Press TV, because of very clear political affiliations they worry about, they try to censor Press TV and they attack Press TV from left and right and these attacks are not going to cease.
I think Lauren Booth is doing a wonderful job and I have been interviewed on her program, and I think it is very morally focused and very morally clear, and that we need to see more of this as opposed to actually try to censor such important programs.
Press TV And the Program's name is “Remember Palestine,” so could one argue that it is not actually biased and is clearly stating what kind of views it is investigating.
Baroud: Of course. In television there so many programs out there that speak in solidarity and in support of various causes and nations. Who are we to come and say to Lauren Booth that you should not have a program that is in solidarity with the Palestinian civilians and try to empower them morally and politically or otherwise? I think it is very hypocritical and very much self-serving. I do not think that we should be in anyway careful and self-censoring so that we do not become victims of such an attack in the future.
River to Sea
Uprooted Palestinian
No comments:
Post a Comment