An interview with author and global peace activist Phyllis Bennis, about challenging the US drive toward empire in the Middle East.

Share International: What do you think is behind Ariel Sharon’s original decision to withdraw settlements from the Gaza Strip?

Phyllis Bennis: This was consistent with Sharon’s long-standing view – which is also the view of even the most hard-line Israelis – that Gaza has little significance, either economic or ideological. He was giving up something that was not of much value, and was under enormous pressure because of the rising casualties among Israeli soldiers. The cost was huge, in Israeli terms, and there was a growing sense of public outrage about that cost. So it was a very pragmatic decision, and what he got in exchange was an extraordinary quid pro quo.

The April 2004 letters exchanged between Sharon and Bush guaranteed that the US, in exchange for that withdrawal of troops and settlers, would accept the notion that Israel was going to annexe large swathes of territory in the West Bank, particularly the three largest settlement blocks. Israel also got the US writing off for the first time explicitly the right of return, saying that Palestinians will have no right of return except to some mythical future Palestinian state. So Sharon got a huge bonus for his decision, and, crucially, did not give up control of the Gaza Strip. The border crossings, air space, water off the coast – all of that remains under Israeli control. It is all a lot of smoke and mirrors, giving Israel continued control without the cost of the occupation of Gaza directly, and in return for a huge gift from the United States. And they get to look very good.

SI: What process, if any, do you think would have a chance of working to achieve real peace between Israel and Palestine?

PB: It is very difficult. Essentially, Israel has made moves on the ground that are very close to making a two-state solution impossible. If that gets consolidated, the struggle for Palestinian rights will take the form of what we might call an anti-apartheid or civil rights struggle, where there will be an acknowledgement that this is all one territory and the struggle will be for equal rights rather than a theologically-based system of privileging one group over another. I don’t know that we are necessarily there yet. There is still a small window within which a two-state solution might become possible. But it is going to take pressure on the United States from an entirely different level, as well as pressure on Israel – work like that of the US Campaign to End Israeli Occupation, which is targeting US policies that enable the occupation. On the Israeli front, the campaigns that are taking root around the world called BDS (boycotts, divestment and sanctions) – a whole range of economic pressures on Israel – are starting to take hold. There is starting to be real fear among elites in Israel of the kind of economic pressure that is now on the rise on college campuses, with the lead being taken by the churches.

SI: Do you think the Palestinians would ever accept anything less than a two-state solution?

PB: There are many Palestinians who believe, as in fact I believe, that a two-state solution is not a just solution. Back in the 1980s, we were talking about a two-state solution based on the entire West Bank, all of Gaza, and all of East Jerusalem, which I considered at that time non-viable. Now we are talking about maybe 40 per cent of that 22 per cent of historic Palestine: 22 per cent is the part of Palestine now represented by the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. It is less than one-quarter. So when we talk about a two-state solution based on that, it is already a huge concession. The idea that Palestinians should be asked to give up another 60 per cent of that 22 per cent is quite shocking. We have to be clear that while the two-state solution is what’s on the table now, and what Palestinians have accepted, we should not pretend that this represents justice.

SI: Do you think the Bush administration’s efforts to weaken and undermine the UN have had a significant effect, and will they in the future?

PB: Unfortunately, I think they have had an effect. Whether the UN can recuperate from that right now is an uncertain question, and depends a lot on whether civil society can mobilize to reclaim the United Nations and rebuild it. Certainly the appointment of John Bolton was an indication of how the US administration views the UN. But it is not only about Bolton. The US has been engaged for several years now in efforts to try to undermine the independence of the Secretariat, largely through orchestrating the replacement of Mark Malloch Brown as the chief of staff in the Secretary-General’s office. And placing in a new position, in the Secretary-General’s office, a right-wing US government official, Christopher Burnham, who is a very dangerous sort, and who is there essentially as a watchdog. He made clear last summer that his loyalty is to the United States – not to the United Nations and international law. So the US has succeeded in bullying its way into these kinds of changes. It is engaged right now in a major fight with the dominant countries of the General Assembly, the G-77, the countries of the global south, over its efforts to transfer power into the Secretary-General’s office, away from the General Assembly. The longer-term plan, if they cannot bring Kofi Annan directly to heel (they have tried, and have had some success, but not entirely), is that the next Secretary-General will be someone completely in Washington’s pocket.

SI: How can that plan be counteracted?

PB: One of the challenges for us in the peace movement is to look at that in a very sober way and say: "We have a serious problem. They’re playing hardball here. They’re planning to take away from us this very important institution. We’re going to fight back, to reclaim the United Nations." It is not an easy task. I do not have the quick blueprint of how we are going to do it, but I think that has to be our starting point.

SI: In 2003, The New York Times called global public opinion the second super-power, and you have talked about the three-part alliance between people’s movements, independent-thinking governments, and the UN. How can that union be rebuilt and strengthened?

PB: This is the challenge we have today, and is the subject of my new book. First we have to understand that the only reliable component of that three-part challenge is the people. We cannot ever assume that governments, however progressive they may be, however much they may be willing to stand with us on one or another issue, are going to be consistent. But we do have to figure out much more subtle ways of working with those governments that are prepared to go head to head against this drive toward empire and war. Then we have the question of the United Nations. We need to do a couple of things. One, we need to make sure there are enough governments on board that the UN has a critical mass of countries prepared to say ‘no’. The notion that the UN Secretariat is somehow going to take the lead is not realistic; the power in the UN lies with the nation states. But we also have to continue the campaign to demand greater transparency, greater accountability in the UN and its processes, to include civil society voices, so that the opinions of civil society are listened to in the United Nations in an institutionalized way. That is not an easy task. One of the problems we face is that around the world throughout the activist community there is, for very understandable reasons, a great deal of antagonism towards the United Nations. There is a sense that the UN has become a tool of American foreign policy, and a sense that that is an unchangeable reality.

SI: What do you see as the most important focus right now for peace and justice activists?

PB: Right now, stopping the war in Iraq. The war remains the centerpiece of the US drive towards empire. Ending the war in Iraq is not going to end the danger to the world. It is not going to end the drive towards control of power and resources, but it is going to send a very important signal to Washington policymakers. Not only the neo-cons at the center of it, but all the ones around them who are wondering if their grandiose plans can work. It will send a message that their plans cannot work, that the world is not prepared to sit by and allow this to happen.

SI: Is there anything that you want to say about the real political and social situation in Iraq today that is not being heard?

PB: All of the devastation that racked Iraq through the years of sanctions is still taking its toll. Daily life for Iraqis is not better. That is the one myth that a lot of people in this country are starting to believe. "Well, maybe it’s bad that the troops are still there, and there’s this resistance, but at least Iraqi lives are better ..." They’re not! People still cannot get enough clean water. There still isn’t reliable electricity all day. There still isn’t sufficient gasoline, even in a country that is swimming in oil. The schools and hospitals are still not functioning. Unemployment is something like 70 per cent. There is still this huge social crisis. For that reason you see constant lines of young men trying to join the occupation-supporting military or police forces. Even though it is so dangerous, people still apply for those jobs because there is nothing else, and they need to feed their families.

SI: What do you think is the best way to pull out of Iraq? How can we get out and protect people?

PB: We have to understand that we are not protecting people now. We are making it worse for people, and that is going to continue as long as our troops are there. The first thing we have to move towards is a full announcement: "We are leaving Iraq and calling an immediate, unilateral cease-fire." That means we are not going to carry out any more military activities. Immediately start moving the soldiers out of the cities to the air bases and towards the borders, and begin the process of moving them out. That is what the Pentagon should do. At the same time we should announce that all of the bases are going to be left behind, turned over to Iraq. They are not going to be maintained as permanent US bases.

Secondly, Congress needs to cut off immediately all spending for the war. The only money that should be spent in Iraq is for immediate protection of soldiers – body armor, etc – and transportation out of the country. The administration needs to announce that it has no intention of keeping any control over Iraq’s oil resources, or its oil economy. It should also announce that all of the Bremer-imposed laws are null and void, and that it is up to whatever Iraqi authorities emerge to create their own laws – particularly the economic laws – for the future of their country. Then the actual pullout should not be so difficult.

SI: Would there be any place for a UN peacekeeping force?

PB: Absolutely. We have to understand that pulling out the troops is only step one. We owe the Iraqis a great deal. We owe reparations. We owe compensation. We owe real reconstruction – meaning paying Iraqis, not paying Halliburton. But we cannot begin to repay any of that debt until we have the troops out. Then we can talk about internationalizing the peace, which will mean supporting some kind of a peacekeeping operation. I would think it would be jointly sponsored between the United Nations and perhaps the Arab League. The US has to support and pay for most of it, but not participate in it and not control it. That is not going to be easy for the US, but it has to be our goal.