Hot topic

Jeff Halper addressed a full house Tuesday night in Dalhousie's Ondaatje Auditorium. (Josh Boyter Photo)

Belying Dalhousie’s reputation as a sleepy, even-tempered community, the Potter Auditorium was pulsating with vociferous excitement last night as Dr. Jeff Halper, founder of The Israel Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), took the stage. With the room jammed, and audience members forced to sit in the aisles and up on stage, the pre-lecture tension was palpable. Given the recent events in the Middle East, Halper’s lecture, titled “Global Gaza,” promised to be nothing short of incendiary. And for those who wanted the former professor of anthropology at Haifa University and Ben Gurion University to deliver on his expected indictment of Israel’s policy in the Gaza Strip, and its global implications, no less, were not disappointed.

Dr. Halper, a 2006 nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, immigrated to Israel from the United States in 1973 after a long involvement in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements of the 1960s. In 1997, he co-founded ICAHD to oppose Israel’s military commitment to demolishing Palestinian homes.

Dr. Halper cast no illusions as to where his sympathies lie: he offered the Gazans praise in their resistance to an attempted “massacre” on the part of the Israelis. The lecture was co-sponsored by Canadians, Arabs and Jews for a Just Peace and Independent Jewish Voices.

His message was two-fold: Israel should cease to perpetuate its “matrix of control” over the Palestinian territories and accept a two-state solution; and the international community should acknowledge and openly condemn Israel’s furtive program of testing military weaponry and counter-insurgency tactics on the Palestinian people.

In 1988, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) formally adopted a two-state solution, which recognized Israel’s pre-1967 claim to 78 percent of Israeli territory. The PLO accepted Israel’s right to exist and moved to establish autonomous Palestinian governance in the West Bank and Gaza. This two-state solution was accepted by the majority of Israeli Jews. But, there was a problem. According to Dr. Halper, there was, and still is, a paradoxical relationship amongst political parties within the Israeli political system. The “disconnect between all political parties” in Israel is undeniably fractious, but there is a prevailing agreement “that the two-state solution cannot be.” It is Dr. Halper’s contention, therefore, that Israel perpetuates an occupation of the Palestinian territories “against the will of the Israeli public.”

His “matrix of control” theory derives from his belief that Israel has fragmentized the Palestinian territories since 1967. He claims that between 1967 and 1993 it was Israel’s policy to “de-develop” Palestinian territories. Palestinians were already “locked into” 40 per cent (the rest inhabited by Israeli settlers) of 22 per cent of their original territory and it is the sole fault of Israel that the Palestinian territories have not been able to sustain economic or social growth over the past 40 years. Essentially, Israel’s mission is to disrupt any consolidated effort by Palestinians to establish an efficient and productive state.

The “matrix of control” has a singular goal: to gradually implement a South African-style apartheid system between Israelis and Palestinians. Without explicitly saying so, Dr. Halper suggested that this is a racist endeavor; he was emphatic that “no element of the occupation (can be explained) by security” measures.

Dr. Halper cited a variety of examples of how Israel is “psychologically preparing” the Palestinians for an apartheid solution. The range of grievances is vast: Israel uses the West Bank as a waste dump, to put it crudely, and this enervates the territory’s ability to build infrastructure; Israel refuses to hire Palestinian labourers, which would galvanize the Palestinian economy, instead opting for foreign workers; more than 650 checkpoints within the West Bank, of which only 18 are situated on the border, prevent free movement; the construction of Israeli-only road systems; the rampant demolition of Palestinian homes; and the construction of a “separation” wall that does not adhere strictly to the borders of the West Bank. The purpose, says Dr. Halper, is for Israel “to control the entire country between Jordan and the Mediterranean” unequivocally.

The only thing standing in Israel’s way to achieving this goal? Hamas’ indefatigable resistance efforts. Dr. Halper argues a disproportionate number of Palestinians voted for Hamas in 2006 because of its doctrinaire resistance to Israeli control, unlike its rival party, Fatah, which was suspected of being collaborationist. As a result, it is in Israel’s best interest to eradicate Hamas, he says. While Dr. Halper says Israel’s campaign in Gaza will not cease “until (the Palestinians) get the message,” he laments the asymmetrical ferocity of Israel’s attacks.

The attacks are not only meant to defeat and demoralize, he says. He claims that Israel’s impetus is “perfecting urban warfare, a kind of counter-insurgency, that can be exported” to the international community. So, the effects of Gaza are global. Israel is field testing chemical weaponry and its nanotechnology research on Palestinians for the sole purpose of selling its technology abroad. Or so he claims.

Dr. Halper, an Israeli himself, was quick to include that he is not trying to demonize Israel. However, if the country remains a violator of human rights, it deserves to be held accountable.

“When you lock (the Palestinians) in a cage, what do you expect these people to do?” he asks. “Palestinians have a right to resist.”