From Nakba to Gaza: Palestine at the friction point 

By Mazin Qumsiyeh

Qumsiyeh.org, June 20, 2007

What is the state of affairs of Palestine and Palestinians today? How did
we arrive at a situation where Palestinian blood is spilled by other
Palestinians and where the Gaza strip (a desert strip that is less than 2%
of Palestine) with 1.5 million human beings (most refugees) is now
completely cut off from the rest of the world which if not fixed soon will
result in a calamity beyond description. And will Israel use the media focus
on Gaza to carry out its planned ethnic cleansing of the Negev (42,000
Palestinian citizens of Israel slated to lose their homes [1])?
In the US there has been countless shallow commentaries and as many simply
defamatory ones that are devoid from any connection to reality. Neocons,
Zionist pundits like Thomas Friedman, stooges and collaborators like Fouad
Ajami etc are given ample space on pages of major newspapers while we,
Palestinians as Edward Said rightly pointed out are even prevented from
telling our own narrative. In this assay I try to survey the political
landscape and examine the various players (Israel, US, other countries,
Palestinians in and out of factions, and finally the peace movement) and
their roles and interests. I also wanted to ensure that our own
responsibility as peace activists is examined in light of monumental changes
that impact not only the lives of people in Western Asia but people
everywhere.
ISRAEL
Then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stated in May 2004 just before
putting in motion his plans for Gaza: “I believe we must change the current
situation, a situation which necessarily leads to a political vacuum. It is
clear to me that … dozens of political initiatives will be drawn up often,
from all over the world. Today, we are already forced to repel such
initiatives, which share the idea that Israel must reach an agreement while
terror is still going on.” His right hand man at the time, Dov Weisglass,
clarified it in October 2004: “The significance of the disengagement plan is
the freezing of the peace process ... Effectively, this whole package called
the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed
indefinitely from our agenda”. Sharon also noted once: “You don’t simply
bundle people [Palestinians] onto trucks and drive them away. I prefer to
advocate a positive policy, to create, in effect, a condition that in a
positive way will induce people to leave.” The Gaza strip was the first
test site for these strategies (which some Israeli leaders openly stated
will finish the job started in 1948).
Uri Avnery stated "What happens when one and a half million human beings are
imprisoned in a tiny, arid territory, cut off from their compatriots and
from any contact with the outside world, starved by an economic blockade and
unable to feed their families? Some months ago, I described this situation
as a sociological experiment set up by Israel, the United States and the
European Union. The population of the Gaza Strip as guinea pigs" [2].
Akiva Elder more bluntly explained in Haaretz last week that the outcome of
this experiment was precisely what Sharon and Dov Weissglass planned for
with their misnamed "disengagement" from Gaza [3].
A famous Israeli general once said, "Once we have settled the land, all the
[Palestinian] Arabs will be able to do is run around like drugged roaches in
a bottle." Presumably the trapped "roaches" are now turning on each other
as planned in the one bottle. The few other bottles in the West Bank are
next. The Amnesty International Report published recently summarizes these
conditions in very mild and neutral language (the title for example reads
"Enduring Occupation: Palestinians under siege in the West Bank" when what
is happening in the West Bank is worse than the worst days of Apartheid in
South Africa) [4].
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A confidential report to the UN by its envoy for the Middle East peace
process, Alvaro De Soto, was leaked last week and published in the Guardian
Newspaper. In it De Soto states candidly: "The US clearly pushed for a
confrontation between Fatah and Hamas, so much so that, a week before Mecca,
the US envoy declared twice in an envoys meeting in Washington how much 'I
like this violence', referring to the near-civil war that was erupting in
Gaza in which civilians were being regularly killed and injured" [5].
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was planned by neocon Zionists well before they
got power in the White house [6]. A similar attack on Iran by the same
cabal using American blood as canon fodder is in the works now [7]. As the
original lies about Iraq were exposed one after another (WMD, terror
connections etc), a new one was instigated: advancing democracy in the
Middle East. Bush himself in 2005 cited upcoming elections in Lebanon and
Palestine as prove of this. Problem was that both had elections many times
before and had a history of democratic participation before the war on Iraq.
A more serious problem for the administration besides being exposed as
liars was that people elected those that the Israelis did not want (and
hence the US had to oppose). Hizballah in Lebanon was by 2006 a powerful
political party with members in key government positions. The early 2006
elections for the Palestinian Authority (that has no authority) was
supported by all parties concerned including the US neocon administration.
But the election produced a clear but undesirable winner: Hamas. Within the
US administration, mobilization was done quickly (and not even secretly) to
foster dissent and mayhem. The clearest form of this is the program
instituted by Deputy National Security Advisor Elliot Abrams (a neocon
Jewish Zionist). The program involved propping up elements within Fatah who
were accommodating to Israeli needs and fixations (e.g. Mohammed Dahlan, an
ambitious war lord who liked to dress well and surround himself with US
trained mercenaries) [8].
Of course like in other US plans to reshape the world to suit the lobby in
Washington, things do not work out as planned. This is as true in Gaza
today as it is in Iraq. Part of this follows from the fact that those who
fight for foreign interests do not fight with strong or fanatic convictions
and tend to abandon their posts quickly. Those who believe they are
resisting colonial occupation tend to be more emotionally committed.
Zionism occupied the executive and legislative branches of the US government
also succeed in winning many battles against secular Arab democrats,
leftists, and pan Arab nationalists. The decisive battle/turning point was
the 1967 war when US supported Israel tripled the lands it occupied. These
losses by progressive voices were compounded by US hegemony on the United
Nations that prevented application of International law let alone UN
Resolutions (the US also vetoed over 40 UN Security Council resolutions on
Palestine since 1967). These combinations of factors let to the perhaps
unintended consequence of growing the only remaining ideological
alternative: that of a resurgent political Islamic movement. In a sense the
winners of the battles were not Israel and the US but instead the battles
laid the seeds for Hizballah (established 1982) and Hamas (established
1987).
Robert Fisk sums up US policy sarcastically: "Palestinians wanted an end to
corruption - the cancer of the Arab world - and so they voted for Hamas and
thus we, the all-wise, all-good West, decided to sanction them and starve
them and bully them for exercising their free vote....So what will we do?
Support the reoccupation of Gaza perhaps? Certainly we will not criticize
Israel. And we shall go on giving our affection to the kings and princes and
unlovely presidents of the Middle East until the whole place blows up in our
faces and then we shall say - as we are already saying of the Iraqis - that
they don’t deserve our sacrifice and our love. How do we deal with a coup
d’état by an elected government?" [9].
President Carter confirmed what De Soto, Fisk, and others knew: the US and
Israel are working hand in glove to divide Palestinians in a classic divide
and conquer strategy of other colonial powers [10].
OTHER REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PLAYERS
Neo-con Zionists in the US articulated why Iraq, Syria, and Iran were on
their target list even before they came to power. Their reason was to
strengthen Israel's regional power. Syria and more so Iran got wind of this
game early on in the Bush administration. Syria tried to straddle the fence
and played game with the US (e.g. taking "rendered" suspects from the CIA to
do torture and provide intelligence). Iran was in a stronger position that
seemed to get only stronger as US forces were stretched thin in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Iran's position got stronger also with each mistake, blunder,
atrocity and disaster that the US (influenced by the Zionist lobby) did in
Iraq and beyond (from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamou to Bagram to Somalia and
Dusseldorf). And since the US funds Israel to the tune of billions every
year to continue occupying and attacking Palestinians and Lebanese people,
Iran felt emboldened to send in meager supplies for those groups being shot
at. This was true at least for Hizballah (it is not clear that Iran gave
any weapons or money to Hamas, both deny it).
Then there is the European Union, a collection of states that helped
establish Israel. Most of their leadership refuses to push for
implementation of international law because of many reasons including:
1) the persistent Zionist propaganda that links guilt over the Jewish
holocaust with support for Israel (a state whose founders not only profited
from but collaborated with Nazi Germany).
2) US pressure and the presence of the looming NATO (elephant in the room)
3) Desire to keep Israeli Jews from returning to Europe (essentially
anti-Semitism)
4) In the case of some leaders like Tony Blair desire to keep conflict going
to market weapons.
Russia and China both look at the situation with fear and disdain for US
imperial power in this critical part of the world but both have internal and
other more pressing issues to tend to than worry about the fate of a few
million Palestinians and a few million Israelis. Israel got lots of points
with China by transferring to it US military technology in the process
making billions of dollars and undermining US security. Many elite Russians
are probably privately happy that Israel took in 1 million Russians in the
1990s (most moving for economic reasons, 40% were not even Jewish). But
then also many Russians (likely including Putin) were furious at the Russian
Zionist tycoons who took control of significant financial resources of
Russia (including some natural resources) and then moved the money (and
jobs) elsewhere. Thus, we note Russia's more balanced language vis a vis
Palestine and Lebanon.
PALESTINIANS (factions and those unaffiliated with factions)
It is hard for the written word to express what people in Gaza (and
Palestinians in general) have endured in the past 75 years. If one looks at
agriculture, geography (mix Mediterranean and desert habitats), language,
culture, mix of religions and other aspects of Palestine, the closest
country would be Tunisia. If there was no colonial intervention, Palestine
would be like Tunisia today and Gaza would be like the attractive oasis
tourist attractions in the South.
But our fate as Palestinians was different. No other population has endured
so much for so long. The mayhem is not new to this desert strip at the
Southwestern corner of Palestine. It started in the strip with the
terrorism by the Hagannah, Stern, and Lehi gangs in the 1930. Between 1947
to 1949, the population of Gaza tripled due to the influx of Palestinian
refugees from the coastal strip of Palestine that was unilaterally declared
a Jewish state. Some were pushed out to walk for miles in the desert and
many sick, old, and young perished in the journey. Some tried to infiltrate
back to their villages and were summarily shot on site by orders of Ben
Gurion's government. Some started to resist and thus their sprawling
refugee camps were attacked viciously. In that era (early 1950s), Israel
set up the notorious unit 101 of its army (a unit headed by a young
ambitious and ruthless officer by the name of Ariel Sharon whose mandate was
to make sure more "Arabs" are killed than "Jews". The era of collective
punishment was in full fledge operation.
Israeli commandoes would demolish many homes and kill many civilians in any
area near the border that "infiltrators" or fighters would be deemed to have
come from. In 1956, Israel occupied Gaza until the US President ordered
them to get out and they did. In 1967, Israel occupied the Gaza strip with
its 2/3rd population being Palestinian refugees and 1/3rd native Gazans.
This occupation has impoverished the strip in a deliberate policy of
economic de-development [11]. Sharon came back to Gaza and intensified his
strategy of the iron fist. In the early 1970s, he succeeded in keeping the
lid on rebellion by massive assaults on neighborhoods were any resistance
sprung. This was the classic colonial strategy of mass destruction to
"pacify" the population. But further uprisings would come about every decade
of the 4 decades Gaza suffered under the occupation. Thus, three
generations of Gaza residents (2/3rd of whom are refugees) suffered 75 years
of colonial war making.
Mahmoud Abbas was pushing Arafat into accepting a two state solution and
renouncing armed resistance from the 1970s. Other Fatah leaders had
different opinions. That strand was led by people like Abu Jihad who was
assassinated by Israel (Israel never attempted assassination of Abbas). Abu
Jihad argued that Fatah needs to stick to its original mandate and bylaws.
Fatah (Fth) is the reverse of the acronym of the name of that group: Harakat
Ta7rir Falastini (Palestine Liberation Movement). After the death of so
many leading Fatah fighters and the relocation of those remaining to Tunisia
(where those who were resistant were assassinated by the Israeli Mossad),
Arafat agreed to try the program advocated by Abbas: engagement and
negotiations with the US and Israel. Contacts with both were done in the
mid 1980s and culminated in Arafat cajoling and pushing other Palestinians
to relent. In 1988, the gutted PLO (now slimmed of many leading groups and
factions) agreed to accept UN resolutions like 242 and 338 and essentially
abandon the other UN resolutions and the UN Charter (e.g. on rights of self
determination). This process accelerated after the US showed its might in
the first Gulf war and bullied other countries in the region and beyond to
succumb to its dictates (i.e. to Israeli occupied foreign policy). Arafat
and Abbas were rewarded by Oslo accords that gave them authority over
municipal affairs of the occupied areas but no real authority or
sovereignty. Yet, this came with lots of privileges and I myself remember
vividly that in the early and mid 1990s, while most of us Palestinians got
further and further restrictions, there were thousands of "VIP passes"
issued by Israel to Fatah officials. To be fair there were also independents
and members of other factions who decided to join this trend and so it was
not just Fatah members. More importantly, many Fatah members including
leading ones and original founders of the movement refused the perks (and
some outside of Palestine who refused to go back in under the Oslo
arrangements). Indeed much reflection is needed here. The power acquired
while limited also corrupted many. Meanwhile, Israeli colonization
accelerated. In the seven years of what some Israelis considered hopeful
years (1993-2000), the population of colonial settlers living on Palestinian
lands doubled. It was also these years that stripped Palestinians of
sustainable economy (agriculture, industry etc) and replaced it with an
economy dependent on Israel (including Israeli building projects such as
Settlements, barriers etc).
Everything changed when Arafat distanced himself from Abbas and rejected the
so-called generous offer made at Camp David (an offer of making the
occupation permanent and relegating Palestinians to Bantustans while
rejecting basic human rights like the right of refugees to return). Yet
Arafat's administration continued to negotiate after words and the parties
came close until Barak withdrew his negotiation team in Taba and called for
new Israeli elections. With Sharon in power, Israel dropped the pretenses
of negotiations. Arafat was isolated and pressured. He appointed Abbas a
Prime Minister and was pushed constantly to give the Prime Minister the
authorities especially on security matters (an "empowered prime minister"
was the phrase used) and keep the presidency a ceremonial post analogous to
that of Israel's president. Ironically, now the US claims the Palestinian
Authority President (now Abbas) is the one with the power. But such shifts
in US interpretation of Palestinian law is not unusual, it merely emphasizes
the hypocrisy of the US's foreign policy (i.e. Israel's policies).
On some things, the law is very clear. The sacking of the "Prime Minister"
by Abbas creates a new set of problems and issues that have to be dealt
with. According to the Palestinian Basic laws (amended 2003)[12], the
President cannot appoint a new Prime Minister who is not from the majority
party and such an emergency prime minister can govern for three weeks and
then it must be approved by the legislative council (extended to a maximum
of five weeks in exceptional circumstances, article 66). The president can
issue decrees in exceptional circumstances but only while he legislative
council is not in session and the President must go to the council for
authorizing this at the next meeting (article 43). But such decrees do not
apply to creating cabinet, in either case, the cabinet and the Prime
Minister cannot operate without Council approval (articles 68 and 69). Hamas
has a majority in the legislative council so none of this is possible
without Hamas approval! The law does state that the president has the
"right to refer the Prime Minister to investigation as a result of crimes
committed by him during, or due to his performance of his duties, in
accordance with the provision of law (article 76). Abbas did not choose to
do that. The law also stipulates (article 110) that "The President of the
National Authority may declare a state of emergency by a decree when there
is a threat to national security caused by war, invasion, armed
insurrection, or at a time of natural disaster for a period not to exceed
thirty (30) days (and) The emergency state may be extended for another
period of thirty (30) days after the approval of two thirds of the
Legislative Council Members." So under the best of circumstances, Abbas can
continue what he is doing for 30 days since again he has no majority in the
Legislative Council.
Alternatively one can take the earlier provisions of the basic laws and thus
conclude as Virginia Tilley did that "It does not help that the United
States, an obedient Europe, and legless Arab states have trotted up to
anoint it as the sole legitimate authority. Nor does it help to pretend that
Hamas -- a broad movement with popular legitimacy -- will simply disappear
through decrees from Abbas and some nice political theatre. It is not clear
how long this flimsy diplomatic pretense can hold up to scrutiny by a
skeptical world. Nor is it clear what political costs foreign governments
will have to absorb if they try to play along with it -- especially when the
now-traumatized Palestinian people, in the territories and in Diaspora,
begin protesting their government's being hijacked by anti-democratic
figureheads for Israeli and US agendas."[13]
In either case, what happens to a unity government (Fatah-Hamas Mecca
agreement) approved by the Legislative Council when both sides to the
agreement violate it and have two governments neither approved by the
Council? This is what we now have: Hamas in the Gaza canton, Fatah in the
West Bank cantons, both operating outside of the basic laws. Their
"authority" is mostly in the eyes of their die-hard older supporters who are
themselves prisoners in the cantons administered and controlled on all
fronts (including borders, air, water, fuel, and electricity) by Israeli
occupation forces.
Does it really matter whether the Palestinian "authority" without authority
is in the hand of its "President" or "Prime Minister"? These terms are used
in sovereign nations and Palestine is certainly not sovereign! Everyone
needs to be reminded of this rather inconvenient truth especially those
Palestinians who seem to like titles ("president", "cabinet minister",
"Prime Minister" etc). Can it get more absurd than a "Minister of
Transportation" having to get permission from Israeli occupation authorities
to move from one Palestinian town to another. Can it get more absurd than a
Palestinian "President" seeking permission from Israeli authorities for
every bulletproof vest worn by his guards? What besides egos and semblance
of authority would let the prisoners in a concentration camp continue the
charade of electing their representatives to deal with the prison guards?
Many Palestinians who are not with titles or positions have called for
ending this charade of authority with out authority, a government that does
not govern, a president who only can preside over submission or "Ministers"
who can minister nothing other than a few employees acting as intermediaries
between the occupied people and the occupation authorities.
Neither Fatah nor Hamas are monolithic movements. Both have bad elements in
them including thugs and clean and nationalistic elements. Both have
leadership figures who may disagree with each other and even fight for
control within the movement. Both operate within the prison and prism of the
occupation and thus have no freedoms. The same can be said for smaller
factions like PFLP and DFLP. My own observations is that the younger
generations (in their 20s and 30s) are far more pragmatic and practical (and
yet even more principled) than my or older generations. Many in the older
generations are wed to sloganism of their past, reluctant to admit their
failures, reluctant to learn lessons based on the facts of history, and
generally less amenable to sitting down with those whose views are different
to come to common ground. Understandably, with life so difficult inside
historic Palestine and in refugee camps, most Palestinians focus on their
own lives, their own needs, etc. The fragmentation of Palestinian polity
was actually an intentional Zionist program going back for decades (classic
colonial attitude of divide and conquer). But we must take responsibility
for countering that program and creating unity in the Palestinian body
politic. Further, have been excluded from decision making over the past two
decades. There are Palestinian inside and outside the occupied areas who
are beginning to get together for positive and proactive actions and thus
refusing factionalism. A good example from inside Palestine is the
Palestinian civil society call to action that include boycotts, divestment
and sanctions [14] and from outside of Palestine, the US Palestine popular
national conference [15].
OTHER SEGMENTS OF HUMANITY AND FINAL THOUGHTS
There are countless groups that identify themselves as peace and justice
movements. Some are real and informed, some real and misinformed, and some
fake ones. Distinguishing between them is not always easy. Sometimes there
are leaders of those movements who make such distinctions easier by their
positions or statements. Most of the time, it is their actions or lack
thereof that distinguish them. Tikkun for example rejects outright the basic
human right of refugees to return to their homes and lands. And
occasionally its editor, Rabbi Lerner slips into outright racism. For
example: "There is something in the culture of the Palestinians, or of the
Arab world, or of the Muslim world (you tell me which, I'm not sure) that is
too tolerant of violence, and too willing to excuse it, whether it be in the
disgusting violence of Sunnis vs. Shias that took place in the Iraq/Iran war
and in the current civil war in Iraq, in Lebanon, and now the struggle in
Palestine" [16].
There are others who are real but misinformed/misguided. These are usually
identifiable by their ineffectiveness (or if effective it is effective in a
counterproductive manner). You find them both on the fringe left and fringe
right. I am sure many readers would recognize ultra left groups that issue
grandiose rhetorical statements about US and Israeli imperialism, about the
failure of others in the peace movement, and about a thousand other things.
Yet, any objective consultant can review their record of practical
productivity and be very disappointed. Statements do not liberate people,
direct actions do. Even if one sticks with educational projects only, one
should ask the question that are the targets of our educational projects and
are we succeeding in reaching out to them? One group may issue red lines
and points of unity and then stagnate and do nothing to advance knowledge of
the masses of what is going on. Another may develop principles but then
follow-up with practical and specific programs to achieve results. There
are several examples of the latter category:

Notes:

1) The Wheels of Justice bus tour that spoke at hundreds of colleges and universities and over 200 Middle and High Schools (see

http://justicewheels.org)

2) http://IfAmericansKnew.org

3) Somerville Divestment Project (http://www.divestmentproject.org/) which used city ballots for boycotts and for the right of return to advance education (imagine if we had hundreds of cities doing this)

6) and many, many more.

These and hundreds of other examples illustrate that to succeed we only need
to use our deductive reasoning to build proactive and creative programs to
arrive at freedom and democracy by collective action. It is not just
Palestinians but Israelis and Americans who need to reclaim the narrative of
reason rather than blind ideology. For many Palestinians, it was their
loyalty to one faction or another that blinded them from seeing the faults
in these actions. The majority of Palestinians do not belong to any
factions. Yet, most of us were willing to be far too passive and wait for
the leadership of various factions to give us some direction or to give us
diagnosis of the failure of other factions. We seemed to forget the history
of humanity where all major positive changes occur by the people. This in
fact is the only rational and desired definition of democracy (Latin meaning
"people power" not people elections). As the Arabic saying goes "God does
not change what is in a people (i.e. their destiny) unless they change what
is within themselves." And what is within ourselves that we need to change?
I think each of us knows with intuition but tends to project onto others
what we fear exists within us: power. Ironically outwardly inflated egos
mask personal insecurity and a lack of belief in ourselves. Those with real
power are those who are with power over themselves: openly recognizing our
human frailties/limitations and honestly and openly sharing humanity with
others.
Many take the religious texts of the Islamic-Judeo-Christian traditions as
commanding us to have dominion over the earth and its inhabitants instead of
feeling a (small) part of the universe. These notions of human superiority
are even worse when they are limited to a subset of humanity by developing
notions of "chosenness" (God's chosen people) and "manifest destiny" for a
particular religious or other community. Another aspect of our psychology
is a sense of tribalism (stronger in some communities than others especially
those who lived as minorities or in exile). This tribalism tends to
exaggerate a group's own historical contributions to humanity but also (and
perhaps more psychologically meaningful) exaggerate episodes of suffering by
the community. One could state that the competition to claim superior
background/history and "group" victim hood blinds one to the victim hood of
others and to their contribution to humanity. But I would say it is even
more problematical than that: it avoids connecting with the rest of
humanity. That is taking on the suffering of all humans as one's own and
the accomplishments of all humans as one's own. From a biological
perspective (my background in Zoology and medical genetics), it would seem
that emotion and not logic would prevent a Jew from recognizing the Nakba
(ethnic cleansing of Palestine) or a Palestinian from recognizing the Nazi
horrors for what these things are truly: a blot on all humanity. There is
equally no reason why I as a Palestinian American should have more pride in
Edward Said or other Palestinian geniuses than I do for Albert Einstein. I
should also feel the same shame for what fellow human beings do whether that
human being happens to be a Palestinian, Israeli, German or American.
Genetically, we are all one pool. Logically this can be argued
successfully. But emotionally this is hard for most humans. Most humans
base their actions on perceptions or imaginations rather than on facts,
figures, and logic. Further, as Socrates recognized (and he was executed for
it), most people live an unexamined life (which is no life at all). Doing
little inquiries and accepting the dogmas of the past. The famed rational
Philosopher Baruch (renamed himself Benedictine) Spinoza argued similar
points and he was excommunicated by the Jewish community of Amsterdam in the
17th century. Those who stand against traditional mythology suffer ridicule,
exile, banishment or death. That was the fate of most prophets of old.
Their teachings were then taken and modified/corrupted to serve the mediocre
worldly powers rather than the divine (which is in all of us). The
teachings of Jesus of "love your enemies" thus became forgotten when the
Roman empire adopted their version of Christianity slaughtering so many
people in the process. This Constantinian Christianity also led to the
Crusades and to the colonization that decimated so many native people around
the world. Jewish Theologian Marc Ellis points out that a similarly
destructive (psychologically and physically) Constantinian Judaism evolved
and is now known as political Zionism [17].
Philosophers argued that laws are moral if they are universal (apply
everywhere). By definition, there is no morality in rules that are claimed
to apply to a subset of humanity. And when laws are there like the right of
people to live on their lands freely are trampled simply because they are
not Jews (e.g. right of refugees to return), then clearly these are immoral
rules. On a practical level, when rules and human rights are selectively
applied, then the only thing left is “might makes right.” Israel and the US
have been operating with that latter principle for 60 years now in Western
Asia. The fruits of it do not look promising. The alternative for justice
and peace is not an Israeli “win” but perpetual conflict. We may yet get
the neocon self-fulfilling prophesy of a birth of Constantinian Islam in
response to a revived Constantinian Christianity (a new US imperial hegemony
in Western Asia) and Constantinian Judaism (Zionism).
We could argue that actions of individuals do not reflect on the religious
doctrine. We could also argue that individuals whether living in
dictatorships or so called democracies (but ruled by money and corporations)
are not responsible for what their political leaders do. But individuals
hold a huge responsibility not only by virtue of paying taxes but also by
the fact that silence is complicity. Individuals are the ones who make
history. We should not shy away from looking into the motivations of those
who perpetuate such heinous acts as killing a civilian whether by dropping
bombs from F-16s, suicide bombings, or execution. But we should not shy
away from looking in the mirror more. We will then begin to dissolve the
biggest obstacles to having what we all claim we want. Those obstacles are
within us. Examples of such obstacles are our persistent failure to really
love fellow human beings (hating bad deeds but not hating the evil doers),
developing teamwork that is positive and mobilizing. Sure, we can work
together easily with family members or with people from the same village
when there is a project or an issue that directly impacts us. But how many
of us work to develop the needed skills for effective teamwork?
The road forward has been very clear. I think Israeli Professor Ilan Pappe
had it right in his recent commentary on the situation. It is worth quoting
at length from his article:
"Standing idle while the American-Israeli vision of strangling the Strip to
death, cleansing half of the West bank from its indigenous population and
threatening the rest of the Palestinians -- inside Israel and in the other
parts of the West Bank -- with transfer, is not an option. It is tantamount
to "decent" people’s silence during the Holocaust. We should not tire from
mentioning the alternative in the 21st century: BDS -- Boycott, Divestment
and Sanctions -- as an emergency measure -- far more effective and far less
violent -- in opposing the present destruction of Palestine. And at the same
time talk openly, convincingly and efficiently, of creating the geography of
peace. A geography in which abnormal phenomena such as the imprisonment of
small portion of the land would disappear. There will be no more, in the
vision we should push forward, a human prison camp called the Gaza strip
where some armed inmates are easily pitted against each other by a callous
warden. Instead that area would return to be an organic part of an Eastern
Mediterranean country that has always offered the best as a meeting point
between East and West. Never before, in the light of the Gaza tragedy, has
the twofold strategy of BDS and a one state solution, shined so clearly as
the only alternative forward. If any of us are members in Palestine
solidarity groups, Arab-Jewish dialogue circles or part of civil society's
effort to bring peace and reconciliation to Palestine -- this is a time to
put aside all the false strategies of coexistence, road maps and two states
solutions. They have been and still are sweet music to the ears of the
Israeli demolition team that threatens to destroy what is left of Palestine.
Beware especially of Diet Zionists or Cloest Zionists, who recently joined
the campaign, in Britain and elsewhere against the BDS effort. Like those
enlightened pundits who used liberal organs in the United Kingdom, such as
The Guardian, to explain to us at length how dangerous is the proposed
academic boycott on Israel. They have never expended so much time, energy or
words on the occupation itself as they did in the service of the ethnic
cleansing of Palestine"[18].
Karma Nabulsi also stated succinctly the route to solving the conundrum "The
people of Palestine must finally be allowed to determine their own fate. The
drivers of violence in Gaza are clearly external. When all Palestinians can
vote for sovereign rule, peace will be within reach"[19].
But having a road/direction is not sufficient unless each and every one of
us takes on responsibility to move towards that purpose (i.e. methods of
locomotion). Blessed are those who not only discover the correct road (a
moral life) but know they can propel themselves along it without waiting for
"leaders". They are the ones who connect with their humanity, a purpose
driven life, rather than a life of reactions to base animal instincts of
seeking food, sex, and shelter and avoiding immediate dangers. This purpose
driven life is what Philosophers and Prophets have always tried to show us.

 http://www.qumsiyeh.org/fromnakbatogaza/ 

Footnotes

2) Uri Avnery, "Crocodile Tears," Gush Shalom, June 16, 2007

3) Sharon's dream By Akiva Eldar

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/871983.html

siege in the West Bank" http://www.amnesty.org/resources/Israel_Report0706/

5) Confidential UN envoy report leaked to the Guardian (PDF File) http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2007/06/12/DeSotoReport.pdf

6) http://www.qumsiyeh.org/connectingthedotsiraqpalestine/