On November 28, 1947, the CIA predicted accurately the meaning of
Truman’s push to partition Palestine: “Armed hostilities between Jews
and Arabs will break out if the UN General Assembly accepts the plan
to partition Palestine … the resulting conflict will seriously
disturb the social, economic, and political stability of the Arab
world, and US commercial and strategic interests will be dangerously
jeopardized … The poverty, unrest, and hopelessness upon which
Communist propaganda thrives will increase throughout the Arab world.”
By Mazin Qumsiyeh
It has been 20 years since the Oslo process and we can engage in a
postmortem analysis of the dozens of failed initiatives and plans for
“peace,” or pacification. Some would tell us our choices are or were
limited. Ten years ago, our departed friend Professor Edward Said
wrote: “Who is now asking the existential questions about our future
as a people? The task cannot be left to a cacophony of religious
fanatics and submissive, fatalistic sheep … We are that close to a
kind of upheaval that will leave very little standing and perilously
little left even to record, except for the last injunction that begs
for extinction. Hasn’t the time come for us collectively to demand and
formulate a genuinely Arab alternative to the wreckage about to engulf
our world?”
Today, seven million of the 12 million Palestinians around the world
are refugees or displaced people. There are some 5.8 million Israeli
Jews and nearly 6 million Palestinians who live under the rule of the
apartheid Israeli state. Half the Jews who live in Palestine/Israel
are immigrants. Israel stole most of the land and now controls some
93 percent of the land of Palestine (before the British invasion and
the Balfour Declaration, native and Zionist Jews collectively owned
only 2 percent of Palestine).
It is tempting for some people to lose faith in the possibility of
liberation and justice after 132 years since the first Zionist colony
and 65 years after the 1948 Nakba. There was a phrase in the 1960s
civil rights struggle, “free your mind and your ass will follow.”
Surely when we free our minds we will see there are many options,
despite the attempt of our oppressors to convince us that our options
are gone, save for surrendering or issuing empty slogans.
Surely, we as a people can and do chart a path forward. What are our
options outside of sloganism or defeatism? That is to say, outside of
current policies of endless talk or endless negotiations while weak?
The other options are not magical nor new; many have already
articulated them in clear visions in countless studies.
Why not revive the original charter of PLO to liberate all of
Palestine? Why not democratize the PLO to really represent the 12
million Palestinians around the world? Why not refuse to suppress
resistance and instead engage in massive popular resistance throughout
historic Palestine?
Why not engage in resistance in areas outside of Palestine? Why not
target Zionist companies and interests world wide by economic boycotts
and even sabotage [non-violent sabotage of course: Ed]?
Why not expose and confront the network of Zionist
lobbyists that support war crimes and support Zionist control? Why not
engage in educational campaigns and media campaigns and lobbying
around the world?
Why not build alliances with powerful states that could provide
protection or support, like China, Russia or Brazil? Why not promote
boycotts, divestment, and sanctions? Why not work through
international agencies including the International Court of Justice to
bring Israeli war criminals to justice and challenge membership of
Israel in the UN and all its agencies? Why not do all the above and
even more?
Politicians are reluctant to consider change because they believe they
are important. To justify their inaction and lack of backbone, they
even lie. But people can and do force politicians to change.
Regardless of how they got into power or the nature of governing
systems, leaders cannot afford to ignore strong people demands. But if
the people are complacent and ignorant, this is the best scenario for
status quo politicians.
We saw changing policies in the Ottoman Empire from support of Zionism
to rejection. We saw changes in British policies in response to the
Palestinian revolution of 1936 and continuing pressures even recently
when the British parliament voted against attacking Syria on behest of
Israel.
And we saw the power of resistance in 1987-1991 in challenging both
the complacency of leaders in Tel Aviv and Tunisia. Surely we can also
learn lessons from the limitations of military might whether in
Vietnam in the 1960s or in Iraq in 2003, or Lebanon in 2006, or Gaza
in 2008. More recently we can see dramatic shifts and retreats in
issues dealing with Syria and Iran. History is dynamic and not static
nor is it to the liking of status quo politicians.
The original Zionist project was for control of the area between the
Euphrates and the Nile. Here we are 130 years later and even the area
between the Jordan and the Mediterranean is roughly at parity between
Jewish Israelis and Palestinians. When Balfour declaration was issued
in 1917, there were 650,000 Palestinians in Palestine; today there are
nearly 6 million.
Surely this is not a hopeless scenario. After denying our existence,
the Palestinian flag now flies around Palestine even inside the Green
line. Surely this should not be at the expense of Palestinian flags on
security uniforms preventing Palestinians from engaging in resistance
or as backdrops with Israeli and American flags in endless
negotiations.
Martin Luther King, Jr stated once: “Cowardice asks the question – is
it safe? Expediency asks the question – is it politic? Vanity asks the
question – is it popular? But conscience asks the question – is it
right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is
neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because
it is right.”
The author is a professor at Bethlehem University. He previously
served on the faculties of the University of Tennessee, Duke and Yale.
