| |
The Tragedy of Palestine
Achin Vanaik
The Hindu, 18 June 2003
When Athens took over the island of Melos to extend its security, the Melians protested: how
could Athens, the fountainhead of democracy, do this? The Athenian reply was classic: for
themselves there was the Law of Democracy but for the Melians there was the Law of Empire!
This is exactly how the rulers of the US are behaving today but with one key difference - they
insist that the Law of Empire is also the Law of Democracy. There are three ways to respond to
this. One can attack and expose this pretence as part of the fight against their empire-building.
One can endorse and justify this claim. One can remain silent so as not to offend the 'masters of
the universe'. The Indian government, most of the 'foreign policy establishment', and much of the
Indian elite will adopt the second or third position.
This should not occasion surprise, for there is another Law of Empire. Empires can never be
sustained without other governments and other people of some power and prominence outside
the 'heartland' being willing to collude/collaborate with, rationalize/apologise for, the behaviour of
imperialists. Before the modern era this was justified for "reasons of state". Now it is most usually
justified in the name of "national interest". This in turn is decided not by any assessment or
expression of a properly informed national-popular will but simply by key government personnel
surrounded by a small belt of decision-shapers. The next step is the public transmission and
endorsement of such decisions via another belt of opinion-makers and shapers. Elite and
sectional interests are thus repeatedly disguised as national interests. If in democracies there is
at least some scope for debate and struggle so that broader and more popular concerns are
sometimes heard (and less frequently addressed), it is also the case that the disguise is all the
more effective.
On a few occasions the 'national interest' is self-evident because behind its pursuit stands a
transparent national popular will, not elitist presumptions. National liberation movements
struggling against colonialism, foreign occupation, dictatorship, or apartheid are the clearest
examples of this. Today, the most powerful national liberation movement anywhere in the world is
that of the Palestinians. Yet their struggle stands triply betrayed. It is being betrayed by the
supreme 'peacemaker', the US. It is being betrayed by Arab and other third world governments.
The former, being undemocratic, are terrified of the political dynamic that would be unleashed in
the region if a popularly backed independent Palestine actually emerged. The latter (including
India), in contrast to their attitude towards the Western-supported apartheid regime of South
Africa when they promoted its moral-diplomatic isolation, would now simply like the Palestinian
issue to fade away. For this to happen it is important that some 'final settlement' takes place, not
that it embodies elementary principles of justice, making it unacceptable to Israel. Finally, it is the
great tragedy of the Palestinian cause that few other national liberation movements have had to
suffer so inept and disastrous an internal political leadership!
Today's US-sponsored 'roadmap' is simply a repackaging of the old Oslo process, itself meant to
culminate in the creation of a Bantustanized Palestine permanently subordinated to Israel. But
because President Bush has for the first time formally declared support to the principle of a
separate Palestinian state, he is being applauded for statesmanship and vision. Outside pro-
Zionist circles it is extraordinary why this should be so. For more than fifty years the three
constants of US foreign policy in West Asia have been a) maintaining Israeli dominance; b)
controlling oil; c) preventing Arab unity. Its periodic diplomatic moves have never been guided by
principles of democracy or justice but by how best to cash in on any favourable shifts in the
general relationship of forces.
In 1992, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the defeat of Iraq in the first Gulf War made
the US more powerful than ever in the region, it pushed through the 1993 Oslo Accords to bring
about what Israel most wants - effective military, territorial, economic and political control over the
West Bank and Gaza but without having to take responsibility for the well being of its people. Of
course, Israel violated even these Accords by expanding its illegal settlements. But Oslo
collapsed because the Palestinian people rejected the fraud, signalled by the rise of the second
intifida in September 2000, initially provoked by the arrogance of Barak and Sharon at the Al
Aqsa Mosque. Despite doing everything to keep the Oslo process going, even Arafat had to
finally baulk at the demands made by Tel Aviv and Washington else his credibility among
Palestinians would have been totally destroyed.
Today, how ironic that Israel and the US, the only two foreign occupying forces in West Asia and
guilty of inflicting unspeakable brutalities on the people of the region, are being hailed as genuine
peacemakers! Amazingly, the US has also been applauded for imposing an un-elected leader of
its choice on the Palestinians (since Arafat can no longer be relied upon) and for then pursuing
another fraudulent 'peace process' through him! Israel's settlements are now divided into two
categories - the overwhelming majority are unassailable 'facts on the ground' that any final
settlement must accept, and a few unofficial ones, which Israel should dismantle. So there is no
question anymore of the complete withdrawal of Israel from all of the occupied territories.
Palestinians must legitimize further large-scale robbery of even the occupied territories.
Of course, Israel is adamant (and fully backed by the US) that the new Palestinian state if it
comes into being can only have "certain attributes of sovereignty" not full sovereignty. This
means no separate armed forces since this would mortally threaten Israel. There will be no Israeli
compensation for its robbery of land and properties or for the ethnic cleansing of 70 percent of
Palestinians in 1948 because there can never be any apology (this is what the issue of 'right of
return' for refugees is at bottom all about) for the injustice done by Israel then, or after 1967 when
it initiated and maintained, through the most brutal violence, the longest running illegal military
occupation in modern history. If the Palestinians refuse to accept such terms of surrender then
they themselves will be to blame for the continued Israeli occupation, which the US will support
barring the odd criticism here and there of Israeli behaviour.
But the chances of this fraudulent US-backed plan succeeding are low. Given Palestinian
weakness, Sharon sees the concessions as too much. But he cannot openly oppose the US,
which wants some settlement to stabilize its regional dominance. So Sharon's strategy is to play
for time till the US elections come along next year when domestic preoccupations become
paramount and no presidential aspirant can afford being seen as tough on Israel. As for the
Palestinians, rejecting the leadership of Abu Mazen is not enough. To succeed in their goal of
eventually achieving a just and dignified settlement they must have a new political leadership that
will, no matter how difficult, eschew violent retaliation against Israel's brutal colonial rule and seek
to shift the political relationship of forces against Washington and Tel Aviv by learning how to
appeal to US and world public opinion, in the way that Nelson Mandela was able to do for the
ANC. The moral integrity of the Palestinian cause is simultaneously their biggest asset and the
greatest weak spot of Israel and the US. Maximizing Palestinian unity is thus vital and that means
developing a post-Arafat democratic leadership that also represents the over four million
Palestinians outside the occupied territories and whose voices are today not at all heard. In the
absence of such an emergent leadership the most likely short-run development will be yet
another defiant, courageous, yet desperate third Intifida.
Copyright 2003 The Hindu
|
|
