Palestine has had an especially fraught recent history. Both religious and secular Zionism and Palestinian interests have conflicted for some time in the Palestinian part of the Arab world south of Lebanon, north of Egypt and between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river in particular. Part of it is now generally regarded as Israel (including Jerusalem which is disputed) and two Arab regions known as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip the former of which still contains a large number of Jewish ‘settlements’ (all ‘settlements’ having been now removed from the Gaza Strip).
Since the Oslo agreement of 1993, a ‘peace process’ has formally existed in the West of Jordan region as a whole which has also included other countries such as those of the Arab League and those represented by the so-called “Madrid Quartet” of the US, the EU, Russia and the UN. There has in fact been a surfeit of process yet peace has been wanting. Failure of the process to bring actual peace has been conventionally blamed on extremists on both the Israeli and Palestinian Arab sides but this may not give the full picture.
So let’s consider some pre-Oslo history. Israel was formed in 1948 as a Jewish state in a territory where the majority of the population was Arab Muslim and Christian. In the process around 500 Arab villages and towns were virtually emptied in an ‘ethnic cleansing’ that involved both threats and actual large scale violence committed against Arab civilians by Jews. Most of the Arab population of the territory now called Israel (not counting Jerusalem) fled in that year at first to the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and mainly neighbouring countries.
In 1967, Israel extended its control to the West Bank and Gaza Strip by an occupation which formally continues today, 43 years later, despite a military withdrawal from the interior of the Strip. It also occupied the Golan Heights region of Syria and other areas and ultimately annexed Jerusalem. In contrast with 1948, in the occupied Palestinian areas there was much less success in ‘cleansing’ the areas of Palestinians than there had been in 1948 in what became Israel. There was also an immediate international call for Israel to withdraw from these occupied areas gained in the 1967 war.
Despite Arab successes in the 1973 war, the situation was virtually unchanged by it in the occupied Palestinian zones and in the late 1970s Israel expressed interest in quickly encouraging 2,000,000 Jewish settlers to settle in the West Bank in particular. To date, no more than around half a million have, in fact, settled there.
In 1979 the anthropologist Rosemary Sayigh produced her Palestinians: from Peasants to Revolutionaries (with a foreword from Noam Chomsky) which examines the psychological effects of the creation of Israel and the occupation on Palestinians (not all peasants but certainly all of a class with limited options whether formerly living in the city or country) living in the refugee camps especially in Lebanon. The work is an anthropological-historical one that refers back to Ottoman Palestinian village peasant life. It attempts then to explain what it may be that turns peasants into revolutionaries. A strong work-ethic impeded by camp life, lack of educational opportunity (actually a ‘lost generation’ educationally) and a strong and disrupted but persistent land-connection and local identification are a few of the suggested catalysts.
Class divisions were also apparently a novel and negative feature that rose to prominence only in the camps and thus contributed to a revolutionary (possibly Maoist) mind-set (influenced by people of the merchant class such as George Habash). There has been a 2007 revised edition of this work. Palestinians living in Lebanon (especially of these lower classes), whether living in the camps or able to live elsewhere, are particularly unpopular (and disadvantaged due to a lack of job opportunities) in Lebanon. Conditions in Syria aren’t markedly better for them although the situation in Jordan may be significantly better.
The issue for peace seems to revolve around the apparent incompatibility of both religious and secular Zionism with containment of the territorial ambitions of Israeli Zionists within the boundaries of the current state of Israel. As a result of those ambitions, Israel finds itself between two stools in that it is unwilling to relinquish control of land yet unwilling to annex the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Annexation of this land without a substantial degree of politically unpalatable further ethnic cleansing would produce the also politically unpalatable so-called demographic problem that Israel fears. A Jewish state in a region where the majority is not Jewish offends secular ideas of democracy and incites both religious and secular fears of being unable to prevent a re-takeover of political control of such a large concentration of Jews by the majority non-Jewish population. Even in Israel-proper today there are well-founded fears that within a relatively short period of time the majority of the population is likely to be non-Jewish. On the other side of the debate, the equally intransigent ideology that demands the return of all of Palestine to pre-1948 virtual Arab rule brooks the existence of no Jewish state at all.
The ‘third way’ of a ‘two state solution’ is still the most popular idea in both Israel and the occupied territories. It also appears to be the current proposal of the Arab League for a final settlement of the so-called ‘Middle East conflict’ between Israel and its Arab and Islamic neighbours and the region. Under the League proposal Israel would withdraw to its pre-1967 borders and a degree of re-settlement of Arab refugees would occur. The status of some special cities and holy sites (notably Jerusalem and Abraham’s tomb at Hebron) would also need to be finally established to the satisfaction of all parties (and possibly the status of existing large Jewish settlements in the West Bank determined).
The Oslo Accords which allegedly heralded a ‘peace process’ and provoked such optimism were in actual fact modelled closely on the apartheid-like Allon Plan of the late 1960s for West Bank partition. The Accords proposed the entrenchment of a large Jewish presence in the West Bank especially in the Jordan Valley and in the formerly predominantly Arab city of Jerusalem. Only three percent of the West Bank was actually to be truly under Palestinian control (and even that would not have been total control and would have been in three or four divided enclaves). In the decade and a half of this ‘peace process’, meanwhile, the Jewish ‘settler’ population in the West Bank has roughly doubled.
While the 2000/01 plan arrived at with the assistance of the retiring President Clinton may have been a slight improvement that isn’t saying much. The general tenor remained unchanged and, to compound the injustice, the walls that have now been built have tended to conform to this unfair plan as if the Israeli government intends to present the un-agreed divisions to the Palestinians as a fait accompli. Thus the Israelis, from their position of strength, have continued illegally supporting settlement activity and assumed they have the right to any Palestinian land, illegally retained, that they choose. The Palestinians, meanwhile, are consequently exhausting all legal possibilities for resisting clearly illegal actions on the part of Israel and acceptance of the meagre ‘homelands’ that have effectively been offered them with little change since the West Bank was first occupied by Israel more than 40 years ago.
Nor was the presidency of George W. Bush marked by any real change, at least on the part of Israel or the US. The Palestinians were partly supported by an attempted but ultimately abortive academic and cultural boycott of Israel and reasoned advocates for a ‘one state solution’ in which the state is neither Arab/Islamic nor Jewish covering the entire area of what is now called Israel/Palestine have grown slightly more popular as issues with the ‘two state solution’ have again become more evident, however. In-principle-supporters included the late Jewish academic, Tanya Reinhart, and still include the Palestinian American commentator ‘Ali Abunimah among a significant number of other Jewish and Palestinian commentators and academics. The boycott is still being encouraged at pacbi.org (the website of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel). Two other websites of interest ultimately promoting a peaceful and just solution are fmep.org (the Foundation for Middle East Peace website) and passia.org (the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs website which contains a variety of good maps).
In his 2009 speech in Cairo, President Obama has asked the Arab world to eschew violent resistance but clearly not all kinds of resistance and made clear (as he has continued to make clear) his absolute opposition to further Israeli settlement activity.
These forbearances and peace between Israel and the Arab/Islamic world are necessary prerequisites for either a two or a one state solution. Some state discrimination still exists within Israel against its Palestinian citizens (despite the efforts of Israel’s superior court) which would need to be eliminated entirely. With regard to Gaza, further freedoms would need to be permitted rather than further repressions imposed. Gaza is currently effectively a large Israeli gaol for its Palestinian population dependent upon UN food aid. Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper is especially sympathetic with the struggles of Palestinians to live with dignity in the region.
The Way Forward?
Are successful boycotts possible? The way forward is problematical for both sides. Is another non-violent action likely to produce results? Violence may have reduced the harshness of the occupation by increasing its cost but is violence the most efficient solution? It may actually prove to be the least efficient solution (for both sides).
Israel has certainly won the propaganda war but Zionist interests may be, in fact, over playing their hands by introducing further violence. The incursion into a Gaza that was already a prison and the perception that Israel tends to practice excessive retributions may be beginning to change perceptions internationally in favour of the Palestinians. Successful Palestinian propaganda based on these new events may soon prove to be the ultimate and most efficient solution to the problems (for both sides, in fact).
How this propaganda can work remains problematic in a world with a highly politically savvy yet extremely radical class of Israelis, the Hardalim (not to be confused with the similar but perhaps more moderate Haredim). This substantial demographic group has been involved in settlement activity throughout Israel and the West Bank including in Jerusalem and ultimately seeks nothing less than a Jewish theocracy throughout a Greater Israel which may also extend well beyond the area usually regarded as Palestine today.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment