Back to basics in Palestine
Palestinian freedom is non-negotiable. Human rights are
non-negotiable
BY SUSAN ABULHAWA
To try to comprehend the Palestinian Authority (PA)’s
UN bid for statehood and to figure out what the ramifications are on
many fronts, it behoves us to take a look at history because this is,
after all, not the first time that a Palestinian state was formally
declared. I know there are legal differences between the declaration of
statehood in the 1980s and the current application for recognition but
for all intents and purposes they are both attempts to achieve statehood
by seeking international recognition which, I feel, is the wrong
approach for our struggle at this moment in history and, in my opinion,
is also probably a cynically calculated move that has little to do with
actually achieving statehood.
The first intifada and the
declaration of statehood
In 1988 the Palestinian Liberation Organisation
(PLO) formally declared the state of Palestine and the designation
“Palestine” for the PLO was adopted by the UN in acknowledgement of that
declaration even though we had no formal status at the UN as a state. At
that time, as with the present, we had overwhelming popular support in
the General Assembly. Also at that time, as in the present, the US did
everything it could to prevent any kind of recognition or international
legitimacy for Palestine.
The more important and striking similarity between the
declaration of statehood in 1988 and in the present UN bid is the
presence of a persistent non-violent movement with growing international
solidarity.
In 1987 the first intifada began as a popular,
spontaneous and grass-roots uprising that moved the Palestinian struggle
away from guerrilla warfare. It changed the way the world saw
Palestinians and began to reveal the brutality of the occupation. The
first intifada was non-violent, marked by mass civil disobedience,
boycotts, refusal to pay taxes, disruption of power and sewage going to
illegal colonies and more of the like. Throwing rocks against tanks and
armoured Israeli vehicles was symbolic and few in the international
community bought Israel’s claims that these rocks constituted serious
violent threats.
As a result, the first intifada began to capture the
imagination and inspire civil society everywhere despite Israel’s best
PR and hasbara campaigns. Popular international solidarity was
growing and there was a burgeoning awareness of who we are and what we
had suffered for decades under occupation. And for the first time there
was open public criticism of Israel in places that would not have dared
to do so before. Simply, the moral authority of our cause could not be
ignored.
Even though Israel was committing unspeakable war crimes
to suppress the intifada, the movement only intensified and caused power
to shift to the Palestinian street for the first time. That shift was
also changing world opinion, which was a major threat to Israel because
it hit at their greatest weak point: their image.
But the first intifada didn’t just threaten Israel; it
was also a threat to the Palestinian leadership, which was outside of
Palestine at the time. The persistence of the first intifada spawned
local leaderships that were not directly affiliated with the PLO and
although the PLO had nothing to do with the first intifada, they quickly
positioned themselves at the forefront and began to take control as much
as possible from the outside. The PLO’s efforts to control extinguished
the intifada’s fire and culminated in the Madrid conference (October
1991) followed by the Oslo accords (September 1993).
In essence, here is what happened: after decades of
suffering at the hands of a brutal military occupation whose only
purpose was to displace or subjugate Palestinians under their control,
we had the first bottom-up movement that was full of solidarity, full of
hope. And more importantly, it was full of promise. It promised to grow
and spread. It promised a path of successful non-violent resistance with
growing international attention at the levels of civil society,
mainstream media and government leaderships. This promise was seized by
the Palestinian leadership. They took ownership of the movement when it
started to gain momentum on the ground and abroad, they grabbed the
reins of it and then they steered us into what turned out to be more
slaughter and more wholesale theft of our lands and properties, all
under the auspices of a negotiated settlement called the “peace
process”.
Today we find ourselves in a situation bearing many of
the same hallmarks and a reaction by the Palestinian leadership that
looks too much like their reaction then.
The second intifada and the UN
bid for statehood
Although the second intifada’s early days saw violent
Palestinian reactions to Israel’s sustained terrorism, it has morphed
into a non-violent struggle that is taking root not only in Palestine
but throughout the world. The change in the second intifada’s character
has spurred many to declare it over but this is not an accurate
statement. The second intifada is alive and well and growing.
Perhaps the earliest manifestations of active
non-violent resistance came from the activities of the International
Solidarity Movement (ISM). Construction of the apartheid wall spawned
more local heroes who began leading unrelenting and regular
demonstrations. The call from Palestinian civil society for
international boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel was
launched in 2005, pushing the movement in new directions and far outside
of Palestine, whereby solidarity groups all over the world joined and
have been implementing creative non-violent resistance actions.
The results have been impressive and non-violent
resistance is once again taking hold in the Occupied Territories and
around the world. It is happening on an even greater scale
internationally thanks to the current communication technology that was
not available in the 1980s. Among the many victories of the BDS movement
abroad, several major corporations have had their hands forced by
activists. Thanks in large part to BDS affiliate, CodePink, Israeli
cosmetics company AHAVA’s flagship store in London was forced to close.
Veolia, the French multinational corporation, lost billions of euros
worth of municipality contracts for its involvement in building
infrastructure for illegal Israeli settlements and it is now facing
financial meltdown. Most recently, Agrexco, a major Israeli exporter of
produce that comes primarily from illegal Israeli farms on stolen
Palestinian land, has been forced to liquidate its assets after being
unable to pay its creditors thanks to the efforts of BDS.
These are just a few examples of the results of
cooperation between civil society agents everywhere who have heeded the
calls of BDS. This popular movement is taking on a life of its own and
is accompanied by similar movements, like the International Solidarity
Movement that I mentioned before, the Free Gaza Movement, the flotillas
and the Russell Tribunal on Palestine, to name a few. Important
international figures across the world have signed on and taken action
against Israel’s apartheid. These are prominent individuals in their
fields – literary figures, musicians, clergy, military personnel,
activists, journalists and more – who have taken very public stands
against Israeli apartheid.
This is huge! Its importance and impact should not be
underestimated. It hits right at what I said was one of Israel’s weakest
points. Israel pours billions of dollars into creating and maintaining
the image of a civilised and enlightened country and they panic when the
world starts to see the reality of their ongoing campaign of ethnic
cleansing and they panic even more when they’re called out on it.
That is why they’ve been so freaked out lately, passing
one fascist law after another to try to police what people say, what
they publicly remember (anti-Nakba law) or what they choose to buy or
not buy (anti-boycott law). They’re freaked out by internationals
bearing witness to their war crimes so they’ve passed a series of laws
to prevent non-Palestinians from going into the West Bank and Gaza. Then
there is the racist loyalty oath – the list goes on. They are absurd,
fascist laws that only show how scared Israel has become of our growing
solidarity movement, BDS and non-violent actions inside Palestine. This
groundswell should not be minimised!
Then came the Arab Spring! It caused a seismic shift in
power away from the ruling elite toward the people and toward popular
action and democracy throughout the Arab world. The Arab Spring inspired
and galvanised our movement even more. The Arab Spring is now going
global, as it is not a stretch to make a connection between the
demonstrations in Tahrir Square and the ongoing Occupy Wall Street
movement in New York.
Against this backdrop of people power, the Palestinian
Authority unilaterally (and I don’t mean ‘unilaterally’ in that it
excluded Israel but ‘unilaterally’ in that it excluded Palestinians)
decided to make a bid for statehood at the UN. At no time did Mahmoud
Abbas address the people he supposedly represents. Even at the UN, when
he made the bid for statehood, he was still speaking to everyone except
us. That, to me, is a bad sign that history could be repeating itself
here. It looks too much like the past, particularly when we see images
of Palestinians giving Abu Mazen (aka Abbas) a hero’s welcome home. It
reminds me of the fanfare of the PA’s arrival in the West Bank after
Oslo which is clear to everyone in retrospect to have been nothing more
than a ruse to quiet popular non-violent action in order to give Israel
the time it needed to continue its colonial endeavours in the Occupied
Territories.
I would also add that the timing of this UN bid is
questionable, as it comes when the PA is severely weakened by the
damning revelations of the Palestine Papers leaked on Al Jazeera. Why,
after 20 years of negotiations, does the PA make this move? I’m sure it
didn’t just dawn on them that Israel was only ever just trying to buy
itself time to create facts on the ground. They’re not stupid and they
understood Israel’s colonial expansion and goal to take everything they
could. The truth is that the PA was scared. Their power was threatened
by the Arab Spring and by the fadiha al-kubra (the great scandal)
of the Palestine Papers. So this move may well have been just a cynical
calculation to restore the power of the PA. I hate to think the worst –
that it was actually orchestrated with Israel and the US for the same
purpose and what we’re witnessing is theatre.
Caution to the PA/PLO
So I’m worried about this UN bid. However, I also think
that if certain conditions are met and the mistakes of the past are not
repeated, it can still be salvaged as a good thing. For that to happen,
the PA (or PLO, it is hard to know who’s who any more) must ensure that
the following happens:
1. They must go full force forward with what they
started, without compromise.
I hear that at least one Security Council member is
trying to get the PA to alter the text of the UN bid, in exchange for
voting in favour of statehood, so that it excludes the ability to take
any retroactive grievances to the International Court of Justice. If
this happens, it would be a disaster for us because it would be a
backhanded way for the PA to abdicate the right of return (which they
have no right to do) under the cover of statehood. We cannot let them do
that and I think it is time for another petition with 6,00,000
signatures to deliver to Abbas like the one Al-Awda delivered to Arafat
when he was considering the same thing.
The second part of going full force forward is to take
the bid to the General Assembly once the Security Council sends it back
with the promised US veto. I’m very happy to see that the PA has been
pushing for Palestine membership in various UN bodies, including, most
recently, UNESCO.
2. Don’t stand in the way of popular movements. Already
the PA is sending police to bust up peaceful anti-occupation protests;
in essence, working for the occupier. This has to stop. The PA cannot be
allowed to seize the power on the ground and tamp down the spread of
non-violent resistance.
3. Become a force that creates synergy among our various
efforts to achieve our rights; make the UN bid into something that adds
to the ongoing efforts instead of something that stifles them. For
example, the UN bid can open up legal avenues for a whole new arena for
our struggle but don’t let that come at the expense of a growing
non-violent resistance movement.
4. They should become a force of unity not only between
Gaza and the West Bank but also among Palestinians of 1948, Palestinians
still in refugee camps in other nations and Palestinians in the diaspora,
whether in Arab nations, the Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia and other
parts of the world.
5. Finally, they should not assume that they will
maintain power without popular blessing which will not remain if this UN
bid stifles our efforts or gives away an iota of our right to return.
This is a warning to the PA that accepting statehood at
the expense of retroactive grievances (i.e. everything we’re fighting
for, including the right of return) will have terrible consequences for
us all.
No two-state
solution; no one-state solution
That said, I want to emphasise why I think we are living
in the most opportune time we’ve had in the history of this conflict.
The kind of bottom-up power we’re witnessing is fertile
ground for us. This is the arena in which we are more powerful. This is
the field where we win because Israel has no real defences against us in
this arena. Our greatest power lies in the moral command of our cause –
we are the indigenous people fighting for freedom, struggling to live
dignified lives in our own homeland. We didn’t come from Poland or
Russia or France or Germany or any other place. We are the natives of
the holy land in every sense of the word “native” – historically,
ethnically, culturally, legally and even genetically, we are the
natives. If you take samples of our DNA, the results will show genetic
markers specific to that region of the world. Our strength is in our
roots.
It is no accident that Israel is so often so busy
uprooting our olive trees or unearthing our cemeteries to cover them
over with new structures. Because the truth is that there is no forensic
evidence linking most Israelis to the land. So they have been busy
either destroying traces of our existence or trying to claim it as
theirs. But that is really an impossible task, no matter how much
they’ve already destroyed. Palestine is passed down from one
generation’s hearts and memories to another. Ben-Gurion could not have
been more wrong when he predicted that “The old will die and the young
will forget”.
But we are where we are now and they are here with us,
whether we or they like it or not. And the bid for statehood has been
made regardless of how we feel about it. So what is the path forward?
Before we answer that, we have to decide: what is the
endgame, what is the result we want to achieve? Unfortunately, and after
65 years of this struggle, we still do not have a truly unified call.
People often ask me which proposal I support, the
one-state or the two-state. It seems those are the only two proposals in
people’s minds. That it has to be one or the other and we end up
struggling for one or the other. We waste precious time and energy
debating the merits of one over the other. Which is better, we ask: the
two-state solution – ostensibly based on the 1967 borders, or the
one-state solution – which would presumably include all of Palestine for
all her inhabitants?
The fundamental problem with both of these proposals is
that they are concentrating on the political construct of statehood. And
I think that is the wrong approach.
If we drill down to what we really want, what we all
want and all can agree on: it is to live dignified lives in our own
homeland with full human and civil rights accorded to everyone there
equally, regardless of religion.
I know this sounds a lot like the one-state proposal;
but it differs in that it is simply a call for basic rights. It is not a
call for a particular political construct because frankly, it doesn’t
matter what the political construct looks like as long as all our basic
human rights are upheld and that includes our natural right to return
and live in our own homeland.
This, in my opinion, is what we should be working
toward. Calling for our natural rights as human beings and as an
indigenous people is what unifies us all. To be accorded human rights is
our rightful inheritance. It is the rightful destiny of human beings not
to be subjugated, expelled or oppressed. The call from Palestinian civil
society, which originated inside the Occupied Territories, is the best
starting place framework. In any event, we are in great need of a
consensus for a unified and uncompromising call founded on the goal of
human dignity. This can form the frame of reference for whatever actions
we take.
So I would say, do not think in terms of a
political construct but think in terms of human rights. In terms of
human dignity and human worth that is not measured by religion. This is
a goal that will unify us and will strengthen our collective efforts
that pour into the same movement for freedom.
Time to abandon
negotiations
For the most part, Palestinian resistance has been
allowed to develop on two major, and mostly exclusive, fronts.
a. Armed resistance: Although we have the right to
resist foreign occupation by any means available to us, including armed
resistance, I think this is not an effective strategy for us.
For starters, rocks, Molotov cocktails or even home-made
rockets don’t stand a chance against armoured tanks, warplanes and some
of the most sophisticated death machines known to man. This is simply
not an arena where we can gain any ground because we are weak in this
regard. We do not have a military or any necessary hardware to change
this fact.
More importantly, armed resistance ultimately erodes the
single most important power we have. As I already mentioned, it is the
moral superiority of the cause of justice and human rights against their
cause which is the desire for power and an ethno-religiously pure
society.
b. The second main path that the Palestinian leadership
has taken us on has been negotiations. This too is and always was a
fundamentally flawed and morally unsound approach because it assumes a
very denigrating assumption: That our basic rights as human beings, our
rights as the indigenous people of the holy land and our freedom are
things to be negotiated for; as if our rights, enshrined in all tenets
of international law, and our freedom are mere bargaining chips to be
traded for clean water or bread.
And yet the PA has continued along in what every one of
us knows is a sham. This peace process was never designed to lead to a
life of dignity for Palestinians. It was never meant to lead to a viable
Palestinian state. Netanyahu’s speech made that clear. Israel’s actions
for the past 20 years have made that clear. Why else would they
continue, on a daily basis, to expropriate Palestinian land and turn it
over for the exclusive use of Jews being invited from all over the world
to come and take what is not theirs? Why else would they continue their
policy of home demolitions unabated? The peace process was always a ruse
to buy Israel more time to take more and more and more and ultimately
wipe us off the map.
You only need to look at how the map has changed over
time to see the truth in that statement. The current map proves that.
How could this not be apparent to the PA?
In fact, even as he submitted the bid for statehood,
Mahmoud Abbas made the mind-boggling statement that there was no
substitute for negotiations. He is in fact very wrong. In fact, there is
no other instance in history where an occupied and oppressed people have
been expected to actually negotiate with their oppressors for freedom
and for basic human rights.
When Nelson Mandela was in prison and change began to
sweep over South Africa, some of his comrades were being released from
prison. Nelson Mandela too was offered a deal for his freedom. PW Botha
offered him freedom if he would renounce violence. Mandela refused the
offer and, in his now famous letter, he explained that “Only free men
can negotiate”. He was the only one among his comrades to remain in
prison by the end of the 1980s. His uncompromising insistence on
implementing the full range of human rights and freedoms for blacks
equal to whites inspired us all and eventually culminated in bringing
apartheid to its knees.
Likewise, Rosa Parks did not negotiate with the white
driver or white passengers to take her rightful place among the rest of
humanity on that bus. She stayed put with all the force she could
muster. Her insistence on being recognised as fully human, fully worthy,
inspired the civil rights movement. Martin Luther King and Malcom X
didn’t enter into negotiations to beg the government to let black folk
use a few more water fountains or be allowed to buy a house in a few
white neighbourhoods.
Yet that is precisely the indignity we are accepting
upon ourselves by engaging in these negotiations. By continuing to
negotiate for basic rights, we are accepting the premise that we cannot
be fully worthy human beings unless Israel says so.
We are powerful: This
is our time
With the Arab Spring, with BDS, ISM, Free Gaza and the
massively growing international solidarity, this is our time!
It is our time to say that only free people can
negotiate. It is our time to take our seat on the bus and refuse to get
up for anyone. It is our time to boycott. To divest. To proudly link
arms with every human being willing to stand with us, no matter who they
are – be they Jewish, Christian, Muslim, gay or straight, black or white
or any colour in between. And to remember the solidarity shown to us, as
our beloved Edward Said once said.
If we continue on the path of non-violent resistance
that we started in the Occupied Territories and throughout the world,
and with the solidarity of justice-seeking people everywhere, I believe
with all my being that we will eventually be in a position to say to the
Israelis in no uncertain terms, and with a force they will have no
choice but to listen to, that they are welcome to stay as our equals but
not as our masters.
You may think that that day is unrealistic. You might
say that because we’ve been conditioned to see our weakness. To see how
outgunned we are. How outmanoeuvred we’ve been. Or how little clout we
have in the halls of power compared with the intense influence that
Israel wields on the most powerful countries. But focusing on these
things obscures how powerful we really are. Yes, I know it is true that
Israel can make any US president jump when they say jump; but I don’t
think Israel is feeling much like a winner right now.
How triumphant do you think Israel feels with the world
turning against them? Peoples of the world are seeing them for the
apartheid state that they are and their growing isolation surely doesn’t
feel very triumphant to them. It surely doesn’t feel triumphant to them
to essentially lose their two major allies in the region, Egypt and
Turkey, within the span of one year.
And by believing that we are powerless, we’ve allowed
every Israeli to think they can dictate our destiny. Just take, for
example, the Israeli historian, Benny Morris, who said on RT’s
CrossTalk a few weeks ago: “I really wish that the Palestinians
would return to the negotiating table to which they’ve been invited
repeatedly and actually do so seriously in good faith and negotiate… If
they don’t want to do that… the Palestinians will continue to suffer.”
Translation: “Do as Israel wants or you will continue to
be bombed, killed, deprived, oppressed and systematically robbed.” In
fact, that is happening even when we do negotiate as Israel wants; but
the point is that you can see from this statement the level of arrogance
that pervades every sector of Israeli society.
History is on our
side
While it is true that we don’t have the military
capabilities nor do we have anywhere near Israel’s clout among the
ruling elite of powerful nations, we are not powerless. In fact, we are
unrivalled in our power at the ground level internationally. Our
struggle for freedom is the longest running and best known around the
world. Harnessing that advantage is the path we must continue to take.
Taking our case not to the UN or the US state department
or to the UK or France but to the populations of the world is where our
energy should be focused.
Ř It is to the universities that have been signing onto the
academic boycotts;
Ř To consumers who do not want to buy blood products;
Ř To the churches and synagogues and other religious institutions
that understand the ungodliness of ethnic cleansing and are making sure
that their trusts are not invested in Israel’s war crimes;
Ř To the municipalities and the labour unions which are divesting
their pensions from Israel in order to affirm their belief in universal
human dignity regardless of one’s religion;
Ř To the artists and musicians and writers and filmmakers who do
not want their names or creations associated with Israel’s apartheid;
Ř
To our fellow US citizens who do not want their tax dollars spent in
support of ethno-religious entitlement and exclusivity, especially when
our school districts are teetering on bankruptcy and unemployment is
knocking on the door of 10 per cent.
We cannot lose on this path. You don’t need to take my
word for it. History is replete with examples that prove what I’m
saying. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. And we don’t need to
continue down a path of denigrating and racist negotiations. We are a
native people who deserve to live in their native homeland with full
human rights. It is that simple.
And so to the new sound bite that Israel issued (which
is being parroted by the Obama administration, Congress and nearly all
mainstream media commentators): “there are no shortcuts to peace”, I
would like to offer these truths: “Palestinian freedom is
non-negotiable” and “Human rights are non-negotiable”.
Our message will resonate – maybe not with the ruling
elite but certainly with civil society and ordinary people who adhere to
principles of justice and fair play. Because our demands are
self-evident truths that we should pursue without apology, without
negotiations, without compromise and without fear. That is how every
freedom movement achieved its goal before us and that is how we will
achieve ours. That is our most effective path forward, not
negotiations.
(Susan Abulhawa is the author of Mornings in Jenin
and founder of the non-profit organisation Playgrounds for Palestine.
The above article, a condensed version of Abulhawa’s speech at the
opening of the Al-Awda National Palestine Centre, California, on October
8, was posted on palestinechronicle.com on October 14, 2011.)
Courtesy: The Palestine Chronicle;
http://palestinechronicle.com
|