Democratic Palestine : 30 (ص 26)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 30 (ص 26)
- المحتوى
-
Algiers in 1987. PLO officials were
quick to attribute the document to the
personal initiative of Bassam Abu
Sharif, leaving an air of unclarity
around the PLO’s position in interna-
tional circles, and disturbing Palesti-
nian national unity.
The PLO Central Council, meeting
in Baghdad from July 31st to August
3rd, alleviated this situation by adop-
ting a resolution against any statements
that do not reflect the official PLO
position.
DISTORTING REALITY
Aside from compromising basic
Palestinian principles and the unity
among the organizations in the PLO,
this document distorted the facts before
international public opinion which it
purported to address. The most basic
distortion was equating ‘Israel’ with the
Palestinians, thus blurring the distinc-
tion between the oppressors and the
oppressed. If Palestinian and Israeli
interests in peace are equivalent, why
then has ‘Israel’ initiated four major
wars in addition to innumerable bomb-
ing raids and mini-invasions, while the
Palestinian liberation movement’s
employment of violence has been aimed
at addressing the wrongs inflicted by
Israeli aggression and expansion in
these wars? These are not just realities
of the past. Rather, the ever augmented
militarization of the Israeli economy
makes aggression a structural im-
perative of the state, as are arms sales
to reactionary forces around the globe,
participation in the US’s Star Wars
program, etc.
If the document attempts to make a
separation between the average Israeli
and the government, it still misses the
mark. Opinion polls over the years and
today show a rather solid public con-
sensus for the state’s aggressive acts.
The first notable exception occurred
during the war in Lebanon; it occurred
because of unprecedented Israeli losses
in the face of the resistance of the
Palestinian and Lebanese masses and
fighting forces. Today, the majority of
Israelis concur with the army’s heavy-
handed tactics for beating down the
popular uprising in the occupied ter-
ritories, despite the broad international
outcry against the army’s policy of
shooting to kill, breaking bones and
28
tear-gassing to death. Some cracks in
the consensus have occurred. Most
significant is the conclusion that the
occupation of the West Bank and Gaza
Strip is counterproductive, reached by
over 250 reserve officers grouped in the
Council for Peace and Security, led by
General Aharon Yariv, former head of
military intelligence. This group reach-
ed this conclusion after half a year of
uninterrupted Palestinian uprising.
Clearly, experience shows that cracks in
the Israeli concensus are made by
struggle, not by offering unwarranted
concessions, based on_ illusory
premises.
The document toys with reality on
two other basic points. The first of
these is the distinction between Judaism
and Jews on the one hand, and Zionism
and ‘Israel’ on the other. (In fact, only
20% of Jews in the world live in
‘Israel’.) Making this distinction has
always been crucial for creating
broader understanding of the nature of
the Middle East conflict and _ the
Palestinian cause. The PLO has, for its
part, defined itself as a national
movement, i.e., it represents. the
Palestinians regardless of their faith. In
the early seventies, the PLO launched
the concept of a democratic, secular
state in Palestine, devoid of
discrimination on religious or racial
grounds. Yet with its ramblings about
«the Jewish people», this document
returns the discourse to the Middle
Ages, before the separation of religion
and statehood, which is now standard
in democratic societies all over the
world. This is a major concession to
Zionism which has worked to equate
Judaism with nationality, in the in-
terests of its colonial project.
The other crucial truth toyed with by
the document is the oneness of the
Palestinian people and their cause. By
failing to mention the Palestinians’
right to repatriation, the document ig-
nores those Palestinians who have been
forced into exile by the repeated waves
of Zionist aggression, beginning in 1948.
A concurrent fault of the document is
that the referendum it proposes would
be conducted only among Palestinians
present in the West Bank and Gaza
Strip, again shunting aside over half the
Palestinian people. This is in addition
to the fact that such a referendum is at
best superfluous, since the PLO is
recognized as the Palestinian people’s
sole legitimate representative; even
among forces antagonistic to our cause,
this is widely acknowledged, if only off
the record.
The Palestinian liberation movement
- and democratic Israelis - would be
better served by a realistic assessment
of what must be done to bring peace to
the Middle East. In fact, the PLO is in
possession of a realistic peace proposal
as was clearly specified in the resolu-
tions of the 18th PNC, held in Algeria,
in April 1987:
«8. To support the convening of an
international conference with full
authority under the auspices of the UN
and on the basis of its resolutions
related to the Palestinian cause. This
conference is to be held in order to deal
with the Arab-Zionist conflict and its
core, the Palestinian cause. The con-
ference shall be attended by the five
permanent members of the Security
Council. The PLO shall participate as a
full, independent party, on an equal
footing with the other parties, because
the PLO is the sole legitimate represen-
tative of the Palestinian people, as
stated in the Arab summits’ resolu-
tions. To uphold this form of interna-
tional conference.»
OLD—NEW TACTIC
Bassam Abu Sharif and whoever else
may have formulated this document are
well-aware of these issues. Careful
reading reveals that the document in
reality addresses neither international
public opinion nor the Israeli citizenry,
but rather the US administration. Why
else does it take pains to concur with
the US view of an international con-
ference as an umbrella for direct talks
between ‘Israel’ and the Palestinians?
Again, the document veils actual Israeli
policy in illusions, saying that the
Palestinians agree that no outside party
should impose a settlement. Do the
authors of the document really not
know that the reason the Israeli leaders
object to a fully empowered interna-
tional conference is that they don’t
want to be confronted with the PLO
and the legitimacy of Palestinian na-
tional rights which are recognized by
the majority of countries in the world,
as evidenced at the UN. - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 30
- تاريخ
- سبتمبر ١٩٨٨
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed