In praise of Palestinian steadfastness

Despite 60 years of hardship, real achievement, too.
By Ben White
from the May 2, 2008 edition, Christian Science Monitor

São Paulo, Brazil - As Israel celebrates 60 years of statehood this month, Palestinians are taking the opportunity to remember the catastrophic shattering of their society in 1948. It is not simply a question of recalling the past; they continue to struggle for self-determination and to have their rights recognized under international law.

Yet it is a mistake to consider the past 60 years as simply a story of unmitigated disaster for the Palestinian people. There have also been significant successes and achievements – and it is a story worth telling. This is all the more remarkable, given the extent to which the society was devastated in 1948: Israel destroyed some 400 villages as 85 percent of Palestinians in what became Israel were dispossessed.

In spite of everything, Palestinians have not only survived but won international recognition for Palestinian statehood thanks to unflagging persistence. Often bereft of allies, they have struggled to make substantive political gains. But Palestinians inside Israel, the Occupied Territories, and the diaspora have resisted Israeli domination – and refused to just "go away."

This Palestinian resolution is embodied in the Nassars, a Christian family I have come to know over the years. Owners of a beautiful piece of land overlooking Nahalin village to the west of Bethlehem, they have seen illegal settlements spring up on the hillsides around them and thus far survived attempts by the occupying Israeli military to confiscate their property.

Whether blocking the path of trespassing settlers, pursuing their case in the courts, or connecting with supporters around the world, the Nassars have mobilized the resources of their family and community. Most inspiringly, they have developed their land to host children's camps, intercultural exchange, and foreign guests, knowing that they have to fight to remain on their own land.

Theirs is a victory that resonates with the historical Palestinian refusal to simply accept their lot and – especially since the 1960s – the parallel determination to organize grass-roots resistance. Perhaps the most significant achievement was the first intifada, a popular uprising in the late 1980s that showed the Israelis that their occupation came with a price, as well as displaying to the world the oppressive reality of Israeli policy.

A further profound achievement of the past few decades has been the flourishing of Palestinian civil society. Emphasizing democratic participation and education, these refugee camp community centers, dance troupes, media organizations, and human rights groups have offered vital strength to a besieged society. It was in part due to this deeply rooted culture of active citizenship that the Palestinians were able to hold elections that in their professionalism and transparency were the envy of the Arab world.

Building on a vibrant tradition of intellectual life, Palestinian scholars and academics have risen to global prominence in recent decades, not only as advocates of their people's struggle, but also as figures of repute in their own disciplines.

lots more..
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0502/p09s01-coop.html

Reminds me irresistibly of Prof. Lehrer's Folk-Song Army tune:

Remember the war against Franco?
That's the kind where each of us belongs.
Though he may have won all the battles
We had all the good songs!

Only four sentences in the whole piece communicate anything of sense or use:

"Meanwhile, Palestinian political unity and a strategic, principled resistance have often been in short supply. Score-settling, corruption, and the interference of third parties remain major obstacles.

"The Palestinians would also gain by a collective agreement to halt attacks on Israeli civilians. As well as the moral dimension, it's good politics, too."

New elections are definitely called for. But unless the world agrees to honor the result, what's the point?

The current civil strife benefits only Israel.

I can't help but wonder why the heck Egypt is working on an agreement between Fatah/Hamas/Israel.

What's needed is Paletinian reconiliation, WITHOUT INTERNATIONAL INTERFERENCE.

What's needed is the space to create and implement the rule of law.


Having said all that, I am continually amazed by the fact that in the face of an endless onslaught, the vast majority of Palestinians have retained their humanity, become educated, and contribute to their world. It's pretty amazing.

has it's own internal political difficulties. This gives them a strong independent interest in keeping the I/P situation at least tamped down, as quiet as possible. It's not because they care all that much, it's because it's right next door.

And they do all that while "starving".

Added: Actually, I think there are many very fine people in the world who also happen to call themselves both Arab and Palestinian. My sarcasm is not aimed at the Palestinain people but is aimed at the PR efforts attempting to blame their problems on Israel. It is the Palestinain militants and leadership who have always had it within their means to greatly improve the living conditions and well-being of the Palestinian people - but have chosen instead to focus on the destruction of Israel as a first priority. The Palestinians are truly a resilient people having endured sixty years of this while many of them them have been stuffed into refugee camps. OTOH - they did elect Hamas as their leadership.

He was engaged to a young Pakistani girl, who was also working at the same place. They were much concerned about what her parents would think of their relationship, an idea that I didn't really understand all that well at that time, but which now seems clear enough. I helped them fix their swamp cooler once. We hung out some. We collaborated on a few things. Then they were moved to a different project and I was moved across country, and I've never seen them since. But they are still there clear in my memory, unlike so many others, because they were such fine people.

Belief in democracy, in the principle that people should manage their own political affairs via the ballot box, does not entail belief that in all instances people will manage their political affairs wisely. That a party is democratically elected to hold the reins of government does not require any other government to adopt a posture of friendship towards it, subsidize it, or even recognize it diplomatically, if it seems to them hostile, or liable otherwise to act against their own national policies or interests. If people choose to disregard this, and in the grip of that disregard choose to elect a government that many others are likely to regard with such disdain, they must bear the consequences of that choice, and have no more grounds for complaint over them than does an individual who mismanages his or her own affairs to the point of ostracization within their community.

Civil strife among Arab Palestinians, indeed a certain lack of cohesion in Arab Palestinian society, has long benefited Israel, and is even a large part of why the Zionist enterprise was successful in establishing Israel. There is nothing new about the present condition of hostile division between Hamas and the Palestine Authority. It is possible that Arab Palestine would, however, benefit from matters being brought to head, in such a way that one side gained unchallenged dominance, and possessed the means to enforce this. The greatest obstacle to negotiating a settlement between Israel and Arab Palestine is that there is no one to negotiate with among the former, in the limited sense that there is no body in Arab Palestine whose word will bind the whole polity to the agreement. Ultra-militant factions within Arab Palestinian society, to whom whatever compromise that has been worked out is unsatisfactory, have not been in the past, and probably cannot be in practice, prevented from continuing their private wars against Israel, whatever the signatories to an agreement have undertaken. Until one faction within the polity of Arab Palestine can achieve and enforce a monopoly on the employment of violence for political ends, no peace between Israel and Arab Palestine is possible.

The government of Egypt doubtless considers it in its own best interest that there should be a lessening of violent tensions in Gaza, and a diminution in the power and prestige of Hamas there. Hamas, you will recall, is essentially an off-shoot of the old Moslem Brotherhood, which has been an enemy of Egyptian governments back to the days of King Farouk, and which Col. Nasser made strenuous attempts to extirpate from the earliest days of his power. Violence in Gaza strengthens the Brotherhood in Egypt, and so presents some danger to the government of Mubarek in Egypt. Even the semblance of peace in Gaza would greatly mitigate political unrest in Egypt. While it is true that many in Egypt do not much like its government's long-standing 'cold peace' with Israel, it only becomes a problem for that government when the news is filled with reports of Arab Palestinians killed by the Israeli army.

It does not strike me as especially noteworthy that Arab Palestinians have 'retained their humanity', any more than it does that Israelis have. It really ought not to be a question for anyone whether the peoples involved in this conflict are human beings. It is worth pointing out, though, that emotions of fear and rage and hate are a portion of humanity's common lot, and that persons governed by these are no less human, or partake less of humanity, than those who are filled with pity and benevolence and love. Both these peoples have been at war with one another, by reasonable reckoning, for nigh on ninety years, and the pressures of war impose distortions on people and societies, as steady winds do on trees. Chief among these is the manner in which the enemy is regarded, as a being of unceasing malice, inscrutable in its motive to the point that evil at the very core of its being and nature come to seem the only motive conceivable for its actions. This afflicts all parties to all wars in some degree; it is not unique to this one. It is one reason wars tend to be truely settled only when one side has gained the upper hand so solidly that it can impose a victor's peace, because trust in the vanquished is not required in this situation.

I do believe that people have the right to self-determination. I think that parties that don't serve the interests of the people are far better VOTED out that COUP'ed out.

I hate George Bush. I think he's the worst president in our history. I think he's brought untold grief, violence and death to this world. But I still would never want a foreign power to foment a coup, starve my country into submission, or remove him militarily.

You're correct. Democracy in palestine, egypt, iran, saudi arabia and syria might not serve US interests, or the interests of a global economy, but I still believe that self-determination is a basic human right.

The second point I'd like to counter is that Palestinians have always been divided. I dispute that. The leadership was quite cohesive during the first Intifadah. I think it can be again. More importantly, there can still be rule of law among a politically divided populace.

People have a right to self-determination, to manage their own affairs. But beyond stating that democracy in the Middle East might not serve U.S. interests, which seems likely true to me as well, at least at present, you do not engage at all the consequences of choices people make through the democratic process. No one else is required to agree with, endorse, or facilitate in any way these choices. We have a right to speak our piece here, but no right to expect, and even less to demand, that those we speak to agree with us, or even listen to us, or regard what we say with favor.

Regarding the question of division within Arab Palestinian society, it seems to me you stop a bit short of the full sweep of the thing in your analysis. Even the 'cohesive leadership' you speak of in regard to the First Intafada was less a solid coming together of leading factions than it was an instance of the old cry "Where are the people? I must hurry there and lead them!" It was imposed from below, and represented as much a popular rebellion against the P.L.O. as it did resistance to Israel. Taking the whole history of this matter, from the waning days of the Ottoman through the Mandate period into the Partition and beyond to the present day, it is simply not possible to make a case for the political cohesion of Arab Palestinian society, or avoid concluding that lack of same has been the leading cause of its defeat in this conflict, and of the continual shrinking of both the freedom of action enjoyed by what leadership that people has, and of the prospects for that people gaining any signifigant satisfaction of its legitimate aspirations.

On the final point, rule of law is impossible where private bodies maintain arms in sufficient measure to set aside on their own hook the dictates of a governing authority. In instances where the governing authority is unjust, corrupt, or otherwise odious, of course, this can be regarded as a good thing, but it remains a fact. Where government can be effectively resisted, there is not and can be no rule of law.

a coup d etat or strangling a society is quite another.

Israel and Arab Palestine exist in a state of war, as a matter of practical fact. Destabilizing an opponent's government, and even 'strangling' the opposing society, are well within the ordinary range of options employed by parties to a war. Much of the military effort in a war is actually directed to the goal of collapsing an opponent's government and persuading its populace to substitute one that will sue for peace. Blockades and other interdictions of trade and commerce, both external and internal, that greatly straiten the lives of the opposing populace, are routine features of war, particularly prolonged war. Israel is under no obligation whatever not to take steps to bring down a Hamas government, freely elected and democratically representative though it may be. Whether the steps Israel takes in this regard are well-chosen and effective, or folly and counter-productive, is a seperate question, as is the question of whether or not seeking to bring down that government is in fact the wisest course for Israel.

Similarly, any government is free to take steps it conceives to be in its best interests, short of war, regarding any other government. No government is required to subsidize another government, or to facilitate trade with its society, or assist it in any manner, if it does not think doing these things in its own best interests. What you disapprove of as 'strangling a society' in regard to Western actions towards the Hamas government, might well be called 'boycotting murderous bigots' by another, whose view differs from yours.

Fatah hardly needed any 'fomenting' from outside to regard the election of Hamas with hostility pressed to the point of arms. Doubtless its leadership was happy to receive some degree of outside support, preferably of the sub rosa sort, but that is different from claiming the thing was caused from outside, and by a long sight. Fatah, which never really held power by anything but the gun and the selectively opened purse, had no more intention to, than it had expectation it would ever have to, turn over power to another party peaceably in the wake of an electoral defeat. In opposing Hamas it is protecting something of far more import than the 'Palestinian struggle' or "peace process' or any other nostrum: it is protecting the patronage by which its loyal adherents live and by which its chieftains live very well. No one needs outside urging to that.

We're coming at this from 2 different sets of values.

"People are fucking people, and that is fucked up."

but the fact is, Israel is not obligated to make the life of the Palestinians, who are more interested in annihilating Israel than making their own state, comfortable.

It isn't that those who understand this are war lovers, and those who think differently are peace lovers.

It's simply that what the Palestinians are doing isn't working.

It's a failure.

Sooner or later, it would be wise for them to wake up and try to salvage their society.

is that there is no state despite:

Decades of unmitigated support and patronage of the USSR, one of the world's two post-WW II superpowers
Almost universal international endorsement of their claims
Highly supportive coverage in nearly all major international media
Massive financial backing making the Palestinians the highest per capita recipients of international aid on the face of the globe
Almost two decades of highly accommodative Israeli administrations which not only acknowledged but often even identified with their claims of statehood

Yet in spite of these highly benign circumstances the Palestinians have not managed to produce any semblance of a sustainable society. The Palestinian leadership has done nothing but bring about a repressive and regressive interim regime that provided little but the pillage of the Palestinian people and the squander of the vast amount of resources provided by donor nations.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3537878,00.html

Their struggle could have amounted to something now, but life for them is even more miserable than it was ten or thirty or fifty years ago.