Saturday,
June 30, 2007
Israel and the United States have (re)discovered an old-new sweetheart: Abu Mazen. Abu Mazen needs our support! they cry, and most of the media have joined in the chorus. Until recently he was a "weakling", "wet behind the ears", and mainly unable to "supply the goods". Hence, not deserving of serious attention either as a "partner in peace", or anything else. But under duress, and in fear of Hamas, overnight Abu Mazen has gained respectability. The new (unlawful) government, established in the dead of night and led by Salem Fayad, a U.S. darling (who received 2 percent of the vote in the elections won by Hamas) - was immediately recognized. Bush himself called Abu Mazen to promise full support for the new Palestinian government, while Israel promises to return Palestinian moneys accumulated in the coffers of the Israeli treasury, to remove road blocks, and even free prisoners.
Yet in this campaign of support there is an inherent problem. It is not only the fear that American weapons, channeled through Israel, to the "Presidential Guard" will end up in the hands of Hamas, nor the Palestinians' long experience of bombastic proclamations from Jerusalem which amount to nothing. Each and every Palestinian knows that Israel, of her own free will, will not make it easier for them or help them in any way - on the contrary, Israel will deprive, rob, steal, and loot the Palestinian people as much as possible. They have first-hand experience of this.
The real problem is that Israeli "support" is pointless because it undermines Abu Mazen's standing in the eyes of his own people. Using common sense, the Palestinians deduce a simple fact: Israel's intentions are fundamentally opposed to their aspiration for freedom wheras Israel is trying with all its might to maintain its colonialist policies - i.e., maintaining the occupation. Can Israel really help those who oppose the occupation?
Such an assumption is beyond political naïveté?.
"Gestures of goodwill" are only extended to those who least interfere with the continued occupation.
Indeed Abu Mazen is now deserving of such gestures. To the majority of his people he has lost some of his credibility with regard to fighting the occupation, and to many he seems like an American/Israeli collaborator. This is not surprising, given that the Israeli media constantly highlight the American military aid provided to the "Presidential Guard," transactions overseen by General Keith Dayton, strangely entitled the "American Military Envoy to the Palestinian Authority."
Will such "help" and "support" bolster Abu Mazen's standing and status, or will it make him look like a collaborator with the occupation forces? The occupation is contradictory to the Palestinian aspirations for freedom, and accepting any "gesture" makes the recipient look like a collaborator with Israel and the U.S. Fatah is now nicknamed Fatah-Rice, after Condoleezza Rice.
The fundamental conflict between U.S. and Israeli policies and the Palestinian people is, simply put, a conflict between the occupier and the occupied, the oppressor and the oppressed, or in broader terms - between colonial powers (which include the European countries as well) and the peoples of the Third World. Throughout history this conflict ended with the liberation of the enslaved people - through a long historical process, but with a known outcome. The best way to strengthen Abu Mazen would be to end the occupation. Then Abu Mazen's esteem would reach new heights! In the meantime, respect for him plummets as he cooperates with the occupiers.
The Israeli government does all in its power to hide from the general public the colonial situation vis-à-vis the Palestinians.
The Israeli media portray the clashes between Fatah and Hamas as internal struggles between insurgent factions, while ignoring the role of the occupation and the suffering of the Palestinian people in the pressure-cooker of Gaza. And they do so with diligence and devotion. The story of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is told as the struggle between the civilized and enlightened vs. the ignorant and primitive ("a villa in the jungle"), as a case of protecting innocent Israeli civilians from bloodthirsty murderers who only want to kill Jews. In this portrayal the guilty are the victims of colonialism, i.e., the Palestinians. The press and military pundits rejoice: the Arabs are killing each other. Major-General (Res.) Giora Eiland, callously admits how much easier it would be to kick their asses now in Gaza.
The colonialist discourse of Israeli propaganda also shapes the depiction of the tension between Gaza and the West Bank. Everything that is happening in Gaza in the context of the struggle between the Hamas and Fatah is blamed on the Hamas, while the Fatah has been transformed into a moderate and legitimate movement. Indeed, Hamas' actions help Israel in this propaganda of horrors.
It goes without saying that one cannot condone the horror and cruelty being perpetrated in Gaza. But the current conflict is not the story of good against evil. It is, rather, a chapter – another chapter - in the Palestinians' struggle to free themselves from Israeli colonialism.
Before one completely demonizes the Hamas, a few facts should be mentioned:
Under the heading "The Original Sin," Danny Rubinstein writes in Haaretz (5/21/2007): "…the direct cause of what is happening now in the Gaza Strip is that the traditional Palestinian leadership (i.e., the top echelon of Fatah) was not prepared to transfer authority to the elected Hamas leadership." He continues: "…when veteran Fatah activists lost [the elections], they refused to accept the outcome... The commanders of the security mechanisms in Gaza said explicitly that they had no intention of taking orders from a Hamas interior minister. The Hamas interior minister set up a military force of his own." As it turns out, according to Rubinstein, "…the commanders of the security mechanisms and their patrons in Fatah also refused to listen to the new, neutral interior minister, Hani al-Kawasmeh, who resigned. His resignation marked the way to the current degeneration, and no one at the moment sees any way out."
Sources in Hamas say that it was Fatah who tried to assassinate Ismail Haniya. Fatah counter this by accusing Hamas of trying to assassinate Abu Mazen. There are contradictory descriptions about the ongoing violence, and unfortunately both sides are probably right.
On the political level, it should be noted that the government appointed by Abu Mazen is completely illegal, and the People's Council (the majority of whom are Hamas representatives, some of them sitting in Israeli jails) will not convene to approve this government. Equally unlawful is the dismissal of the previous elected unity government led by Ismail Haniya.
- It should also be noted that an overwhelming majority of the Palestinians voted for Hamas, in the West Bank as well! Does anyone remember that one of the conditions for peace put forward by the Israeli leadership was democratization, and how much they enjoyed reproving the Arabs for not knowing what democracy is.
- This does not mean that I support the Hamas. Their ideology is the opposite of mine, but I cannot ignore their right to fight the occupation. Such movements are the product of the colonial situation. It is easy to condemn the tactics of Hamas, or in the past those of Fatah, or of any national liberation movement of this kind, but the means of oppression perpetrated by the occupier are much worse.
- For each murdered Israeli there are dozens of murdered Palestinians, for each act of terror by a Palestinian there are hundreds of state-sanctioned acts of terror committed by Israel.
- The support for Hamas is temporary and depends on their keeping up the struggle against the occupation, which is the right of any nation fighting for its liberty.
- Only when Israel stops its state-sanctioned terror against the Palestinians can one justly condemn "Palestinian terror".
- In Marxist terminology, Hamas is no more (but no less) than a nationalist bourgeois movement. This defines its social and political perspective.
- Hamas does not aspire to change the current social order, nor to fight social conservatism (particularly not its religious apects); and even in its anti-imperialist struggle it is inconsistent.
- But in the current context it is fighting the occupation, and as such it is anti-colonialist.
- Thus, in the current context they are more consistent than Fatah in the struggle against the occupation, and hence became Fatah's successors.
- It is this, added to the rampant corruption in Fatah ranks, that has made Hamas so popular.
- This is the tragedy of the Palestinian national movement.
- The weakening of Fatah is the result of ideological and political changes occurring worldwide over the past few decades. Among them, the decline of Enlightenment, Marxism, the Communist movement, universal liberalism, and social radicalism.
- This was coupled with the emergence of selfish, anti-social ideologies, that created a social-political vacuum which was quickly filled by religious movements which often took the lead in national liberation movements.
- If Fatah wishes to win back the hearts of the Palestinian people it needs to undergo some profound soul-searching.
- It will only stand a chance against Hamas if it can prove that it is just as dedicated to fighting the occupation, or even more so.
- In addition, it has to marshal an internal struggle for Palestinians who are suffering from extreme poverty and lack of basic resources, such as health and education and employment.
- It has to put forth an alternative social agenda to compete with that of Hamas, which is in essence based on "compassionate conservatism."
In reality, to get out of the current political crisis both parties need to return to the negotiating table and reinstate the unity government. Only a unity government can win back the trust of the Palestinian people. Such a government would put an end to the threats of strangulation and sanctions on the Gaza Strip, and undermine Israel's plans to re-conquer the Gaza Strip. Only a unity government, one that has broad support of the Palestinian people, can reach a peace agreement with Israel and end the occupation.
Fatah cannot align itself with the U.S. and Israel – even as a tactic to defeat Hamas.
National liberation anti colonial movements are invariably anti-imperialist, and in today's reality anti-American. It is only such movements that the left can support.
* Translated from Hebrew by Ilana Hairston.
