What role for Palestinian supporters today?"

by Augustin Velloso

1. Supporting Palestinian resistance: today as in 1947

After receiving from Chilean e-journal www.hojaderuta.org ("hoja de ruta"
means "roadmap") the question "What does it mean today to engage in
political action for the Palestinians?" the first thing I thought was : the
same thing it meant forty years ago (in 1967) and sixty years ago (in 1947).
That is to say, to support Palestinian resistance, which amounts to fighting
the Zionist project in Palestine . The reason is that the problem has not
changed: a colonialist enterprise is in motion of a scope that threatens the
very existence of Palestinians as a people.

Israel's colonialism is the most extreme kind, since its aim is to expel
Palestine 's original inhabitants and appropriate their land to make room
for Jews from all over the world who want to settle in the whole of
Palestine . Since 1947, the way to achieve this aim has been through
violence: combining the expulsion of as many persons as possible with
repression of the ones who stay put and resist.

The Zionist project, allegedly designed to protect Jews from all over the
world, is being implemented through the sacrifice of millions of
Palestinians, whose only crime is to be born in Palestine , the land they
have inhabited since time immemorial but which Zionists have coveted since
the XIX century.

Now, the question is how to deal with Zionism in the XXI century. The
Palestinian cause exists because Palestinians are Zionism's victims just as
the Iraqi cause exists because Iraqis are Imperialism's victims. Both cases
are totally contrary to human rights, international peace and the rights of
nations. Supporting the Palestinian people (or the Iraqis) does not mean one
considers them superior to other peoples, nor that one is pro Islamist nor,
obviously, does it mean one is anti-Semitic, regardless of the perversion of
this term by Zionists.

On the contrary, if we agree that all nations are to live in peace in their
own land and enjoy all rights internationally accorded to them, we must side
with the people who are prevented from doing so and consequently fight those
responsible for that violation.

Although the Palestinian cause is the same today as in 1947 and the ethical
response to it does not change, circumstances have changed over the years
and, accordingly, political actions have to be adapted to the new
circumstances. A number of fields need to be tackled: the decline of the
Palestinian cause, the internal crisis in Palestine , social and demographic
changes in Israel , the increase in Arab and Muslim resistance, the
international situation. Only the first and second ones will be considered
here.


2. The decline of the Palestine cause

The Palestinian situation is said to be grim. Palestinians live under an
Israeli and international blockade. Their land is being stolen on a daily
basis. Israeli violence and repression is ever increasing. As a consequence
poverty and suffering are rampant.

However, is the situation today worse than in the past? Being both an
observer and a participant does not help to make such a comparison. What
matters is the current general view amongst concerned people: the situation
has deteriorated. It could be argued that the situation has not really
changed, but perceptions of it among some of its supporters have and
consequently, their political stand. To put it clearly: there is an
atmosphere of decline and confusion in the Western solidarity camp.

For people politically non-motivated, the great majority, the Palestinian
conflict, although noticeable, is a far away problem and almost by
definition impossible to solve. It is part of the political 'landscape' of
their lives. As for those involved in politics, the usual terms right wing
and left wing will be used here without discussing their vagueness. If the
right wing is discarded for obvious reasons, the left can still be divided
into two: leftist governments and leftist sympathizers. Not much (good) can
be said about governments, since the policies of leftist and centre-left
parties, democrats, social-democrats and the like, is pro Israeli. This is
definitely so in the case of European Union governments (Preferential
Agreement for Israel, joint military manoeuvres with Israel, military and
intelligence exchanges, etc.) and the United States (although the Republican
Party is now in power, the Democratic Party marks no difference concerning
Israel).

The core issue is to realise the difference between words and actions, since
leftist politicians feel compelled to wrap up their pro-Israel policies with
statements apparently in favour of peace and international law. This is an
impossible mission, since international law is categorical regarding the
right of return for refugees, Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied
Territories , the illegal construction of the wall, amongst other issues.
Therefore, most of the time left wing politicians skip the legal issues and
talk about 'governmental accountability', 'extremists' and 'terror' when
dealing with Palestine, and about 'security', 'peace efforts' and
'democracy' when dealing with Israel.

There is no doubt about the corresponding political action: to denounce and
to reject pro-Israel policies by leftist governments. Leftist people have to
choose today between supporting these leftist parties in this respect, that
is to say, supporting Zionism, or supporting the Palestinian cause.

Another problematic issue nowadays is the relationship between the left and
political Islam. There are many leftist people who feel uncomfortable (to
put it mildly) mixing with bearded Islamists. The alleged incompatibility
between the left parties and the Islamist camp is the preferred argument of
the 'official' left to disguise their pro-Zionist policies.

One should not waste time arguing against this coarse "incompatibility"
argument. Hamas easily won the elections held in the Occupied Territories in
January 2006, and has called since then for national dialogue and a
government of national unity. In any case it is not up to outsiders to
choose the Palestinians' representatives. That they seek to do so indicates
a great deal about Westerners' deeply-rooted patronizing ways.

Supporters of the Palestinian cause need to reflect about the absolutely
anti-democratic actions – high treason, really, although this is something
incumbent on Palestinians to define - carried out by some Fatah leaders and
other associated elements, and then decide accordingly whom they should
support in Palestine.

It can be said that the international pro-Palestinian camp is not enjoying
its best moment. In spite of this, the Palestinian cause is as legitimate as
ever. Political action has to answer to new circumstances. Not all of them
are bad. One has only to consider the failure of the proponents of the 1993
Washington Declaration of Principles. Should leftist people insist on
'coming back' to that Declaration, when it is already 20 years now since
Hamas declared that peace talks are games for children? Why do leftists not
admit that Palestinians withdrew their support for Fatah because of its
political failure and corruption?


3. Internal division in Palestine

On top of increasing Israeli violence in the Occupied Territories , the
widespread international blockade and the resulting decline in living
conditions there, internecine fighting, provoked by a group of Fatah leaders
after Hamas won the elections, has led to armed confrontations in the Gaza
Strip.

The main cause of these confrontations is the inhuman policies of Israeli
and allied policies towards the Palestinians, and not only Hamas, as Zionist
propaganda about the international war against 'Islamist terror' wants
Western people to believe. Israel 's aim in Palestine , as happens with any
other colonial power in the area under its control, is to subdue the
population using all means possible, including the divide and conquer
tactic.

Collaborators and traitors are not new in Palestinian politics. They can
also be found all over the world in other national liberation struggles. In
the last months, the situation has worsened because those elements were hard
at work, hand in hand with the occupier and its allies. This has had an evil
effect on Western sympathisers of the Palestinian cause. The most common
argument in the West about the issue of internecine fighting is also the
weakest. It goes like this: if Palestinians are killing each other and are
unable to join in a common front, how can they expect foreign sympathisers
to support them?

Instead of increasing action against the occupation and multiplying support
for Palestinians at this most difficult time, people are paralysed and lose
interest in the cause. There are many who are misled about what is going on
in Palestine , and the mistake is being carefully promoted by mass media.
This adds to the vulnerability of the Palestinian people faced with Zionist
attacks. With almost no foreign witnesses in the Occupied Territories and
with most of the media siding with the aggressor, the last thing
Palestinians need is Western supporters to turn away from their cause. This
is like giving a green light to the Zionist enterprise to work harder and
faster towards its objectives.

Finally there are some who have sided with the Palestinian Authority
President and his cohort. It defies common sense that individuals who
consider themselves supporters of the Palestinian people could side with
this group. It can only be explained, as has been said before, by the
influence of mass media and the 'official left' aversion for political
Islam.


4. Conclusion.

Relevant political action today means firstly to reassert the urgency of
justice for the Palestinians and consequently peace for everyone in the area
and beyond by insisting on the supremacy of the Palestinian resistance above
anything else: peace processes, peace summits, peace initiatives, special
envoys from the Quartet or the United Nations. After that, the next step is
to support the resistance in agreement with its democratically chosen
leaders.

Relevant questions concerning political action are: Who leads the
resistance, confronting a much superior enemy who makes no concessions
whatsoever? And who has abandoned resistance in exchange for nothing but
words? Who benefits from dialogue with the enemy and who, on the other hand,
suffers and resists the occupation? What have peace conversations achieved?
What can a nation expect from corrupt leaders fawned on by Israel , the
United States and the European Union, the very same powers that feed the
occupier? The answers to such questions will suggest who is to be supported
in the liberation struggle and who is to be discarded.

Any other action is tantamount to playing along the Zionist script, whether
in its Likud costume or its Labour costume. To do otherwise is also to make
oneself an accomplice of the Western left wing's sleight of hand vis-à-vis
the problem of Palestine . It is not by chance that the Labour Party is
member of the International Socialist, amongst whose principles –although
not in its political actions- "peace, disarmament, solidarity, justice,
democracy and human rights" are enshrined.
http://www.socialistinternational.org/4Principles/dofpspa.html)

Before asking Palestinians to close ranks, it would be much more useful if
Western leftists made public whether they plan to continue offering
Palestinians empty ethical principles – as their governments do - or whether
they plan solid support for the resistance. If they take the wrong decision,
all the Westerners will lose is their sense of shame. But the Palestinians
may lose everything.


Agustín Velloso de Santisteban received his Ph.D. in Education from the
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid, Spain, where he is a
lecturer in Comparative Education. He specialises in education in Palestine
and education for refugees. He has been Visiting Fellow at London
University, Reading University and Stanford University. "Translation
copyleft by tortilla con sal".zopinionz



Web link
http://english.alarabonline.org/display.asp?fname=2007\08\08-13\zopinionz\97
0.htm&dismode=x&ts=13/08/2007%2002:54:43%20%E3