Dear TRANSCEND members, October 19, 2000
Here is an observation by Kai Frithjof Brand-Jacobsen. Any
additional comments are welcome, and will be sent out to members.
At the suggestion of Raymond Saner, I will also post this dialogue
on "www.transcend.org". Please inform others who may be interested.
With best regards, Dieter dfischer@transcend.org
From: "ICL/PRAXIS FOR PEACE" < icl@c2i.net
>
Subject: Israel-Palestine: The Need for a Just Peace
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:49:47 +0200
Dear Friends/TRANSCENDers,
The discussion on Israel/Palestine and the contributions by
TRANSCEND members have been cause for both encouragement, and a
great deal of concern. The situation in Israel-Palestine and
throughout the entire Middle East today is very alarming, but it is
in no way surprising. Anger and frustration at one of the most
oppressive and exploitative structures of violence in the world is
exploding. A system which Nelson Mandela once referred to as
"worse than apartheid" is itself being met with counter-violence in
the form of stone-throwing and protest. The cycle of violence,
recriminations, fear and anger on all sides is growing, and, given
the complete absence of any real attempts at peace on the parts of
the leadership on both sides, can be expected to continue. Any
'peace' which would be accepted today on the terms put forward by
the Israeli government and the United States would not be peace,
nor would it be a solution to the causes and structures of the
conflict in Israel-Palestine. Instead, it would be a continuation
of war by other means.
To protest against the violence which has now exploded in
Israel-Palestine, to seek to come up with creative and non-violent
ways of transforming the conflict, and to work actively for the
promotion of peace are necessary and vital. To do this, without
trying to understand what really lies behind the conflict, or
without trying to address any of the injustices or inequalities
behind the violence, is to perpetuate a war which has continued, in
one form or another, for over fifty years. Peace must be
inclusive. It must be open to participation by all actors and all
parties, and recognition of the basic humanity and dignity of all
involved. But it cannot be blind.
And this is where we fall into a terrible and very unfortunate
trap. For in our efforts to promote peace we are willing to see
both sides as 'equal victims.' To recognise the crimes and
injustices committed against both sides, the people working for
violence, and those working for peace, on both sides. Yet the
conflict in Israel-Palestine is not between two equal sides.
Indeed, the very basis for all Israeli 'peace' efforts over the
past decade has been to solidify a structure of domination and
inequality. From Cairo, to Oslo, to Wye River, Paris, and back to
Cairo again, the 'peace' process of the past decade has addressed
none of the underlying causes of the conflict, it has promoted
solutions which themselves further enforce the structure of
violence, and has sought to ensconce the hegemony and domination of
one of the parties to the conflict. As Tacitus once said of the
Romans, "They have created a desolation, and called it peace." To
paraphrase Clausewitz, 'peace' has become the continuation of war
by other means.
To be in favour of peace we must be honest in our attempts to
understand what lies at the root of violence and the conflicts
behind it. When we think back to the situation in South Africa we
recall how vital it was for many people in the world to support the
struggle of the ANC and black South Africans (with a few courageous
white South African friends and comrades) against the evils of the
apartheid system. Part of this struggle was the very recognition
that apartheid itself was 'evil.' Is this the same as Reagan's
calling the Soviet Union the 'Evil Empire'. No. Instead, it is
more similar to Gandhi, who himself said that "It is necessary to
struggle against the evil system, not the evil man."
And in South Africa, this is what was done. Apartheid as a
system was opposed by the anti-Apartheid movement within South
Africa and internationally. The whites of South Africa were
recognised as an integral part of the nation, and the future of the
country is being built upon a spirit of reconciliation. Yet it was
necessary first to call for an end to the Apartheid system. To
recognise that, yes, many white South Africans were afraid of what
would happen to them under a 'black' government, and it was
necessary to allay these fears, to build a future South Africa
which recognised the dignity and humanity of all its citizens.
This, however, is not what is on offer in the Middle East. In
fact, it is the very antithesis of Israeli-American proposals.
That Arafat is a corrupt, authoritarian and frequently
dictatorial ruler, yes, I completely agree. One of the reasons the
Oslo Accords were signed between the State of Israel and the
Palestinian Liberation Organisation (for there has been no 'peace'
accord between Israel and Palestine), was because Arafat himself
had become dependent upon his support from Israel in order to
maintain his position within the PLO and Palestine, to prevent a
new generation of more legitimate and democratic leaders from
developing. Yet Arafat's corruption has been entirely supported
and encouraged by Israel and the United States, while his massive
security apparatus itself is a response: i) to Israeli and American
calls that he 'clamp down on terrorism', and ii) a vital instrument
in suppressing any authentic democratic, peace, and human rights
movements from within Palestine. It is worthwhile to note,
however, that even Norway has refused to offer any support to
groups critical of the Oslo Accords. What is interesting, is that
these groups are not critical of the Oslo Accords because they are
against peace. Quite the opposite. They are critical because they
are for peace, and they recognise that what is promised by Oslo is
exactly the opposite.
Yet our focus in recent letters on the corruption of the
Palestinian Authority is itself too simplistic and contributes to
a false portrayal of the conflict. It is like focussing only upon
the corruption of a local henchmen or gang leader (for this is what
Arafat, in a particularly contemptible way, is degenerating into),
without recognising the violence of the Emperor. The scales cannot
be compared, and the extent towards which we have almost completely
ignored Israel's systematic violence against Palestine borders on
propaganda, if not the criminal. Istvan Meszaros once wrote:
"Blindness in intellectuals is not a natural calamity that simply
befalls them as a matter of unavoidable destiny but a self-induced
condition." Let us not allow this to be a condition which we
enforce upon ourselves.
Some figures:
- the Wye River Agreement significantly reduced the amount of
territory to be placed under Palestinian control from 30 to 13 per
cent. Israel failed to fulfill even this condition of withdrawal.
- Since Oslo, more than 600 Palestinian homes have been
demolished and 140,000 dunums of Palestinian land confiscated (1998
figures; the numbers since then have increase dramatically)
reflecting Israel's continuing determination to grab as much land
as possible before a final settlement is reached.
- between 1994 and 1998, according to B'Tselem, a leading
human rights organization in Israel, 356 Palestinians were killed
compared to 251 Israelis. Since then the figures have worsened to
a ratio of almost 2:1
- since Oslo, and resulting from frequent Israeli 'closures'
the Palestinian standard of living has fallen by nearly 40 per
cent, with 30 per cent of the workforce unemployed and 40 per cent
of the population now living at or below the poverty line
- a year after Oslo, Israel's control of West Bank land
reached about 75 per cent, up from 65 per cent when the Accords
were signed, while water supplies to Gaza had been cut in half
- In the West Bank, for every litre of water available to one
Palestinian, one Israeli settler consumes 876 litres.
These are only a few of the figures. The actual situation is
much worse. As Gandhi recognised, "Economic equality is the master
key to nonviolent independence... a nonviolent system of government
is clearly an impossibility so long as the wide gulf between the
rich and the hungry millions persists." This is true in the case
of Israel-Palestine, and equally true of the situation in the
entire world today. Peace through violence, peace through
exploitation and the denial of the 'others' humanity, is not real
peace. Let us not be part in this crime.
Barak made no concessions, and gave nothing away in Camp
David. The entire farce itself was arranged to put the blame for
any failures upon Arafat and the PLO and to remove the rising
barrage of criticism which had been falling upon Israel from the EU
and the vast majority of countries in the world. By making
proposals which were clearly impossible for Arafat to accept, the
entire failure of the meeting was placed upon the Palestinians'
shoulders. If Arafat had accepted, he would have forever given up
on the hope of Palestine ever becoming independent. By refusing,
he provided the Israelis with the opportunity to say "Look, we
wanted peace, he refused. How can we possibly be blamed for what
happens next?"
Let us not reproduce the myth that Barak was willing to make
peace, but Arafat missed an historic opportunity. No. Arafat was
asked to say that Israel owed nothing to Palestine, that Palestine
should accept never being a state, that Israeli control and
domination of Palestine should remain unchallenged, and that
Palestinian police should continue to police, terrorise and abuse
Palestinian people for the security of Israel. I do not accept
Arafat's credentials as a 'peaceworker', not because he is not
willing to meet the demands of the Israelis, but because he has too
often betrayed his own people, and has prevented any true peace
movement from developing in the region.
This, perhaps, is one of the difficulties for international
supporters of peace as well. Arafat is no Mandela, therefore, how
can the cause of the Palestinians be as noble as that of the South
Africans? Shall we let an entire population suffer because we,
rightfully, do not believe in the integrity of its authoritarian
ruler? Or shall we recognise the vast injustice and crime being
committed against the people of Palestine, and demand, and work for
a peace based upon the equal recognition of the rights and needs of
all sides, while also recognising that security for one cannot be
based upon the mass impoverishment and denial of humanity of the
other. This has always been a recipe which leads to war. It is
doing so now.
Israel's unbridled arrogance in promoting its domination
throughout the entire region has been one of the main factors
behind the current conflict. Its refusal to make even the
slightest authentic efforts towards peace has continuously fuelled
aggravation and the loss of hope within Palestine, some of the
major factors behind today's explosion of violence. It is not
enough for Israeli 'peaceniks' to say that they are for peace,
without criticising the horrendous structural violence which is
practised against the Palestinians, or while continuing to serve in
the Israeli Army.
By saying this, it does not mean that I am for either 'side'
of the conflict. I am for peace. I am for humanity. I am for the
right of Israelis and Palestinians to grow up and live together in
peace. I am for democracy in Palestine, and an end to the Israeli
enforced apartheid system. I will not tell the slave to love his
master, or believe that the slave should stop rebelling because the
master wishes to make his control more effective. There can be no
peace between slaves and masters, neither should there be. Does
this mean the 'master' should be killed. No. Gandhi would have
agreed. But he would also recognise the necessity for the slave to
struggle for his/her freedom and independence. Palestine's
struggle for freedom against one of the longest occupations in the
post-World War II periods must continue. Its aim, however, should
not be to 'beat' or 'win over' Israel, but to create a free and
independent Palestine. Oppression and violence should be opposed
on all sides with the force of non-violence, and commitment to
human dignity and dialogue.
I would not agree, as some have suggested though, that the
'silent majority' are working for peace. As we have seen all too
often in history, to be silent is to condone the violence being
committed, as many Jewish individuals and intellectuals will tell
you when confronting German silence in the years leading to the
Holocaust. I am very confident that most Israelis do not support
the policies of the extreme right (bordering on fascist) of the
Israeli settlers and many politicians. Until they are willing to
struggle against it, however, and until they are willing to work
for active nonviolence and to address the structures of the
conflict, they are themselves helping to perpetuate the system of
violence. "To accept violence is also violence" as Johan Galtung
once said.
Let us look at the attitudes, behaviour, and the structures,
the root contradictions, of the conflict. If we are not willing to
do this, let us not pretend to be willing to work for peace. Let
us echo Edward Said's call for mass non-violent struggle in
Palestine, and to welcome true solidarity between Israelis and
Palestinians committed to building peace on the formula "no
exploitation, no surrender", the catchwords of Gandhi's struggle
for swaraj, home rule. Let academics, intellectuals, school
children, and every single individual and human being who professes
to be concerned with the situation in Israel-Palestine act to try
to understand what is really behind the conflict, and to understand
the attitudes, hopes, fears, dreams and insecurities of all the
actors on all sides. Let us be critical, as necessary in order to
be honest, but let us also be creative in coming up with solutions
and suggestions for what can be done. Let us demand equality of
Palestinians and Israelis, and recognise that equality cannot be
built on oppression or exploitation. Let us protest against the
killings, and also against international support for the State of
Israel's apartheid system, for US Congress funding of the building
of settlements, for the betrayal of even the Oslo Accords,
themselves a horrible prescription, promoting a foundation for
violence, not peace. And let us reassert the authority of the
relevant UN resolutions.
Finally, let us call for an end to the newspeak, to the
culture of violence and racism, the propaganda, and the belief that
one or the other side is "less than human" that has so often been
at the heart of war--whether fought through economic or military
means. Peace is a struggle. It is not something that will simply
fall into our laps or appear because we close our eyes and wish the
violence will go away. For too long our eyes have been closed.
This is why we are seeing the violence that is exploding today. My
one question, as we write these letters back and forth, is why has
it taken this long? Why did we wait, why did we ignore the
violence, the daily killing of Palestinians over the last many
years, the destruction of homes, the situation in the refugee
camps? Why did we wait, and how now can we believe ourselves to be
satisfying our conscience, because we respond to the site of
children being shot, buildings being blown up with missiles, and
stones being thrown? The number of Palestinians that have died
since Oslo because of lack of access to proper medicines, because
of poor health and economic situations in the occupied territories,
because of the slow death of structural violence, far exceeds the
number of those killed in the last weeks. Were their deaths any
less horrific, were their lives any less worthy or sacred, because
they weren't captured on the evening news? This is a question we
must be willing to ask ourselves, for the people of Palestine, and
of Israel, because if we truly believe, as we should, that Israelis
have the right to live in peace, to not fear car bombs and
'terrorism', then we must recognise that this can only happen if
Israelis and Palestinians are willing to work for a true, a just,
and an honest peace.
We, however, cannot be satisfied with being silent.
Otherwise, we are only helping the war to continue.
Mahdi Elmandjra