|
A plea
for realism
by
Bassem Eid
The time has come
for the Palestinian public to acknowledge the reality in which
they live. A century of national struggle and 34 years spent
resisting the occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and
East Jerusalem has not yet brought us peace, and the right of
Palestinian self-determination has yet to be actualized. The
largely ineffectual “peace process” has been characterized by
the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied
territories, numerous closures, and the constant humiliation of
a frustrated Palestinian public. The al-Aqsa intifada grew from
decades of injustice and discontent and did not erupt in a
vacuum.
The reality in which
we now live is that of an uneven struggle where Palestinian
fighters, despite all their bravery, do not stand a chance
against Israel’s military might. It is a reality of fruitless
appeals to the international community and the Arab world, whom
the Palestinians still rely upon to defend their cause. The
international community does show some sympathy for the
Palestinian struggle, but in the realm of international politics
and diplomacy, sympathy holds little weight in the face of the
economic, political and military power of Israel and its allies.
I believe that the
violent path chosen by Palestinians in the al-Aqsa intifada has
failed. This violence achieved little beyond an overwhelming
Israeli military response, and the Palestinians, who have no
means to win a military victory, pay a very high price in the
confrontation. The use of firearms by Palestinians clouds the
issue and provides the Israelis and their foreign sympathizers
with a means of justifying the disproportionate “response” of
the Israeli military. Moreover, violence diverts the attention
of the world from the real issue – the injustice endured by the
Palestinian people - and Palestinians are consequently portrayed
as a fundamentally violent and irresponsible people, a people
with whom it is not possible to make peace.
The violence
characterizing the al-Aqsa Intifada prompted the demise of the
Israeli liberal left, and a concurrent swing to the right of the
Israeli political spectrum, empowering the current government
under Ariel Sharon to reject any concessions or compromises.
It is time for the
Palestinian people to accept this reality and to direct their
struggle into a more pragmatic strategy. This does not mean that
the struggle has to end. On the contrary, while a violent
struggle seems unlikely to achieve the liberation of the
Palestinian territories and the establishment of a Palestinian
state, a sudden halt of the intifada would be perceived as a
victory for Sharon’s government, thereby seemingly confirming
that the brutal suppression of the intifada was well founded.
In my opinion,
non-violent resistance is the best possible means of ending the
current deadlock. Non-violence does not imply passivity in the
face of the occupation. On the contrary, it can be a very
powerful means of resistance, one that requires as much bravery
and heroism as any armed operation.
Several non-violent
actions have been successfully orchestrated recently, most
notably those at Birzeit University, demonstrating that the
Israeli army is helpless in confronting this kind of
resistance. Non-violent resistance can include all segments of
the Palestinian people, with a very important role to be played
by women and children.
Non-violence will
also enable the Palestinian people to communicate their message
much more effectively in clearly articulated demands. Take the
old city of Hebron, for example, where 40,000 Palestinians have
lived under a strict curfew for a large part of the al-Aqsa
intifada. What if every day at 4 pm, Palestinians sat outside
their doorstep for an hour, drinking tea or smoking narguilah,
without the use of stones or slogans. They would be in blatant
disregard of the curfew imposed upon them, and there is no
guarantee that the response of the Israeli army would be
non-violent, but the message would be clear and powerful: it is
unacceptable to lock 40,000 people indoors for the security of
400 Israeli settlers.
Non-violence would
be a more pragmatic way of resisting the occupation. However,
just as the Palestinians have to display pragmatism in how they
resist the occupation, they have to be equally realistic in the
goals they seek to achieve through resistance. Even though the
PLO recognized the existence of Israel in 1988, many
Palestinians still cannot bring it upon themselves to openly
acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. I believe that a future
with Israel is better than no future at all. Palestinians need
to state very clearly and unequivocally that they do not
question the existence of the State of Israel in its pre-1967
borders, and that the singular goal of the al-Aqsa intifada is
the liberation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East
Jerusalem. Future negotiations on questions such as the right to
return will have to take Israel’s concerns into consideration.
Embracing such an attitude is obviously painful for us
Palestinians, who have already conceded so much, but the time
has come to face reality.
Bassem Eid is
Director of the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group in
Jerusalem (www.phrmg.org).
This article is part of a series on
Views on Nonviolence published in partnership with the
Common Ground News Service (CGNews
http://www.sfcg.org/cgnews/middle-east.cfm)
with support from the European Community and UNESCO.
|
