Vol. XVI, No.3 Spring, 2002
ARTICLES
The Don't Rules in
Societal Trauma and Its Healing
The Nightmare Must End
Toward a New Palestinian Strategy
Is the 'War on Terrorism' Repeating Major
Errors of the 'Cold War'?
From the Washington Watch
column. Permission of author given to republish.
January 28, 2002
TOWARD A NEW PALESTINIAN STRATEGY
Dr. James J. Zogby
©
President of the Arab American Institute
There is a desperate need for a new
Palestinian strategy. What is now being done is clearly not working.
More of the same will only produce more suffering, more tension and
ever deepening disaster.
A reassessment is long overdue. To begin
such an effort, it is important to outline some of the constants that
define the parameters of the current situation.
The first of these, I believe, is the
simple fact that the Sharon government is unwilling to make peace on
terms that provide the Palestinians with their basic rights. This
government's current objectives appear to be:
-the military defeat of the Palestinians;
-the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority and the delegitimization
of its leadership; and
-the end of the Oslo process and the imposition of "peace" on Israel's
terms.
Secondly, it is clear that given the
reality of U.S. politics, the Administration will not intervene to
restrain Israel's aggressive behavior. They are not pleased with
Israel's actions and would like to see a negotiated settlement to the
conflict on the terms outlined in Secretary Powell's Louisville speech.
But they will not act in a public or decisive manner to pressure
Israel. Therefore, despite the fanciful hopes or the insistence of some
Arabs, there will be no U.S.-led Kosovo-style rescue, or Kuwait-style
liberation-nor will there be a U.S.-imposed, or even U.S.-supported
peacekeeping or protection force sent into the occupied lands.
In fact, there will not even be a
U.S.-supported U.N. resolution that calls for the formation of any of
the above. Given the absence of any possibility of any outside rescue
effort-it is important to look elsewhere.
Thirdly, not only are Palestinians losing
on the ground, but they are losing the information battle in the U.S.
There is no organized Palestinian information effort in the U.S. Israel
and its well-funded supporters, therefore, have a clear playing field
which they use to their advantage. They have succeeded in defining the
terms of the current debate and in demonizing the Palestinian
Authority, its president, Yasser Arafat, and in portraying themselves
as the victims and the Palestinians as the aggressors.
Fourthly, there will be no European
rescue. The EU, as well as other international players: the Russians,
Chinese, the non-aligned, OIC, etc. will express concern or
condemnation and pass an occasional resolution, but they will not act.
They have no real leverage-or better, no interest in using whatever
leverage they do have, since they do not wish to force an open
confrontation with the U.S.
Fifthly, even the Arab states, though
deeply distressed and even angered at the unraveling situation, will
not be able to be the external force that can rescue the situation.
Finally, back to the Israeli context, it
is important to recognize that the collapse of the peace process and
the resumption of violence has hardened Israeli opinion. As a result,
Sharon's hand has been strengthened and the Labor party has been
weakened to the point of collapse.
I am eager to debate any or all of these
six observations. Not whether they are "just"-- clearly they are not
"just"-- but whether they are correct in describing the set of
circumstances we face, as I believe they are.
Complaining about what is unjust not a
strategy. Politics is not a whine. What is needed is to identify what
can be changed and to lay out a path to produce that change-- that is
what politics is all about.
If these observations are correct, then:
-going to the U.N. with yet one more
proposed resolution will not produce change;
-making more appeals for international solidarity will not make real
change;
-and more violence against Israelis (whether soldiers, settlers or
innocent civilians) will not make change.
I can hear someone complaining right now,
about the right to "armed struggle
against occupation". And it reminds me of a story. In 1979, while I was
running the Palestine Human Rights Campaign, here in Washington, DC, I
had the pleasure of hosting the late Tawfiq Zayyad, Mayor of Nazareth.
At one town meeting we organized for him, he received a hostile
question from a young man who challenged Zayyad's criticism of PLO-led
guerilla attacks from Lebanon. The questioner ended his remarks,
reminding the mayor of the "inalienable" right of an occupied people to
use armed struggle to resist occupation.
Zayyad responded "it is correct that you
have the right to armed struggle. But when you use that right as badly
as you have used it -- then you forfeit the right -- and have to find a
better way to liberation".
I believe that is where we are today. The
suicide bombings in Israel and this bizarre effort to turn the West
Bank into South Lebanon by introducing new weapons systems are
destructive and, I might add, stupid. They have resulted in increased
suffering and done great damage to the Palestinian cause.
Violence, in any form, at this point,
only begets more violence. As one Palestinian leader noted a short
while ago, "When we use stones, they use guns. When we use guns, they
use tanks", and so it goes. If this is the case, and it is, then what
possible good would rockets be?
And with Israel's domination in
information control, they have been able to transform the reality of
every event to meet their political needs. The stonethrowers become
violent criminals and assassinated young men become "ticking bombs" --
with no evidence presented or needed to make their case.
It is, therefore, critical to find a new
way. To begin, however, it is vital that the violence must end. This
will be hard to do. Anger is deep and real, and passions are high.
Furthermore, Israel's brutally aggressive behavior continues and only
seems to deepen this anger and heighten the passion. But it must,
nonetheless, be stopped -- even if it is done at great cost to the
Palestinian Authority.
It must be stopped because this violence
is totally counterproductive. What good has it brought? What has it
yielded other than death -- for Israelis and, in retaliation, for even
more Palestinians?
Not only has it not produced any good and
only brought increased repression and more suffering for Palestinians
-- but this violence has repeatedly sabotaged the efforts of the
Palestinian Authority to negotiate and create more favorable conditions
on the ground.
It has been politically disastrous as
well. The bombings and killings have damaged the Palestinian cause, and
have allowed the likes of Sharon and Netanyahu to transform their
public personas in the West from the brutal bullies that they are into
defenders of a beleaguered people.
With the violence ended, the Palestinian
people can then begin a full-scale campaign designed to change the
political dynamics in their favor. The two arenas most in need of
change and potentially most responsive to change are the publics and
their opinions both in the U.S. and Israel.
There is currently at work in the
occupied territories a small and courageous group of young people
engaged in civil disobedience against the occupation forces. Their
efforts should be supported and become massive. Large scale and
completely peaceful demonstrations and sit-ins and disruptions of
traffic can occur in Jerusalem, on West Bank roads and at check points.
Only if they are preceded by a period of peace, and are themselves
completely peaceful, can these actions have their desired impact.
As Martin Luther King and other
practitioners of such tactics have taught, the genesis of this approach
is that it is like "jui-jitsu". When facing a more powerful foe, never
play into his power, but attempt to turn his power into his weakness.
A peaceful march of tens of thousands of
unarmed Palestinians converging on the city of Jerusalem from all
points in the West Bank, carrying banners that read "Let my people
pray" or "Let my people go home" would tie the hands of the Israeli
military. If they use violence-they would lose. If they allowed the
march the Palestinians would find new power and win.
A key point here is to empower the
Palestinian people and to enable them to regain their victim status and
to strip the Israelis of their mantle of self-defense.
There are hundreds of similar little
tactics that could be developed into a comprehensive campaign. They
should be explored.
All of this must be complemented by a
political peace initiative launched by the leadership and proposed to
the people of Israel. It should hold out the terms of a comprehensive
peace-based on terms that meet the legitimate needs of all parties. And
it should be realistic. For example, while the Barak offer was clearly
unacceptable, it appears that the Clinton offer, especially after the
parties narrowed their differences at Taba in January 2001, was more
acceptable. To be able to put this Clinton "plus" back on the table,
coupled with a period of peace and a campaign of non-violent protest --
might have a transformative impact in Israel and in the U.S. It would
certainly cause Sharon some great discomfort. He needs the violence to
survive -- a real peace campaign would weaken his hold.
These are but some ideas, borne out of my
frustration with the current situation. I realize that the anger in
Palestine, today, is so great and the pain is so deep, that it may be
hard to find a new way. But we must discuss a new approach. Vengeance
is destructive and counterproductive. And the current path has led to a
dead end.
I look forward to a debate.
For comments or information, contact
jzogby@aaiusa.org or
http://www.aaiusa.org
Top
of Page
These articles and opinions of
the authors do not constitute the endorsement of Nonviolent Change nor
its publisher, Organization Development Institute, or any of its staff.
©2002, 2003, 2004,2005. All rights reserve. The Nonviolent
Change Journal is published by the Research/ActionTeam on
Nonviolent Large Systems Change - an interorganizational and
international project of The Organization Development Institute.
Permissions: Reposting and reprints are encouraged, as
long as proper source acknowledgement is given. As a courtesy, please
let us know that you are reprinting or electronically reposting. It
helps us know of the interest level. Thank you.
|
