First off, thank you, Alan, for this exquisite presentation of the facts of the case and the dilemma facing all of us, not just the Palestinians (because Israel’s continued existence threatens all of humanity). Secondly, the crux of the dilemma, as you put it so well, is indeed the lack of a viable Palestinian leadership. But, unlike you, I trace this problem to Arafat, who basically sold out the Palestinians for a virtual mess of pottage. Without him the idea of two states would never have gained legitimacy among the majority of Palestinians or their supporters. He also compromised on the basic and fundamental right of return. Ever since he gave away the store – Abbas & Co. have just followed suit - the Israelis have considered the Palestinians a mere inconvenience with whom they had no need to compromise. And, last but not least, he solidified, if not created, the dubious concept of Palestinian identity. This particular point will be met by most who sympathize with the Palestinian cause with some incredulity, so it will bear some explaining. One of the most beautiful and least mentioned virtues of Palestine prior to the alien invasion was its very lack of identity based on religious, historical or national identity. That it happened to be majority Arab, Islamic or Middle Eastern did not give it a tribal character. By default, and particularly as the nexus of the Abrahamic traditions, it was international, indeed universally human. And its status as Southern Syria, part of the Ottoman Empire, was merely an historical and geographical coincidence, to be noted but hardly celebrated. It was at peace with itself and its neighbors, pluralistic and tolerant of all who came to its shores. It was as good a representative of Middle Earth as there could be. As Gilad Atzmon has repeatedly pointed out, and as the central theme of his book The Wandering Who?, the root of the Zionist problem is one of an aggressive tribal identity. I make the point in my essay Us vs. Them: On the Meaning of Fascism that an ‘aggressive tribal identity’ is the root and hallmark of fascism, properly defined. Zionism is the foremost exemplar of a fascist ideology, even more than Nazism, because it includes all the major varieties of that particularly egregious political phenomenon – a bellicose religious, ethnic as well as national identity all wrapped into one. By creating and legitimizing a consciousness of Palestinian identity, Arafat fell right into that trap. By turning it into a national struggle, Arafat deprived it of the most fundamental argument for opposing the genocide. If one considers all of the great opposition movements against domination by others – the American revolution, Gandhi’s struggle against the British Empire, Mandela’s resistance to apartheid, ML King’s civil rights movement, etc. – it will be noted that each of these successful movements appealed to universal rather than tribal imperatives. By turning the Palestinian resistance into a national struggle, Arafat greatly diminished the power that would have been available to his cause – it became just a local struggle between two opposing pseudo-nationalities and their natural allies rather than a universal movement against injustice and evil. A sense of Palestinian identity was a natural reaction to an invasion by an alien identity group that defined itself primarily in ethno-centric, fascistic terms. It is not surprising, then, that it has had difficulty organizing itself around the principle of nationality, something heretofore foreign and fundamentally unpalatable to the culture. If there is going to be a successful defense it must be predicated on universal values with which even Zionized, brainwashed Americans and their imperial allies can identify. In looking for a leader, someone who simultaneously represents both the Palestinians specifically as well as humanity at large, anyone from Fatah is disqualified as it is a merely nationalistic and thoroughly discredited organization, and Hamas, whatever its virtues, represents merely an Islamist ideology. That the leader of the resistance must be Palestinian seems obvious enough, but given the universal character of the struggle, that Palestinian could be from the diaspora, and might just as well be an American. It is America that is crucial, because without its support the malignant tumor would lose its blood supply and quickly dissolve. So it is there that we must look if the monster is to be defeated. Ramzy Baroud would do, and Azmi Bishara, the former head of the Palestinian Israeli Balad Party in Israel and currently exiled in Egypt, are other possibilities that come to mind. My own choice is someone who has already stated that he has no interest in playing that role. That is sufficient reason in itself to consider him. Genuine humility and lack of desire to put himself forward are strong recommendations in my book, but there is also the fact that he is Edward Said’s nephew, and therefore has a mantle ready to wear. I am speaking of Saree Makdisi, whom I hereby nominate from my position in cyberspace-at-large. Bottom line, though, is that it must be someone who would inspire the great majority of Palestinians and decent people everywhere. An organization such as Alan proposes would naturally arise in the wake of such leadership. Before signing off I must also take issue with Alan’s proposition that “the prospects for the one-state solution becoming a reality would be improved if the presentation and selling of the case for it emphasized that the wellbeing and security of its Jewish citizens would be absolutely guaranteed, assuming only that they accepted with good grace their new status as equals and not masters.” It’s not that I disagree with that statement per se, but it implies that Israelis would be able to keep all of their stolen property and that all of them would perforce become Palestinian citizens. If that were the case, the Palestinians would become a subservient underclass even with a numerical majority within a nominal democracy. To avoid such an outcome, the liberation movement must look to the Algerian revolution as a precedent, rather than So. Africa. The French left en masse, although many of the colons had been in Algeria for several generations. The Palestinians, if they are wise, would insist on just such an outcome, at least as an initial demand. Jewish immigrants not born in Israel would have to leave, with a couple of suitcases, period. With the others certain matters could be negotiated, particularly reparations, property rights and so forth. Otherwise, they would once again be giving away the store prematurely and would find themselves essentially powerless in their own country. As for the tiresome argument that "the Israelis would never agree," we are discussing an outcome in which their desires and demands would be irrelevant. I am more optimistic than Alan - in fact, I believe that the seemingly impossible dream is not only possible but inevitable. I think that history and nature will confirm my confidence. But in the meantime there's a very tough fight to be fought - may humanity triumph over criminal insanity. I think it will. |
One Democratic State >