As
news networks endlessly debate the question whether newly elected
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) can “stop the
militants,” as ever, they completely avoid what stares everybody
in the face: Violence springs from seemingly endless Israeli
occupation.
And
here we have some breaking news: It is not Abu Mazen who will be
able to stop the violence, but the ending of Israeli occupation.
Now
wouldn’t it be nice if the so-called news reported the real
situation? What is the point in wasting time getting a whole panel
of “experts” and interviewing people from both “sides” to
discuss whether Abu Mazen can stop the militants, when this is not
even the central issue?
The
framing of mainstream media debate is a success of Zionist media
campaigning, but is symbolic of an even broader power system.
Critics of military occupation undertaken by powerful, Western
nations are sometimes allowed on white, Western television
stations—but they are always portrayed as the radical fringe
opinion. While the international media remains dominated by
Euro-American, Murdoch-style outlets, there is not a hope that
mainstream media will start asking the real questions.
Democracy
Under Occupation? Pull the Other One
Back
to Abu Mazen. Mahmoud Abbas was elected on a clear majority, with
countless patronizing statements of congratulations from around the
world, celebrating that Palestinians now have
“democracy”—though, in fact, they don’t have a country in
which to practice democracy. Let me assure you that in Palestine no
one was jumping around in excitement expecting the “new”
government to bring any significant changes. How can you have
freedom under occupation?
The
pull back from Gaza will not give any control of borders or
airspace. |
|
Abu
Mazen has no powers to run any semblance of effective government.
While he himself might be allowed to travel in the West Bank and
Gaza, the ordinary officials and civil servants to run desperately
needed services and infrastructure cannot even plan to have a
meeting in another city without leaving half a day to get there, and
the expectation is that half the participants will not be able to
attend. And forget any serious coordination between Gaza and the
West Bank except by Abu Mazen and a couple of others. Even in the UN
agencies—supposedly recognized by Israel as part of an
international system—West Bank staff members are unable to sit in
strategic-planning or everyday-cooperation meetings with
counterparts in Gaza. And to the people of Jenin in the north of the
West Bank, Bethlehem or Hebron in the south may as well be as far
away as Gaza.
So
what can Abu Mazen do? He has nothing to promise anyone. As I write,
24 January 2005, Israeli Finance Minister and former PM Benjamin
Netanyahu confirms the one-sided nature of “negotiations.” “I
do not believe that Israel must give something,” he said to
Israeli Army Radio in response to questions regarding the militant
struggle in Gaza. “They [the Palestinians] must give … they are
the side that has transgressed. They are the side that tried with
the force of terror to advance the terrible results that they
sought.” Well, there you go—Mr. Netanyahu, in his usual sweet
tones, making the situation perfectly clear.
Israel
has shown no signs of easing up on restrictions and military
operations, let alone making any serious attempts at ending
occupation. Oh sorry—if you get your updates from mainstream news
you might be forgiven for thinking that Sharon is unilaterally
offering Gaza on a plate. Let’s go back a step.
Gaza
Withdrawal
How
can you have freedom under occupation? |
|
It
is a widespread myth that Ariel Sharon, architect supremo of the
settlement project over decades, has had an about-face, a melting
heart in his old age. Giving back Gaza unilaterally? Here’s the
deal, as stated clearly to the Israeli people by Sharon and various
aides. The pull back from Gaza will not give any control of borders
or airspace. Nor will it give entry or exit of goods or people
either across to the West Bank or into Egypt. So, there is no
possibility of an independent economy or radical changes for the
impoverished Gazans. And who needs a tiny strip of desert land next
to Egypt seething with terrorists anyway? We can use Egypt to our
dirty work in policing, and settlers will be recompensated
handsomely and used to help secure Israeli domination in the West
Bank, or to confiscate more land from Palestinian citizens of
Israel. Sharon has made explicit his plans to use Gazan settlers to
shore up Jewish domination of Palestinian-populated areas inside the
1948 borders, in the Galilee and the Negev. Gazan settlers currently
forced to leave the Palestinian land they had occupied will be
rewarded around $300,000. Anyone notice the “slight” discrepancy
between this and the zero compensation that most Rafah residents
receive when their homes are destroyed (sometimes for the second or
third time)?
But
the great thing for Israel is that the international community will
see it as a great step forward and a massive compromise by
peace-loving Israel. Then (1) Israel will be given the moral high
ground, (2) Sharon and successors will refuse to even talk about
negotiating anything but a few Palestinian reserves in the
resource-rich West Bank, and (3) every incidence of Palestinian or
Israeli human suffering will be blamed on Abu Mazen and his failure
to “control the militants.”
Everything
is going just great for Sharon’s long-term plan. He has already
got green lights, back slaps, and red carpets in Washington. There
may have been an American election last year, but when it comes to
wholehearted support of Israel, John Kerry’s policy statements
assured Israel and American Zionists there wouldn’t have been any
change there. In his April 14, 2004 meeting with US President George
W. Bush, Sharon did even better than the Israeli public had hoped
for, achieving a historic open commitment that five key West Bank
settlement blocs will be recognized as Israeli by the US (in other
words, not up for negotiation). In reality, a full return to 1967
borders has not been on the agenda for many years, but this public
affirmation was a supreme achievement for the Zionist lobby.
International
media claims that Sharon’s unilateral Gaza disengagement plan is
an about-face for the lifelong pioneer of the settlement project
constitute exactly the propaganda that the prime minister needs as
he carries on securing facts on the ground in the resource-rich West
Bank. The latest settlement update from Peace Now (December 30,
2004) testifies to the continuing building of hundreds of
settlements across the West Bank.
Abu
Mazen has no role or authority to interfere in this process. Only
the Israelis can end their own occupation and continuous expansion.
While the Israeli papers continue to discuss Abu Mazen’s changes
in personnel from the Arafat days and ask whether he will “stop
the violence” or be “less corrupt,” they ignore the key issue
to bring an end to violence, and to genuinely help democracy and a
free Palestinian society: An end to occupation. For Israeli and
international media to discuss anything else is to avoid the issues,
to patronize a people under occupation, and to ignore the fact that
it is Zionism, not Palestinian corruption, that has prevented the
flourishing of Palestinian democracy for over half a century.