On
September 23, Mahmoud (Abu Mazen) Abbas, “president” of the Palestinian
“Authority,” appeared before the United Nations general assembly and, to
the great acclaim of the majority of delegates, made a bid for the admission
of the “state” of Palestine as a member of that organization.
I have
put three words above in quote marks, for good reason. First, although Abu
Mazen is often addressed politely as “president Abbas,” his official title
is “chairman of the Palestinian National Authority” (in Arabic there is
some ambiguity, as the word ra’is can mean both “chairman” and
“president”). In any case, even his entitlement to this title is dubious:
he was elected as chairman in January 2005 for a term of four years, which
expired in January 2009; but he has remained super-glued to his seat.
Second,
the so-called Palestinian Authority (PA), of which he is (or was) chairman, is
devoid of any real authority.
Its
main role is to keep the Palestinian people under control on behalf of Israel,
and to engage with the latter in desultory negotiations in an endless “peace
process” (of which more anon).
Third,
the so-called state for which he was demanding UN membership is nonexistent:
much less than a state, it is not even a Bantustan, but more like a series of
disconnected Indian reservations, and likely to remain so for the foreseeable
future.
In
response to Abbas, Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, made a
speech in his prime poisonous style, vehemently opposing Palestinian UN
membership and inviting the PA instead to negotiate. This was seconded by US
president Barack Obama, who, in an utterly one-sided speech, denounced the
Palestinian bid as “one-sided” and, as expected, promised to veto it in
the Security Council. The invitation to negotiate was echoed by Catherine
Ashton on behalf of the European Union.
In
this article I propose to explain the background to this international charade
and the motives of the various actors in it.
“Peace
process”
First,
Israel. For the Israeli leadership, the “peace process” —or, as many
Israelis (who have trouble distinguishing between long and short vowels)
pronounce it, piss process— is a perpetual ratchet mechanism for buying
time, while colonization of Palestinian lands is extended and expanded.
|
A perpetual ratchet mechanism
for buying time, while colonization of Palestinian
lands is
extended and
expanded. |
The
Israeli negotiating strategy, successfully applied for the last 20 years, is
very simple. At each stage of the process, Israel puts forward new conditions.
If the Palestinian side rejects them, the negotiations are broken off, and
world public opinion is invited to blame Palestinian intransigence for the
deadlock. However, if the Palestinian side capitulates to the new demands,
then Israel finds a pretext for stalling. A favorite ploy is to create
provocations such as “targeted assassination” of Palestinian militants.
These are rarely reported by the international media, and never given any
prominence, as they are considered routine moves in the “war against
terror.” Eventually, some armed Palestinian group retaliates with a bloody
bombing inside Israel or an illaimed rocket barrage. This is invariably given
lurid coverage in the international media.[1] Thereupon Israel breaks off the
talks, because obviously one cannot negotiate with such terrorists. Again, the
Palestinians are blamed for the failure of the talks. Meantime, Israeli
colonization continues to metastasize.
After
a while, there is another international initiative for resuming the
negotiations.
In the
new round of talks, the previous Palestinian concessions are taken as a
starting point, and Israel’s conditions are ratcheted up. Right now the new
Israeli ultimatum includes the following two demands. First, that the
Palestinians subscribe to the Zionist doctrine that all Jews around the world
are a nation, and Israel is the nation-state of this alleged nation (rather
than a state of its own citizens, or even of the Israeli Hebrew nation).
Second,
that the PA drop its insistence that the eventual settlement be based on the
pre-1967 de facto border of Israel (the so-called green line). These two
demands taken together amount to open-ended legitimation of Zionist
colonisation, past, present and future.
Israeli
opposition
The
dual aim of this strategy is to buy time for further Israeli colonization, and
prevent the creation of a sovereign Palestinian Arab state of any size,
however mutilated. This policy is by no means new, and is common to all the
major Zionist parties. Let me quote from a Matzpen discussion paper
co-authored some time ago by comrade Emmanuel Farjoun and myself.
“The
decisive majority of the Zionist leadership, both in the government and in
the…opposition, is resolutely opposed, as a matter of fundamental principle,
to the establishment of any kind of independent Palestinian state.
“First,
the Zionist legitimation for the existence of the state of Israel as an
exclusive Jewish state has always been entirely based not on the right to
selfdetermination of the Jews who live in this country, but on the alleged
“historical right” of all Jews around the world over the whole of the
“Land of Israel.” From this viewpoint, recognition of the existence in
Palestine of another people, the Palestinian Arab people, which has a
legitimate claim in it would undermine Zionism’s legitimation and
self-justification.
“Second,
the Zionist leadership indeed takes into account the eventuality that within
the framework of a settlement Israel may be obliged to withdraw also from
parts of its conquests west of the Jordan River. But from a Zionist viewpoint
any withdrawal from any part whatsoever of “the historical Land of
Israel,” especially west of the Jordan, is—in principle—temporary and
contingent on transient conditions. From this viewpoint, Israel must reserve
the ability and right to reconquer these territories, if that becomes
politically possible or militarily necessary. But in international politics
there is a huge difference between conquering part of another state and
conquering the whole of a “third state” [ie, a Palestinian state between
Israel and Jordan]. The world would be much more likely to accept, under
certain conditions, an Israeli reconquest of part of Jordan (or of Greater
Syria), than the total erasure of a sovereign Palestinian state. The
establishment of such a state would therefore impose a severe constraint on
Israel’s political and military strategy.
“Third,
the Zionist leadership is worried that the establishment of an independent
Palestinian state, however small, may be the starting point of a historical
process whereby that state would expand step by step at Israel’s expense.
The Zionists in fact know from their own experience all about a process of
this kind: at first they agreed to the establishment of a small Jewish state
within the borders recommended [in 1937] by the Peel Commission, and later
within the borders of the [UN] partition plan of 1947, but they expanded the
borders further and further, step by step.”
In
this context, we quoted the words of a famous Israeli leader:
“Fundamentally,
a Palestinian state is an antithesis of the state of Israel.… The basic and
naked truth is that there is no fundamental difference between the relation of
the Arabs of Nablus to Nablus and that of the Arabs of Jaffa to Jaffa.… And
if today we set out on this road and say that the Palestinians are entitled to
their own state because they are natives of the same country and have the same
rights, then it will not end with the West Bank. The West Bank together with
the Gaza Strip do not amount to a state.… The establishment of such a
Palestinian state would lay a cornerstone to something else.… Either the
state of Israel—or a Palestinian state.”
Our
discussion paper was written in August 1976 (and published in Matzpen in
February 1977), when the first Rabin government was in office. The leader we
quoted was Moshe Dayan (as reported in Ha’aretz December 12, 1975). Plus
ça change…
Indeed,
no Israeli government has signed any legally binding commitment to the
creation of a Palestinian Arab state. In particular, the Oslo accords of
August 1993, signed by the second Rabin government, contain no mention of a
Palestinian state (they also contain no commitment on Israel’s part to halt
its colonization of Palestinian lands).
Abbas’s
UN bid is not remotely likely to give the Palestinians in the foreseeable
future a state in any substantive sense. At most, it will result in a symbolic
act of international recognition of notional Palestinian statehood, of the
Palestinians’ right to have a state. But even this symbolic international
legal act is more than Israel is prepared to countenance. Hence Netanyahu’s
vehement opposition.
The
position of the United States
In our
discussion paper, comrade Farjoun and I explained also the American position,
which has not changed since then:
“The
minimal demand, which even the most moderate current in the Palestine
Liberation Organisation (PLO) cannot give up (so long as it exists as an
independent actor), is the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state in
the occupied territories, which would exist for an entire historical period
alongside the Zionist state of Israel.
“The
Americans for their own part could accept this demand in order to tranquilize
the [Arab] national ferment.
“From
a purely American viewpoint, as from that of the moderate current in the PLO,
a compromise that includes the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state
under US protection would be acceptable. But in practice such a compromise is
precluded by the resolute Zionist position and the special position of Israel
in the American set-up in the region.”
The
total, apparently slavish, US support for the Israeli position (illustrated
for the hundredth time by Obama’s veto threat) is often explained by the
great influence in Congress and the US media of the pro-Israel lobby
(consisting of some important Jewish organizations and a much larger
fundamentalist Christian network).
But
this “Israeli tail wags US dog” explanation is at best only part of the
truth, and it begs the question as to why that lobby is allowed to wield such
influence.
There
is no sign that any major US capitalist interest group, including the dominant
military-industrial and oil complex, which commands huge political and
financial resources, makes a really serious effort to counteract or limit the
effects of pro-Israel lobbying (billionaire George Soros is a rather isolated
exception).[2]
In
fact, Israel is the most reliable American ally—in effect, a junior
partner—in the Middle East, and is even more indispensable now, given the
downfall of some Arab protégés of the US, and the general instability in the
region. So the Obama administration is torn between its reluctance to arouse
anti-American rage among the masses of the Arab world and beyond, and its
commitment to Israel, obliging it to block the PA’s UN membership bid by a
veto in the security council. To save the United States this embarrassment,
its EU camp followers (led by Nicolas Sarkozy and Catherine Ashton) have
devised alternative plans: to persuade the PA to withdraw its bid for full UN
membership, and apply instead for non-member-state status (like that of the
Vatican). This can be granted by a two-third majority in the general assembly,
where the United States has no veto. Failing that, if the PA insists on its
full membership bid, the issue can be kicked into the long grass of endlessly
prolonged deliberation among members of the Security Council.
Why
Abbas went to the UN
It is
impossible to believe that the Ramallah- based PA has not cottoned on long ago
to the Israeli negotiating strategy and realized that the “peace process”
is leading nowhere except to the expansion of Israeli colonization and theft
of Palestinian land and resources. No one can be that stupid. The reason why
Arafat, and later on Abbas, and their clique have persevered in collusion with
this pretense is—apart from their pathetic pro-US commitment—the
considerable privileges in status granted by Israel to its favorite
collaborationists, and the material benefits derived from their control of
various funds, including grants from the EU (in this, Tony Blair has played a
significant role as pander).
But
even collaborationism has its limits. The Abbas leadership has been so
discredited among its own people that it was rapidly losing control. Here the
Arab awakening has played a crucial role in raising the expectations of the
Palestinian masses. No Arab leader whose mandate on power has long expired can
feel secure. In desperation, Abbas played the UN gambit. In the short term, it
has won him fairly wide, open support in the West Bank, and covert support in
the Gaza Strip, where the rival Hamas leadership has suppressed any open pro-
Abbas manifestations.
Hamas
is by no means alone in its skeptical attitude to Abbas’s UN gambit.
Palestinian
opinion generally is deeply divided. While many Palestinians point out the
advantages—symbolic, diplomatic and legal—of internationally recognised
statehood, many others are worried about the disadvantages. They point out
that the likely outcome would be freezing the Palestinians for the foreseeable
future in possession of a symbol devoid of any reality, without actual control
of any territory, borders and resources such as water; and unable to halt
further Israeli colonization. The Palestinian refugees outside the occupied
territories would remain in limbo.[3]
Our
response
Let me
end with a few words about the position that, in my opinion, socialists should
take towards the whole issue.
We
should certainly be critical of the motives behind Mahmoud Abbas’s
initiative, as well as of his utterly compromised and politically bankrupt
Palestinian Authority. More generally, the socalled two-state “solution,”
to which the PA is committed and on which the present UN membership bid is
based, is a dead end as far as Palestinian liberation is concerned, and will
not provide a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[4]
However,
right now socialists, especially in Israel and in the west, should direct
their main attack against the moves by Israel, the US and its camp followers
to block Palestinian UN membership.
Whatever
we think of the PA and its UN bid, the hypocritical positions of Netanyahu,
Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron and Ashton are a thousand times worse.
(*)
Moshé Machover is a mathematician, philosopher, and radical socialist
activist, noted for his writings against Zionism. Born to a Jewish family in
Tel Aviv, then part of the British Mandate of Palestine, Machover moved to
Britain in 1968. He was a founder of Matzpen, the Israeli Socialist
Organization, in 1962. He is author of numerous articles, including, with
Akiva Orr, the groundbreaking 1969 analysis, “The Class Character of Israeli
Society,” which was republished in ISR 23. This article first appeared on
the UK paper, the Weekly
Worker, on September 29. Reprinted with permission.
Notes:
1.- On
the systematic pro-Israel bias in British TV reporting, see G Philo, M Berry, More
bad news from Israel (London: Pluto Press), 2011. Israeli attacks are
invariably described as “retaliation.” Palestinian revenge is invariably
described as “starting a new cycle of violence.”
2.-
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros and his article, “On Israel,
America and Aipac,” New York Review of Books, April 12, 2007.
3.-
For a position of profound scepticism by Palestinian nationalists (including
Karma Nabulsi) towards the Abbas initiative, see http://english. aljazeera.
net/indepth/features/2011/09/2011988133810422 3.html. For a more robust
Palestinian nationalist criticism, see G Karmi, “A token state of
Palestine,” The Guardian, September 24, 2012.
4.-
See my article, “Breaking the chains of Zionist oppression,” Weekly
Worker, February 19, 2009.