No peace soon (Full Version)

 

The end of next month marks the 18th anniversary of the Madrid peace conference. The post-Gulf War Soviet-American sponsored three-day affair was supposed to lay the foundations for a peace process that will end the Arab-Israeli conflict. For Palestinian refugees living in the neighbouring Arab countries, the dream of ending their diaspora seemed closer than ever, and the potential of spending the weekend in Nablus or even Nassreh was a real possibility, even for those who had never set foot in their homeland. 

 

It is also exactly 16 years since Yasser Arafat shook the hand of Yitzhak Rabin in the White House’s garden on September 13th, 1993, the start of the framework for a final solution of an issue that has occupied – no pun intended – the region since the beginning of the 20th century. But sadly all we have seen since is broken promises, increased colonisation of Palestinian land, another popular uprising and at least two major assaults on Arab civilians, it’s no exaggeration to declare that we’re actually back to square one. 

 

At this point, therefore. any potential for coexistence between Palestinians and the descendents of Jewish immigrants from around the globe is just as unlikely as god, as some still hope, sending his angels to wipe out Israel off the map. As’ad abu Khalil, professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus, is the author of the Angry Arab News Service – a website largely dedicated to news stories highlighting the exclusionist practices of the Israelis and their American supporters – can only see a bleak future for a peace process. We asked him for the main reasons why we shouldn’t book a long weekend in Jerusalem any time soon. 

 

 

Neither Fateh nor Hamas seems able to unite the Palestinians on a single platform pathetic and embarrassing.

 

That is simply the status of the two supposed Palestinian "leaderships" – a couple of illegitimate parties who are only leaders on a few followers and beneficiaries. And how can any sane Palestinian gets behind either one of them? On one side there is a group that considers shady characters like Mohammad Dahlan and Jibril Rojoub "the new blood" of its "leadership" who are under the direct command of US Army officer. And on the other hand, you have an alleged resistance movement that continues to offer concessions as long that it is subliminally allowed to maintain control over the world's largest jail, and who seems to be more concerned about applying the Sharia laws and chasing away the "tails of secularism" (according to the late Nizzar Rayyan) than fighting the occupation. The Palestinian people are represented by two equally-incompetent parties and the only beneficiaries are the occupation and the few clowns who playing the role of leaders.  

 

Angry Arab take 

The Palestinian people deserve much better than this current leadership. In Hamas you have a party that has subscribed to the unacceptable Oslo Accords and its repercussions and has shifted from resisting the occupation to imposing a dress code on school girls – and lying about too. On the other side you have an authority that is simply a deputy for the occupation practically taking over the occupation duties, as obvious by the latest Fateh conference which allowed for Israel to handpick the future Palestinian leadership. 

 

 

The Obama initiative was nothing but empty promises. 

 

As we highlighted at considerable length in NOX Issue 29, Obama’s election victory might just usher in a new wave of progressive politics in America, but for us in the Middle East, the changes will be scarcely felt. When it comes to Palestine, a Democratic president can’t alienate the main suppliers of his re-election war chest, America’s Jewish community. We have seen his limits already; he began to push, the lobby went into overdrive, and a “total freeze on settlements” quickly became “don’t build any new ones unless you really, really have to. Please.”

 

Angry Arab take 

“The whole Obama initiative is nothing more than a kind of deceit. There are no substantial differences between the current administration, the previous one or the one that will follow. You can see that Obama has completely backtracked from his initial stance regarding the settlements, and he is now bringing back Dennis Ross to the National Security Council and the honeymoon with the Zionists is revived all over again. Obama is facing a number of internal issues from the health insurance reform to the economic issues with regressing support and an upcoming mid-term elections in next year, so he will not be engaging in any foreign policy adventures. 

 

 

After Israel gave a cold shoulder to the Arabs supposed best offer, the only left to give is a humiliating capitulation

 

The King Abdullah initiative – or as Dr Abu Khalil refers to it, the Thomas Freidman initiative – of 2002 was presented as the Arab’s trump card that will spark the peace process – the offer that cannot be refused. Full-page ads were taken in Arab newspapers promoting the visionary initiative that will liberate Jerusalem in no time. In reality, it turned out that the initiative was as shallow as Friedman’s analogies. With nothing to compel Israel to accept the proposal, they can ramp up the “threatened on all sides” rhetoric without fear of challenge, while accelerating the colonisation of someone else’s land.

 

Angry Arab take 

“The Arab initiative today seems to be ‘full normalisation for absolutely nothing’. The only return for the Arab regimes’ unconditional normalisation would be gaining the approval of America. King Abdullah’s initiative was relegated to complete normalisation for a settlement freeze, while in reality the trade-off is clear: complete normalisation for nothing. 

 

 

We make war that we may live in peace

 

Saudi Arabia is on a 10-year arms sales package from the US. Last month a reported $2.39 billion arms deal between the Wahhabi kingdom and Russia was finalised. The UAE is currently ranked as the world's third largest arms buyer in the world with Egypt not too far behind. The official number of the Jordanian Arab army personnel is around 150,000 soldiers. And yet despite all the Zionist aggression, infringement on the Arabs rights  and rude rejections of their peace proposals, one would be hard pressed to see any arab country waving the war option – even as complimentary maneuver to push the peace process. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal timid warning last March that the peace offer with Israel may not last forever is the closest to a "threat" that the Zionist state may face anytime soon. On the contrary, more peace initiatives are launched on daly basis from Bahrain to Mauritania. And with completely eliminating the war option that would force/convince/drive the Zionist state towards an acceptable peace resolution between equal counterparts, the only peace option that Israel may be willing to subscribe to is the complete and unconditional surrender currently offered.  

 

Angry Arab take 

“With nothing left to offer Arabs have to reject the terms of the empty initiatives and renew the vows to resist Israel. The choices Arabs have are peace and war. But when Israel is constantly launching a war against the Arabs, the retaliation is nothing more than self defence; a war to defend your citizens. All the pressure is on the Arabs to continue to offer concessions, and if we try to analyse the situation, we realise that we are in no position to acquire any concessions from the other side. Hence, the need from a solid strong Arab stance that will allow us to achieve any gains. Just remember that even the minimal gains we have ever got were products of a strong military position. 

 

 

The next “peace” generation is constantly reminded of the occupation and its atrocious crimes 

 

Israel, so their unctuous leaders and spokespeople are constantly trying to remind us, is desperate to be a part of the region, to be good neighbours, to let everyone understand their ancient connection to the Middle East. Unfortunately, they have some way to go to learn what good neighbourliness means. Not only are they European when it comes to sporting contests and cultural collaborations, while also maintaining de facto discrimination between Jews and non-Jews in the eyes of their domestic law, they have the trigger finger when it comes to their Arab neighbours. No threat or provocation is too small that they can’t justify an F-16 assault to raze Lebanon, pulverise Gaza or strike at targets deep into Iraq or Syria. The occupation, colonisation and military control practiced on the West Bank, moreover, is racism in action – justified by frequent inflammatory remarks from racist cabinet members like Avigdor Lieberman. Israel believes in its own exceptionalism, and that hardly makes room for mutual respect.

 

Angry Arab take 

“The paradox is that despite Arab leaders’ willingness to make Israel a natural addition to the region, Israel itself continues to generate its unequivocal rejection through ongoing massacres, which renders all Arab overtures of normalisation obsolete. It is a kind of dialectical argument: the Zionist oppression and tyranny is built on violence, meaning Israel needs violence to maintain its existence. In the meantime this violence hampers any chances for its acceptance in the region among the region’s populations.”

 

 

There are 4.25 million refugees waiting to return home – and they have a UN resolution to back it up

 

This is one of the genuine sticking points for any Arab leader at the negotiating table. No one, not even the ever-complaint Yasser Arafat, was willing to sign away the birth-right of millions of Palestinians and make their exclusion from their homeland – and in the vast majority of cases, their families’ actual, title-held land – permanent. In umpteen pleas for peace in 40 years of attempts of a lasting deal, King Hussein refused to discuss the issue, claiming he could not speak on their behalf. 

 

The issue is critical for a number of reasons: firstly, it is a legal principal. Over 700,000 Palestinians were evicted from their homes during a conflict, and according to the Geneva Conventions, it is imperative all refugees from war be allowed to return to their homes at the cessation of hostilities. Secondly, property rights are not nullified by war. If it was your land or house before a conflict, it is still your hand or house after it, and if it is not returned then adequate compensation by the usurper ought to be payable. Thirdly, refusal to allow the refugees the right to return legitimises the forced eviction on one race of people for another – otherwise known as ethnic cleansing. Fourthly, the violent cause of the refugee crisis needs to be acknowledged. Ultimately, the crime needs redress, and that is not a point to bargain with.

 

Angry Arab take 

“There are some suspicious attempts taking place in Jordan and Lebanon to lay the ground for the resettlement of the refugees in those countries with the full acquiescence of the Oslo authority in the West Bank. Mahmoud Abbas see the refugee camps as a heavy burden that will hobble their collaborative scheme, since all the revolutionary movements in the history of the struggle originated here. There are clear signs that points towards ignoring the issue of the refugees return since Camp David and even the offers that were given to Yasser Arafat at Wye Plantation looked to exclude the right of return from any potential settlement. But the persistence of the Palestinian people and their refusal to accept such compromises mean that these attempts will not be successful.” 

 

 

When Saddam Hussein used the beaten-to-death cliche “the road to Palestine goes through Kuwait” to justify his 1990 occupation of the oil-rich state, he was hardly the first – or last – to abuse the sentimental value of the Palestinian cause. “No sound should rise above that of battle” was the slogan aired by Arab regimes whenever popular protest sought political reform. Israel’s occupation of Palestinian has long been the excuse for the incompetence of a succession of Arab regimes. The autocrats in Syria and Iran, the corrupt and venal leaders of Fateh, and even religious militias like Hezbollah, Hamas and al-Qaeda still uses the issue of Palestine to justify their existence. 

 

Then, of course, there’s finance. Not only does Mahmoud Abbas and his well-heeled cronies drink from the well of endless EU funds – Suha Arafat taught them well – it would be hard for Israel to continue extending its cap in the direction of Washington for further billions in military aid. Also, if there’s no occupation and no terrorism, then there is no real-time laboratory for the endless security hardware firms that underpin Israel’s perpetual war economy.

 

Angry Arab take

“In Lebanon, we would refer to Fath as a collection of dakakin (shops) with various alliances, with Yasser Arafat institutionalising corruption through the PLO and Fath structures. He teamed up with Saudi Arabia and Sadat to do the most to undermine Palestinian struggle for liberation, and used the infusion of Gulf oil money brought millions to the movement, and he used the leverage of money to get his way. The same thing happens today with the Gulf support for the Dahlan gangs that are wrecking havoc in Palestine. Hamas also is not above reproach when it comes to money from Gulf countries where they in the past did most fund raising. This is not an organization above receiving Saudi cash.”

 

 

With 300+ TV channels constantly featuring Haifa Wahbe, the quest for Jerusalem naturally takes a back seat 

 

Long gone the days when the Palestinian issue used to occupy the hearts and souls of the Arab masses. Long gone the days when people would flood the streets celebrating Egypt signing an arms deal with Czechoslovakia, or demonstrating against the Rogers Initiative. These days, the Arab masses flood the streets celebrating France’s World Cup win or to watch the season finale of competing fifth-grade “singers”. With localised rally cries a la “Jordan First” and “Lebanon First” dominating Arab minds, and with intellectual and material poverty reducing the consciousness of the people, individual states can quietly pursue their own narrow agendas.

 

Angry Arab take 

“I hate using the term ‘the Arab street’ or ‘Arab people’ in the sense that they are an active mobilising entity. As Yasser Arafat used to say there is no such thing as the Arab street. Changing the status quo is not impossible, though, it just requires a will that is frankly non-existent. What kind of a stand do you expect the Arab populations to take when they are occupied by an astounding number of Ramadan and non-Ramadan television drama series?" But even if the ‘masses’ did not rise, their governments will not be able to blatantly force them to accept a settlement on such demeaning terms, and will not be able to force them into normalisation.”

 

 

Assuming that it ever was a solution to begin with, of course

 

The two-state solution has been dying for so long that it’s entirely conceivable to think it was never a viable option to begin with. The ongoing expansion of settlements in the West Bank since 2001, the Apartheid Wall that isolates towns and villages from each other and appropriates the land of the potential Palestinian state, and the Hamas’ independent Islamic Emirate in Gaza are among the reasons that prompted British journalist Patrick Seale to argue last year that: “It is now clear beyond reasonable dispute that a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has passed into the realm of fiction. The project – if it ever was a real project – is stone dead. It seems that the offers on the table are two states one in Israel and the other for Palestinians in Jordan. And even more comically farfetched – a three state solution.” 

 

Angry Arab take

“Back in the 70s and 80s, Israel had a chance to achieve a two-state solution, which I do not support. I am for one secular state in all of Palestine, the return of all Palestinian refugees, and their compensation. Justice will allow Palestinians to have their own state. Palestinians will have their state and Israel will have to submit to the will of the Palestinians. Jews will remain on the land and hopefully they will live as brothers and sisters with Palestinians. But the chance of a two-state solution died with Arafat.”

 

 

Israel is very comfortable with the status quo – and has rejected every credible peace initiative since 1967

 

“Facts on the ground” is the Israeli policy of choice, whether militarily or diplomatically, and has been ever since they seized control of the West Bank in 1967 – and the inability of any Arab and Palestinian to challenge any Israeli measure, there is no reason why the usurping entity should reconsider that policy. According to Guardian columnist Ben White, the “facts on the ground policy” has been adopted since 1967 to not only confiscate as much land as possible, but to ensure there are enough crumbs of colonised land to toss of the table should any further compromise be required during negotiations. “The moment of truth has arrived, and it has to be said: Israel does not want peace,” said Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy back in 2007. “In our wildest dreams, we wouldn’t have believed that the day would come when the entire Arab world would extend its hand in peace and Israel would brush away the gesture.” 

Calling Israel’s abstract prayers for peace “obscene” in a Guardian column last month, the international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, professor Slavoj Zizek, tried to unveil Israel’s plan for its version of peace: “One in which the state of Israel is clearly engaged in a slow, invisible process, ignored by the media. One day, the world will awake and discover that there is no more Palestinian West Bank, that the land is Palestinian-free, and that we must accept the fact.”

 

Angry Arab take

There is no doubt that Israelis would like to be accepted in the region. But when you have the Arab countries subscribing to the American-Zionist project and offering all sorts of concessions – as we can see by the Bahraini crown prince initiative – that means there is no pressure on Israel that would force it into any sort of compromise, no matter how trivial. To quote Lebanese writer, Ilyas Khuri: “Peace is no longer possible because Israel does not want peace, but absolute hegemony and continuous terrorisation. Thus, the only rationality in the face of fire, brutality and destruction is resistance.” Who can disagree? 

 

In addition to a conversation with Dr As’ad abu Khalil some parts of his quotes are sourced from his website: www.angryarab.net