Omar Barghouti: ‘Recht op terugkeer is hét belangrijkste onvervreemdbare recht van Palestijnen’

Omar Barghouti is een Palestijnse commentator en mensenrechtenactivist. Hij is een van de oprichters van de Palestijnse Campagne voor de Academische en Culturele Boycot van Israël (PACBI) en de Palestijnse BDS-campagne (Boycot, Desinvestering en Sancties) tegen Israël. Daarover schreef hij een boek. Tijdens zijn recente bezoek aan Nederland sprak hij met Max van Lingen.

Je noemt het recht op terugkeer de lakmoesproef voor de erkenning van de Palestijnse rechten. Waarom is dat recht zo belangrijk?

Vijftig procent van de Palestijnse bevolking leeft in ballingschap buiten de historische grenzen van Palestina. 12 procent woont in Israël en 38 procent in de Westelijke Jordaanoever en Gaza. Van die 38 procent is nog eens 40 procent vluchteling of intern ontheemd. In totaal bestaat de Palestijnse bevolking voor 69 procent uit vluchtelingen.

Dat is precies waarom het recht op terugkeer hét belangrijkste onvervreemdbare recht is van de Palestijnen. Zonder het recht op terugkeer kan het Palestijnse volk het recht op zelfbeschikking niet uitoefenen. Het komt de zionisten natuurlijk erg goed uit als we ons slechts richten op de bezetting. Maar ik ben niet geïnteresseerd in de mening van zionisten. Onze rechten zijn onvervreemdbaar, en ze zijn gerechtvaardigd binnen het internationaal recht. We zullen ervoor blijven strijden totdat we ze kunnen realiseren.

Het lijkt alsof je niet veel verwacht van een mentaliteitsverandering onder de Israëlische bevolking?

We hebben wel degelijk de hoop dat er een verandering zal plaatsvinden. Maar we denken niet dat we de Israëlische bevolking kunnen overtuigen door een dialoog of met de zogenaamde vredesprojecten zolang ze voordeel hebben bij de bezetting. Die les trekken we uit de geschiedenis. Israël is niet anders dan andere kolonistenstaten in de wereld, zoals Zuid-Afrika onder de apartheid, Frans Algerije en Brits Ierland. Kolonisten geven nooit hun macht en privileges op zonder massale en langdurige druk.

Die druk kan op verschillende manieren worden uitgeoefend, bijvoorbeeld door gewapend verzet of burgerverzet. BDS is een van de belangrijkste vormen daarvan. Het is per definitie een geweldloze vorm. Maar het is niet de enige vorm, het vult de andere vormen van verzet aan. Volgens het internationaal recht mogen we met alle middelen in verzet komen, zolang we de mensenrechten respecteren.

De strategie van de BDS-beweging is erop gericht om vanuit grassroots-organisaties een massale, wereldwijde solidariteitsbeweging op te bouwen om op basis daarvan de prijs van de bezetting te verhogen. Wanneer dat gebeurt zullen ook joodse Israëli’s zich bij ons gaan aansluiten. In Zuid-Afrika sloten ook veel Afrikaners zich aan bij het ANC toen de boycotcampagne goed op gang kwam.

Maar treft de boycotcampagne niet de verkeerde mensen? We spreken ons tenslotte ook uit tegen de blokkade van Gaza. Is hier geen sprake van collectief straffen?

Moreel gezien kan verzet, ongeacht onze kritiek erop, niet worden gelijkgesteld aan het geweld van de onderdrukker. Zoals Paulo Freire al aangaf, is de onderdrukker de initiator van het geweld. De BDS-campagne richt zich bovendien niet op individuen, maar op instituten en de staat. Sommige mensen brengen daartegenin dat als je een bedrijf treft, je ook de mensen treft. Doordat het bedrijf inkomsten verliest wordt het gedwongen om mensen te ontslaan.

De logica hierachter is dat instituten ook menselijk zijn omdat ze uit mensen bestaan. Maar dat is de prijs van de bezetting en apartheid. Uiteindelijk is het doel van verzet dat het pijn doet. Maar de schuld daarvan ligt bij het systeem van onderdrukking. Als de onderdrukking beëindigd wordt, stoppen wij ons verzet en kunnen de Israëli’s banen behouden.

Ik werd onlangs met eenzelfde argument geconfronteerd door een vrouw die aangaf dat zij als marxist BDS niet kan steunen omdat het de rechten van arbeiders raakt. Dit is wat ik ‘wit marxisme’ noem. Het gaat ervan uit dat alleen witte arbeiders rechten hebben. Wanneer je de rechten van Israëlische arbeiders wil beschermen terwijl ze betrokken zijn bij een systeem van onderdrukking, ben je niet geïnteresseerd in de rechten van Palestijnse arbeiders.

Maar hoe zit dat dan met bijvoorbeeld Iran of Syrië? Dat zijn toch ook onderdrukkende regimes?

Met medeplichtigheid komt verantwoordelijkheid. Als belastingbetalers dragen Nederlanders bij aan de bezetting. Jullie regering is onderdeel van het probleem doordat het Israël militair, academisch, economisch, cultureel en financieel steunt. De Nederlandse medeplichtigheid bij het Israëlische systeem van bezetting, kolonialisme en apartheid gaat heel diep. Daarom rust er een grote verantwoordelijkheid op de Nederlandse bevolking om zich tegen dat beleid te keren.

Nederland is niet medeplichtig aan de onderdrukking in Iran of in Syrië. Natuurlijk moeten we als mensenrechtenactivisten, of we nu Palestijns, Nederlands of Zuid-Afrikaans zijn, de mensenrechten overal steunen. Maar je moet de meeste energie richten daar waar je de grootste verantwoordelijkheid hebt. Een ander belangrijk verschil is dat er geen oproep is om Iran te boycotten vanuit de Iraanse maatschappij.

In het Palestijnse geval roept een meerderheid van de Palestijnse maatschappij op tot verschillende vormen van boycot: alle politieke partijen, NGO’s, vakbonden, vrouwengroepen, studentengroepen en vluchtelingenorganisaties. De boycot geeft gevolg aan een oproep van de onderdrukte. Je besluit echter niet zomaar als activist om de Iraanse bevolking te helpen door Iran te boycotten. Dat is namelijk nogal paternalistisch. Laat hen je vertellen wat je moet doen.

Er is ook kritiek op de BDS-campagne. Norman Finkelstein bijvoorbeeld noemt de BDS-beweging een sekte en zegt dat het eigenlijke doel de vernietiging van Israël is.

Ik reageer liever niet op uitspraken van Finkelstein omdat ik enorm veel respect heb voor zijn verleden. Hij heeft een lange en glanzende geschiedenis van steun voor de rechten van Palestijnen. Maar ik kan wel op de argumentatie in het algemeen reageren, want ook anderen gebruiken deze. Het is een zionistische argumentatie die ook door de Israëlische ambassades wordt gebruikt.

Wanneer je termen als vernietiging gebruikt, roept dat beelden op van moord, bloedvergieten en genocide. Maar we hebben het hier over het ondermijnen van onderdrukking. Als een systeem wordt vernietigd door de invoering van gelijkheid, dan zegt dat vooral iets over dat systeem. Maar vernietigde gelijkheid Zuid-Afrika? Nee, het vernietigde het Zuid-Afrikaanse apartheidssysteem. Heeft gelijkheid het Zuiden van de Verenigde Staten vernietigd? Nee, het vernietigde de segregatie. De BDS-beweging wil het systeem ondermijnen van apartheid, bezetting en de ontkenning van rechten van vluchtelingen.

Critici zien jouw eigen steun aan de één-staat-oplossing desondanks als bewijs hiervoor.

Binnen het Nationale BDS Comité (BNC), wat de grootste Palestijnse coalitie is, leven uiteenlopende ideeën over de één- of tweestatenoplossing. De meerderheid van de betrokkenen is voor de tweestatenoplossing. Het is dus simpelweg niet waar dat één staat het echte doel is van de BDS-campagne. Als de mensen en organisaties die de BDS-beweging leiden er in meerderheid niet voor zijn, hoe kan het dan wel je doel zijn?

Wel ben ik persoonlijk voor een één-staatoplossing. Ik heb tenslotte recht op een eigen mening en ik verkondig al dertig jaar dat ik voor een één-staatoplossing ben, in de vorm van een democratische, seculiere eenheidsstaat binnen de historische grenzen van Palestina.

Ik denk namelijk dat dit de enige manier is om het recht op terugkeer – als onderdeel van de rechten van de inheemse, Palestijnse bevolking – te verenigen met de ‘verworven rechten’ van de kolonisten, de joodse Israëli’s. Met verworven rechten doel ik op burgerrechten, culturele rechten en mensenrechten.

Maar dat betreft geen recht op zelfbeschikking van de kolonisten. Kolonisten kunnen enkel het recht op zelfbeschikking verwerven door onderdeel te worden van de inheemse maatschappij. Denk bijvoorbeeld aan de blanken in Cuba. We zeggen nu dat het Cubaanse volk het recht heeft om zijn eigen toekomst te bepalen, daarbij horen zwarten, blanken en de oorspronkelijke bevolking. Maar de blanken hebben, net als in Zuid-Afrika, geen apart zelfbeschikkingsrecht als groep. Dat gold evenmin voor de Britten in Ierland. Het is een recht dat is voorbehouden aan de inheemse bevolking.

Je besteedt in je boek veel aandacht aan de academische boycot. Waarom vind je dat zo belangrijk?

Het westerse beeld van Israël is grotendeels gebaseerd op zijn academische en culturele interventies. De Israëlische academische instituten spelen de sleutelrol in de vorming van het beeld van Israël als ‘democratisch’ en ‘verlicht’. Door ons daarop te richten, pakken we een centrale pijler aan van het Israëlische onderdrukkingsapparaat.

Tot voor kort hadden we op dit terrein maar één grote, zichtbare overwinning: de beëindiging van de banden van de Universiteit van Johannesburg met de Ben-Gurion Universiteit. Maar er is de afgelopen tijd veel veranderd. Enkele weken terug heeft de Associatie voor Aziatisch-Amerikaanse Studies, een vakorganisatie, de academische boycot aanvaard. Dat dit juist in de Verenigde Staten gebeurt is van enorm belang. Daarnaast omarmen steeds meer studentenorganisaties, van de Universiteit van Sydney tot de Belgische Francofone Studentenorganisatie, de academische boycot. De academische boycot begint daardoor nu ook zichtbaar te groeien.

Naast de zichtbare boycot is er ook een onzichtbare, ‘stille’ boycot. Hiermee wordt gedoeld op academici die weigeren om naar Israël te gaan voor conferenties zonder daaraan ruchtbaarheid te geven. Dat gebeurt veel, maar Israël laat ons natuurlijk niet weten hoe vaak dit gebeurt en hoe effectief het is. Maar soms vangen we daarvan een glimp op. Vorig jaar waren de Israëlische media lyrisch over een conferentie voor medici die ‘eindelijk’ de boycot doorbrak. Wij hadden geen idee dat de boycot in het veld van de geneeskunde effectief was. Er zijn veel meer voorbeelden.

Tot slot: Nederland is een klein land en erg pro-Israëlisch. Heeft het zin om ook hier een BDS-beweging op te bouwen?

De publieke opinie in Nederland is aan het verschuiven. Dat gaat weliswaar langzaam, maar het gebeurt wel. We zien dat steeds meer jongeren niet langer accepteren dat Israël boven het internationaal recht staat en moet worden beschermd. Zij wijzen het denkbeeld af dat we vanwege de Holocaust en de Nederlandse medeplichtigheid daaraan de andere kant moeten opkijken wanneer Israël fouten maakt. Desondanks gaat de Nederlandse medeplichtigheid heel diep. Er is een web van medeplichtigheid in de vorm van handel in wapens, landbouwproducten, enzovoorts. Door dat aan te pakken kan de Nederlandse BDS-campagne veel invloed uitoefenen.

Het boek van Omar Barghouti is verkrijgbaar bij LeesLinks. De Nederlandse BDS-campagne wordt met name georganiseerd door DocP.

(Source / 20.05.2013)

League chief says no changes to Arab peace initiative

US Secretary of State John Kerry meets with top Arab League officials in Washington, DC, on April 29, 2013.

CAIRO (Ma’an) — No amendments have been made to the Arab peace initiative proposed in 2002, Arab League chief Nabil Elaraby said Sunday.

A delegation from the Arab League visited Washington in late April to discuss the Arab peace initiative with US Secretary of State John Kerry, but no amendments to the proposal were made, Elaraby said.

“The delegation went to Washington to negotiate the initiative, not change it,” he said.

Following the discussions with Kerry and US Vice President Joe Biden, Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim, who headed the delegation, said that he backed Obama’s proposals for a “comparable and mutual agreed minor swap of the land” between Israelis and Palestinians.

Israel’s lead peace negotiator Tzipi Livni praised the “important” concession, but top PLO official Saeb Erekat said minor agreed border modifications were already part of the Palestinian position.

The Arab peace initiative was proposed by then Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah at the Arab League Summit in Beirut in 2002, and called for comprehensive peace and fully normalized relations between Israel and all 22 Arab states in return for Israel’s withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories.

The initiative includes the possibility for reciprocal and equal border modifications if agreed upon by both parties. It also calls for a just and agreed upon solution to the Palestinian refugee question.

Israel has never accepted the proposal.

(Source / 12.05.2013)

Fatah accepts Arab League land swap proposal

Fatah Central Council welcomes US efforts to revive peace process.

A Palestinian shouts as he holds a Fatah flag at the funeral of terrorist Maissara Abu Hamdiyeh.

The Fatah Central Council has accepted the Arab League’s latest proposal for land swaps with Israel.

Following a meeting in Ramallah late Saturday, members of the council also welcomed US efforts to revive the peace process with Israel.

The announcement is seen as a boost for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who has been facing criticism from some Fatah officials for supporting the land swap idea.

The Arab League proposal, which was presented to US Secretary of State John Kerry last month, has drawn different reactions from Palestinians across the political spectrum.

Although Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat initially said that this was not a new idea and that the proposal was presented in coordination with the Palestinians, some Fatah and PA officials have come out against the land swap plan.

Other Palestinians said that the Arab League did not have a mandate to speak on behalf of Palestinians and offer territorial concessions to Israel.

Opponents of the land swap idea said they were against it because it would “legitimize” settlements in the West Bank by allowing them to remain under Israeli sovereignty in a final deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

Unlike most Palestinian factions, Fatah said that it was not today opposed to the land swap idea.

However, Fatah’s leaders stressed after their meeting that they perceive the idea as meaning that there would be “minor and mutual adjustments” to the future border between Israel and a Palestinian state.

Accepting the idea does not mean “legitimizing settlement blocs” in the West Bank, they explained.

“Settlements in all the Palestinian lands are illegal. There can be no land swaps without an Israeli recognition of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the 1967 borders.”

Fatah said it was dealing “seriously with US efforts in order to make them succeed. The success of these efforts first requires a clear Israeli recognition of the two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders, a freeze of settlement construction and the release of prisoners, especially those who were arrested before 1994.”

Azzam al-Ahmed, a senior Fatah official, said that the Palestinians were awaiting a “full process to revive the peace talks.”

He said that Kerry was expected to announce the results of his current efforts to resume peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians on June 7.

“This is the date we have agreed upon,” al-Ahmed said. “Either Kerry comes forward with specific proposals to revive the peace process or he shuts the door because of Israeli intransigence.”

The Fatah official said that the Palestinian position regarding the resumption of the peace talks remains unchanged – namely a full commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the context of a two-state solution, the release of prisoners and a cessation of settlement construction.

“Without this, there will be no return to the peace negotiations,” al-Ahmed emphasized. “We hope Kerry will carry something positive to resume the peace process.”

(Source / 12.05.2013)

Despite threats, students to commemorate Nakba at Tel Aviv University

Israeli right-wing protesters burn a Palestinian flag in front of Tel Aviv University during the Nakba day commemoration event last year.

Palestinian and Jewish activists will join together to commemorate the ethnic cleansing that led to Israel’s establishment at an event in Tel Aviv University early next week.

This will be the second year that students will mark the Nakba — Arabic for “catastrophe,” the name given to the violence by Zionist forces in 1948 — in this way.

Students will read poetry, including works by the Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish, and a refugee from Tantura, a Palestinian village destroyed by a Zionist militia in May 1948, will recount his story to the audience.

“Nakba continues today”

Palestinian students who tell their families’ stories “will stress the meaning of the Nakba that continues today,” said Noa Levy, graduate student and organizer. “Whether it’s the relatives in refugee camps who cannot meet them, the economic situation in the towns and villages mostly populated by refugees, or the joint struggle for rights and restitution in Israel.”

“Our event is unique [because] it is very public [in] the main square on campus,” said student organizer Dan Walfish.

Readings will be delivered in both Hebrew and Arabic, Walfish said, “in order to show that the Nakba is not only a Palestinian issue, but a subject that should be known and commemorated by Jewish Israelis as well.”

“It is not a demonstration,” stressed Walfish, noting that the event is “non-partisan and open to everyone.”

Although public discussion of the Nakba within present-day Israel has been repressed, Walfish said the organizers “do not know what kind of pressure political elements will try to force on the university [this year].”

Uproar

“Without understanding the Palestinian narrative of 1948, you cannot understand the problems that Palestinians in Israel face today, and can’t understand the issues that stand between the state and the Arab citizens,” said Salah Mohsen of Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel.

The 2012 Nakba commemoration on campus, involving approximately 500 Palestinian and Jewish Israeli students at Tel Aviv University, as well as a handful of professors, sparked uproar in the Israeli political establishment and media.

For fear of breaching the Nakba Law — discriminatory legislation that threatens to defund any organization that marks the anniversary of Israel’s establishment as a “day of mourning” — the university made the organizers pay for the event’s security and banned the use of loudspeakers.

Similar commemorations were canceled elsewhere in Israel, including one planned at Haifa University.

“Direct blow” to Israel

A week before the 2012 commemoration, Gideon Saar, then Israel’s education minister, pressured Tel Aviv University to prevent the event. Alex Miller, a member of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, said, “It is shameful that such an event is meant to happen in public, it’s a direct blow against the symbols of the state and its sovereignty” (“Minister tells Israeli university to rethink ceremony marking Palestinian Nakba,” Haaretz, 13 May 2012).

The commemoration attracted a number of counter-protesters, including Knesset members and activists from Im Titzu, a far-right political group.

Students from Im Tirzu reportedly confronted Palestinian students at the university protesting Israel’s attacks on Gaza last November, shouting racist slogans including “Death to the Arabs.”

Although conceding that Tel Aviv University officials have been “relatively supportive of the right to hold the event,” Noa Levy noted that university security has demanded that the students change the name of the event from “ceremony” to “protest” or “assembly” — “as if the Zionists have a monopoly on what can be considered a commemoration ceremony. We’re still trying to fight this.”

Threats

Organizers expect pressure to cancel or tone down the commemoration.

“We are continuing to organize the ceremony despite threats from right-wing parties and the attempts of the university security office to lay obstacles in front of us, whether by specifically telling us to change the name of the event or by placing arbitrary bureaucratic barriers to delay its final approval,” said Ruba Salem, a member of the student wing of Hadash, a left-wing political party in Israel.

Salem said that in 2012, organizers and affiliated activists were harassed on Facebook and other social media outlets ahead of the commemoration. Several received “threats and hate speech from people opposing the event,” she explained.

During the 2012 event, counter-protesters attacked the commemoration. “Several counter-protesters broke through the security barrier, without the policemen reacting, and tore our signs, and even used offensive language against us,” Salem added. A video of this incident — recorded by this reporter — can be viewed on YouTube.

Rula Khalaily, a student at Tel Aviv University, told The Electronic Intifada that Im Tirzu activists emailed her before the 2012 commemoration took place. The email said that she and other organizers would “pay the price.”

Weeks later, Khalaily and three other prominent activists were threatened in a letter mailed to the dean of Tel Aviv University, declaring a spell on the students and providing their identity card numbers. The letter alleged that the activists are “promoter[s] of Nakba terror” and the “spell” was proclaimed for “incitement against Zionists.”

Following the advice of the university’s dean, the students decided against going public with the letter last year. “It was a risk; any fundamentalist could have taken it as a message to kill us,” Khalaily added.

History

Implanting the tradition of Nakba commemoration at Israeli universities is part of a broader movement related to the right to narrate history. “The main message is to address the Nakba as a day of mourning for the Palestinian people,” Khalaily said, “and to tell the Israeli government that they can never prevent us from talking about our history.”

Organizers also stressed the importance of shared Jewish and Palestinian participation in the commemoration. “We want to share the pain of the Nakba, openly and together, and to start a public discourse on the Nakba, [which] is still going on by preventing the refugees from returning, by taking Palestinian lands, and preventing equal rights for Palestinians,” Walfish said.

“This discourse must start from a place of humanity, human rights, memory and pain,” Walfish said. “We think that fixing the crimes of 1948 is essential for a better joint future for Jews and Palestinians.”

(Source / 11.05.2013)

Honduras, Palestine Establish Diplomatic Ties

 

TEHRAN (FNA)- Honduras and Palestine established diplomatic ties after the two sides signed an agreement on the exchange of ambassadors, the Honduran foreign ministry said.

The agreement allows both countries to deepen dialogue in areas of shared interest such as politics, business and culture, Honduran Foreign Minister Mireya Aguero told a joint press conference with her Palestinian counterpart Riad al-Maliki. The establishment of diplomatic relations with Honduras opens the door for other countries to recognize the state of Palestine and formalize ties, noted Maliki, who arrived in Honduras on Friday, Xinhua reported. “As foreign ministers, we are going to take on the responsibility of deepening and expanding our relationship, spurring trade, investment and contact between Palestinian and Honduran business owners,” Maliki said. More than 130 countries have recognized the state of Palestine, with about 100 having established formal ties with it. Honduran President Porfirio Lobo recognized Palestinian statehood in 2011. The UN General Assembly passed a motion late last year changing Palestine’s “entity” status to “non-member observer state,” giving implicit recognition of its sovereign state status. (Source / 11.05.2013)

Palestine Seeks Full Interpol Membership

The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is seeking a full membership with the International Criminal Police Organization (ICPO), internationally known as Interpol, and will be submitting an official application to the organization this coming August.

Brigadier Yousef ‘Ezraeel, head of the National Anti-Drug and Crime Force in Palestine, told the Maan News Agency that the Palestinian application will be submitted in August so that a vote on the application can be held during the Interpol annual meeting this November.

He stated that the Interpol is one of the international organizations that the P.A plans to join, and added that the application must be submitted three months prior to the annual Interpol meeting.

He further stated that the Executive Committee of the Interpol must first adopt the application before it is submitted for a vote, adding that the Palestinian leadership and the Ministry of Interior are holding talks with different countries in this regard, especially with Qatar and Algeria, as the two Arab countries are members of the Interpol’s Executive Committee.

Brigadier ‘Ezraeel said that a successful vote requires two thirds plus one, and added that Palestine contacted different member countries and managed to garner the needed support for the vote.

He stated that Palestine wants to join the Interpol in order to fight crime, punish criminals and fight corruption in Palestine, and different parts of the world as well.

On March 26, Palestinian head of the anti-corruption committee, Rafiq Al-Natsha, stated that the Palestinian Authority has a limited Interpol membership, an issue that does not allow the P.A. To issue international arrest warrants against Palestinian officials convicted of corruption and living abroad.

In November of 2012, the Palestinian Authority managed to obtain a non-member observer state status at the United Nations General Assembly. The vote granted the P.A. The ability to file for membership in different international organizations.

The Interpol was established in 1923 and was knows as the International Criminal Police Commission (ICPC), and adopted the name (Interpol) in 1956.

There are 190 countries that are members of the Interpol, and its headquarters are located in Lyon in France. The Interpol is considered the second largest international organization after the United Nations.

(Source / 11.05.2013)

A Third Palestinian Intifada in the Making

 

At a recent conference I was repeatedly asked about the prospects for a third Palestinian uprising, or Intifada. The question, although seemingly uncomplicated, is both loaded and important, and cannot be answered in a mere two minutes or less.

A ‘third Intifada’ would imply that the second has already ended. But has it? Or did it simply lose momentum, sense of focus and direction, or were its energies squandered – as a popular uprising – on factional disputes and internal division?

Some of its initial leaders are no longer involved, and a cohesive uprising cannot exist if too many of its players have switched sides, changed roles, or are absent altogether. To approach this subject more practically, the first Intifada in 1987 must be thoroughly scrutinized.

Palestinian collective revolts are not a singular response to singular problems caused by outsiders, for example the British mandate, Zionist colonial designs, Israeli occupation, and so on. What is often missed are the internal factors which anger the Palestinian masses, such as their leadership’s failures, divisions, u-turns, corruption, nepotism, and so on.

The 1987 uprising was consistent with this model, although it certainly inspired a paradigm shift. On one hand, it was a collective cry for justice and an earnest attempt at ending an Israeli occupation of Palestinian land occupied in 1967. But it also represented the instinctive desire to reclaim the Palestinian struggle, which had for long been managed from abroad: Jordan, Lebanon, then, more or less, Tunisia.

There was a permeating awareness among Palestinians in the occupied territories that their plight had turned into power struggles between various factions based in various Arab capitals, and that their disputes were hardly ideological, but more pertinent to issues of control, money and status.

The first uprising quickly formulated its own ideas, mechanisms and symbols, all reflecting the unity of purpose among Palestinians. In fact the overt emphasis on “national unity” in the Intifada’s symbols and slogans was a clear sign of Palestinian denunciation of disunity and factionalism.

Although the Israeli response to the first Intifada was lethal, it hardly compares to the more violent response to the second uprising of 2000. The Israeli government wanted to crush the revolt before it developed a rhythm and turned into a long-term, popular commitment. Israel also operated with the erroneous assumption that the uprising was manufactured by the late Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader, Yasser Arafat, to extract political concessions.

The fact is both Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) – assembled following the 1993 Oslo Accords as an alternative to the all encompassing PLO – were caught by complete surprise when Palestinians took to the streets in defiance, not just against the Israeli occupation, but also the wavering attitudes and rampant corruption that pervaded their own leadership.

If we must accept that the second Intifada is over, or was ended by the infighting between Fatah and Hamas, then an examination of its outcomes is necessary. Although the second Intifada has not brought an end to the Israeli occupation, it certainly has made a serious impact on the political institutions in Palestine. It has given rise to another leadership, that of Hamas, and forced a major rethink within the once leading movement, Fatah.

The second uprising greatly undermined the PA, and therefore the Oslo accords that brought it into existence, highlighting the need for alternative – and truly representative – political institutions, such as a revived version of the PLO.

Indeed, every major Palestinian revolt in the past has resulted in new, unpredictable realities, and despite all attempts, the status quo that defined the pre-revolt periods is often negligible afterwards. New faces, names, priorities, slogans and symbols are often introduced to the mix, although still defined by an everlasting desire for justice, meaningful peace and freedom.

Israel’s methods for subduing Palestinians and crushing uprisings have also produced new realities, thresholds and relationships. Methods such as huge walls, new settlements and weapons of mass suppression often complicate the already painful existence of Palestinians living under occupation and result in more revolts.

The first Intifada brought the struggle home, and introduced local leaderships, who competed with the old guard on all fronts, including the right of articulating Palestinian demands and aspirations. The second Intifada saw the Oslo accord and its adjoining ‘culture of peace’ as a worthless process that failed to improve the dreadful reality on the ground – although it did manage to empower a specific class of Palestinians financially as well as politically.

Now Palestinians find themselves in a transition that has an uncertain outcome. There are more questions than answers: where will the Fatah-Hamas clash lead? Will Fatah carry on while maintaining its current structure? For how long? Will Palestinians continue to adhere to the once uncontested demand for a two-state solution? And how credible is that formula under the current circumstances, where a clear cut separation is complicated if not totally unfeasible? How will the geopolitical split between the West Bank and Gaza play out in coming years?

Palestinian uprisings are often a collective response to hard questions. The chances are the next Intifada – as surely there will always be one as long as the occupation continues – will find again a popular rejection of the ills which have afflicted the Palestinian cause, It would once again reassert the relevance, if not the leading role of the Palestinian people as the real owners of their fate, and guards of their own struggle.

(Oct 31 2008 / Source / 01.04.2013)

Hamas invites electoral commission chief to Gaza

Hamas and the rival Fatah movement have been taking tentative steps to restart long-stalled reconciliation efforts, seeking to implement an agreement signed in Cairo in 2011 that was intended to lead to new elections.

Hamas on Thursday invited the Palestinian electoral commission chief to come to Gaza to discuss restarting voter registration, in a key step towards Palestinian reconciliation.

Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya “called Central Elections Commission chief Hanna Nasser and invited him to Gaza for talks about voter registration,” a statement said.

Hamas and the rival Fatah movement have been taking tentative steps to restart long-stalled reconciliation efforts, seeking to implement an agreement signed in Cairo in 2011 that was intended to lead to new elections.

The deal called for the formation of an interim government of independents that would oversee preparations for legislative and presidential elections, including the updating of voter rolls in the Gaza Strip.

But disagreement on the make-up of the government has held up implementation of the deal, and the CEC has yet to begin work in the coastal territory.

Haniya’s spokesman Taher al-Nunu said the invitation was extended “in the context of the application of understandings reached in Cairo, and we hope to move forward simultaneously on the other issues.”

CEC spokesman Farid Toameh confirmed the conversation between Haniya and Nasser, saying the Hamas leader had insisted “his government had no objection to the commission beginning its work” in Gaza.

“The elections commission needs three weeks from the beginning of its work to bring the electoral rolls up to date across the Gaza Strip,” he added, saying that Nasser would travel to Gaza on Sunday or Monday.

Earlier this month, Fatah’s chief envoy on the reconciliation process Azzam al-Ahmed said a key to implementing the agreement would be the restart of the CEC’s work by January 30.

(english.alarabiya.net / 24.01.2013)

Hamas official: Ending political division requires great efforts

GAZA CITY (Ma’an) — Ending the political split between Fatah and Hamas will require extensive efforts by both sides, a senior Hamas official said Monday.

“What happened in Cairo in recent meetings was positive, and we hope to find a way to change on the ground,” Hamas politburo member Osama Hamdan told Ma’an.

Hamdan is visiting Gaza from Lebanon, and has participated in several protests outside Red Cross offices in support of Palestinian prisoners.

Factional infighting split Palestine into separate governments in 2007. National elections and parliamentary approval of legislation have been on hold ever since.

(www.maannews.net / 22.01.2013)

State of Palestine Name Change Shows Limitations

With U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state in his pocket, President Mahmoud Abbas wants official documents to carry a new emblem: “State of Palestine.”

But scrapping the old “Palestinian Authority” logo is as far as Abbas is willing to go in provoking Israel. He is not rushing to change passports and ID cards Palestinians need to pass through Israeli crossings.

The very modesty of Abbas’ move to change official stationery underscores his limited options so long as Israel remains in charge of territories the world says should one day make up that state.

“At the end of the day, the Palestinian Authority won’t cause trouble for its people,” Nour Odeh, a spokeswoman for Abbas’ self-rule government, said of the need for caution.

Abbas won overwhelming U.N. General Assembly recognition for a state of Palestine in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem in late November, a rare diplomatic victory over a sidelined Israel. The U.N. nod was important to the Palestinians because it affirmed the borders of their future state in lands Israel captured in 1967.

Recognition, however, has not transformed the day-to-day lives of Palestinians, and some argue that it made things worse. In apparent retaliation for the U.N. bid, Israel in December withheld its monthly $100 million transfer of tax rebates it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, further deepening the Abbas government’s financial crisis.

Since the U.N. recognition, Abbas has maneuvered between avoiding confrontation with Israel and finding small ways to change the situation on the ground.

Last week, his government press office urged journalists to refer to a state of Palestine, instead of the Palestinian Authority, the autonomy government set up two decades ago as part of interim peace deals with Israel.

Palestinian diplomatic missions around the world have been told to use the new names, including those in countries that did not vote “yes” at the General Assembly, said Omar Awadallah, a Palestinian Foreign Ministry official.

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev dismissed the name change as pointless but declined comment on whether Israel would retaliate in any way. “Instead of looking for gimmicks, Palestinians should negotiate with Israel to bring about the end of the conflict,” he said. “That will lead to a situation of two states for two peoples.”

Israel objected to Abbas’ U.N. bid, accusing him of trying to bypass negotiations with Israel on the terms of statehood. Such talks have been frozen for more than four years because Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu disagree on their parameters. Netanyahu says he is willing to cede land to a Palestinian state but will not withdraw to the 1967 lines or give up any part of east Jerusalem, the Palestinians’ desired capital.

Abbas has said negotiations remain his preferred choice, and that U.N. recognition was meant to improve his leverage with a far more powerful Israel once talks resume.

Since the U.N. vote, Abbas has shied away from measures that could close the door to talks by upsetting Israel or the U.S., which also objected to his U.N. bid.

Abbas has not taken practical steps toward seeking membership for Palestine in U.N. agencies, something made possible by the November vote, and his security forces continue to coordinate with Israeli troops in tracking Islamic militants in the West Bank.

In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed U.S. opposition to using the term “State of Palestine.”

“You can’t create a state by rhetoric and with labels and names,” she told reporters. “You can only create a state, in this context, through bilateral negotiations.” Nuland called Abbas’ decision “provocative, without changing the condition for the Palestinian people.”

She said the U.S. peace envoy for the Mideast, David Hale, was headed to the region and would meet the Palestinian leader on Tuesday.

Some countries, such as Brazil, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Honduras, have adopted the new name. Others, like Norway, Sweden and Spain, stick to the Palestinian Authority term even though they supported U.N. recognition.

Analysts said Abbas holds out hope that President Barack Obama will get more involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in his second term and — freed from the restraints of seeking re-election — take a tougher stance toward Israel.

“He still hopes to resume peace talks in line with U.S. efforts,” Palestinian analyst Hani al-Masri said of Abbas.

“Therefore, he is making these slight changes because people expect him to make changes after the U.N. recognition.”

Still, the gap between the symbolic U.N. nod and the reality on the ground remains wide.

The Palestinian Authority administers some 38 percent of the West Bank, but Israel maintains overall control over the territory. Abbas has no say in east Jerusalem, annexed by Israel in 1967, or in Gaza, seized by his political rival, the Islamic militant group Hamas, in 2007.

The documents and stationery with the new emblem will be ready within two months, said Hassan Alawi, a deputy interior minister in the Palestinian Authority.

Israeli officials declined comment Monday on whether Israel would refuse to deal with documents bearing the “State of Palestine” logo. However, Alawi said his office was informed by Israeli officials after Abbas’ decree that “they will not deal with any new form of passport or ID.”

Saeb Erekat, a senior Abbas aide, said the new emblem will be used in correspondence with countries that have recognized a state of Palestine.

He suggested that there would be no change in passports or other documents Palestinians need for movement through Israeli crossings.

“As far as the Israelis are concerned, we are not going to overload the wagon of our people by putting state of Palestine on passports,” he said. “They (Israelis) will not allow them to travel.”

Palestinians must pass through Israeli-run crossings to leave the West Bank and also carry an ID card at all times or risk arrest if stopped at an Israeli military checkpoint inside the territory.

The name change has even less meaning for Palestinians in Hamas-ruled Gaza. Israel withdrew from the coastal strip in 2005 but continues to control access by air, sea and land, with the exception of one Gaza border crossing with Egypt.

“For me, it’s just ink on paper,” said Sharif Hamda, a 44-year-old pharmacist in Gaza City. “I wished they would save the money they will spend on this and use it for helping needy families.”

(abcnews.go.com / 07.01.2013)