An historic handshake
THE handshake between President Yasser Arafat and Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin is certainly one of those images that symbolises a historic turning point. But history will determine whether this turning point was the beginning of the fulfillment of the Palestinian people's right to self- determination or if, on the contrary, it was the end of hope for the
International Viewpoint #249 October 1993
What is known as the "Madrid formula" is thus the combined product of two factors of unequal weight: the rise of the Palestinian liberation struggle in the Occupied Territories on the one hand and, on the other, the substantial strengthening of emancipation of this martyred people, scarred and thrown into the four corners of the world.
American hegemony in the Middle East
- with, in particular, Syria coming into the American orbit and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries massively reducing their
MICHEL WARSHAWSKY — Jerusalem, 29 September 1993
ISTENING to reporters and so- called "experts", it would seem that this dilemma does not exist; Israelis and Palestinians shake hands today and this will lead to fraternal and peaceul coexistence tomorrow. What a pretty picture! How easy it was! Unfortunately, reality is much more complex, and there are more question marks than causes for optimism.
Everything is happening as if those who only yesterday were ironically denouncing "historic Marxist determinism" and conceptions of "historic inevitability" had, in the time of a CNN clip, returned to the abandoned path charted out by Stalin's disciples.
*The agreement automatically leads to autonomy," they say full of confidence,
"and this can end with the creation of an independent Palestinian State in the whole of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Mediterranean
* SYRIA
Sea
Golan
Heights
Tel Aviv:
West Bank
Amman
Jerusalem O
Jericho
Gaza
Hebron
Gaza Strip
JORDAN
ISRAEL
Occupied territories
Israei:
military control
40 miles
According to them, the virulent denial of Yitzhak Rabin is only a smokescreen aimed at fooling the right or, in the worst case, an error in judgement.
In an agreement that aims to end 100 years of conflict, compromise is necessary, and this compromise is always the at times deformed reflection of the relationship of forces between the different parties.
The very fact that there is an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is the result of the Israeli State's inability to crush the Palestinian national movement and to continue to deny the existence of a Palestinian people with rights over the territory of Palestine.
But it is also a result of the inability of the Palestinian national movement, after a quarter century, to fulfill its right to self-determination by breaking the colonial and racist structures of the Zionist State.
The Israeli-Palestinian agreement is the combined product of the two most important political events of the last ten years in the Middle East: the Intifada and the Gulf War.
The Intifada — the extraordinary uprising of the Palestinian masses of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip — succeeded in destroying the status quo that had been established over more than 20 years and in imposing on Israeli public opinion and the international community a discussion on the details of an Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories and a solution to the Palestinian question.
It was the Intifada that in 1988 gave the Palestinian National Council the courage to declare the formation of a Palestinian State in territories still occupied by Israel.
It is the new regional and international relationship of forces produced by the disintegration of the Soviet Bloc and the Gulf War that, three years later, has reduced this Palestinian State to negotiate an Autonomous Palestinian Administration.
financial support to the PLO
The decision that the Executive Committee of the PLO had to make at that point was not easy. "Take it or leave it," was what American Secretary of State James Baker said to Arafat's envoys. In spite of the draconian conditions included in the Madrid formula, Arafat decided that there was no other choice, and that nothing could lead one to believe in an imminent improvement in the relationship of forces On the contrary, Syria announced it would go to Madrid with or without the Palestinians, the Intifada was on a downturn and Saudi Arabia was cutting off financing
Draconian is also the word for the conditions laid down by Shamir and accepted by Baker and Egyptian President Mubarak: to negotiate an autonomy status for five years with no guarantee as to what the situation would be after this interim period; no commitment by Israeli on a future withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, whereas the Palestinians had to agree to an immediate ceasefire; no halt to the colonisation process; and the PLO would be disqualified as a negotiating partner, while having the right to designate the delegation from the Occupied Territories.
While the agreement signed in Washington by Shimon Peres and Abu Maazen escapes somewhat the limits imposed at the Madrid Conference, it remains within the framework defined by James Baker: Israel commits itself to withdrawing over nine months from a large part of the Occupued Territories, where an autonomous Palestinian administration will be set up. In exchange for this, the PLO commits itself to do everything to put an end to the struggle inside and outside the Occupied Territories, and to recognising Israel's right to exist.
The concessions made by Abu Maazen and his team in Oslo are significant: they have accepted the principle of autonomy even before agreeing with Israel concerning its content; they have accepted
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
• PALESTINE
----- photo credits and running heads -----
8
International Viewpoint #249 October 1993 the presence of settlers on Palestinian territory with an extra-territorial status; they have recognised Israel even though Israel has not committed itself to a withdrawal, even far in the future, from the territories occupied in 1967.
And above all, they have agreed to unburden Israel of the Gaza Strip - the only place where the resistance is effective and has created serious problems for the Israeli government and its army — before getting control of the West Bank, aside from the enclave of Jericho, which Yitzhak Rabin has described with his characteristic vulgarity as a tiny piece of
Aside from the "piece of nothing" that Jericho represents, the only substantial concession made by Israel is the recognition of the PLO.
Nobody can deny that this is a major shift for the Jewish State, which has profound implications for Israeli society.
Through this recognition of the PLO - and this appears throughout the declaration of the Oslo accords — there is also, 50 years late, the recognition of a Palestinian people that has "equal national rights" over the land of Palestine. There is the beginning of the process of re-humanising the Palestinian entity; there is the legitimacy accorded by the Israeli government to Palestinian national symbols and to the combatants and tens of thousands of martyrs for the Palestinian cause.
But the price paid in exchange by the PLO leadership is enormous. The Israeli conception of the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been supported, essentially reducing it to a terrorist struggle against the Jewish community of Israel that had no apparent reason and was certainly not justified.
It is for this reason that families of Palestinian martyrs rightly feel deeply offended. They say, "So then, our sons and daughters were nothing more than vulgar terrorists killed by enemy bullets in a struggle that had no meaning and no
An enormous waste?
Listening to Arafat and his main aide and spokesperson Bassam Abu Sharif, one is tempted to believe that this struggle was an enormous waste, in which Palestinians were killed as a result of a misunderstanding or errors of their leaders or, worse, for having opposed the presence of Jews in Palestine with no reason, except perhaps out of outright racism.
When Arafat and the Algiers Palestinian National Council of 1988 offered Israel a great historic compromise, it wasn't about erasing the past or rewriting history, but to turn a painful page and to build the future together.
For a real historic compromise between the two peoples of Palestine, the Israeli people and its leaders have to have the courage to examine the distant and recent past with honesty and, if it cannot be repared, at least ask for forgiveness. Then and only then can Palestinian mothers not forget, but at least turn the page. There can be no historic compromise between the two peoples based on a a compromise on history — only an agreement between governments, heavy with misunderstanding and resentment, pregnant with new conflicts
The PLO that Israel has finally recognised is an organisation without a soul, at the end of its teather. For some of its leaders and founding members, such as Hani el Hassan and Shafik el Hout, it is nothing more than a shadow, an empty corpse. Arafat's gamble — and that of the man who seems more and more to be the number two of the Palestinian leadership, Abu Maazen — is to replace the PLO with a Palestinian State apparatus which, from Jericho to Gaza, would be able to continue to represent and lead the whole Palestinian
The example that has more or less been consciously followed is that of the Zionist movement. In the 1930s it replaced the external Zionist leadership with the Histadrut — a pre-State structure in Palestine under the British mandate - which became the decision-making centre in preparation for independence. It is an experience that worked, given that in less than 15 years Zionism created the State of Israel over nearly three querters of Palesti-
Whether the conditions and the relationship of forces are the same is another matter, over which a significant section of the Palestinian leadership, including in Arafat's own Fatah current, disagrees. Shafiq el Hout, PLO ambassador in Beirut and Mahmud Darwish, cultural minister on the Executive Committee of the PLO have recently resigned from their posts. Ever since Madrid, Hani el Hassan, a founding member of Fatah and a historic leader of the movement, has been in open
The military leaders in Lebanon no longer respect the authority of Tunis, and even Abu Lutf (Farouk Kadoumi), PLO minister of foreign affairs, voted against the agreement and is pursuing his political activity independent of the decisions of the
To this, of course, should be added the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Democratic Front (DFLP), as well as other smaller organisations that are outside the framework of the PLO
A striking silence Palestinians on the outside have shown no enthusiasm for the Oslo accord, which totally ignores them - even though make up the majority of the Palestinian population and, for more than two decades, are the base of the power and representativeness of the PLO. This striking silence is the reason why Arafat's adversaries are accusing him of turning his back on Palestinians on the outside, in the interests of a political entity for the Palestinians of Gaza
In so doing, he is said to be destroying the PLO's greatest strength: that of unifying the Palestinian people into one single nation and one single national movement. This is what some have called the Kurdisa-
Palestinians on the inside are clearly more divided, and the enthusiasm described by western media is exaggerated to say the least. The recognition of the PLO, the imminent withdrawal of Israeli forces, and the right to openly wave the national flag for which so many youth have fallen — without a doubt, all this has provoked an outpouring of spontaenous jubilation. But this is tempered by doubts concerning the appropriateness of Arafat's gamble and the absence of certainty with respect to the
"It's better than nothing, and in any case we have no alternative," is what the inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank are saying to those who take the time to ask them their opinion and who are not satisfied with the euphoric declarations of those in high places and overnight freedom figh-
The organised opposition to the Oslo accords - the PFLP and DFLP on the one hand and the Islamic opposition (Hamas, Islamic Jihad) on the other - has refused the ceasefire and demands the right to struggle against the Israeli occupation as long as it continues. They have recently formed a National Islamic Front (sic) whose most important goal is to acquire the means to prevent Arafat's Fatah from getting the majority of power and political activity.
Indeed, it is as if Israel recognised not the PLO but Arafat and his party and as if the autonomy wasn't for the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories but for Fatah.
Israeli propaganda and the international media are making a lot of noise about the risks of a civil war launched by the
9
----- photo credits and running heads -----
DOSSIER
International Viewpoint #249 October 1993 opposition, in particular by the Islamic fundamentalists. But the fundamentalists have said that they would not spill the blood of their Palestinian brothers; the same can't be said for their adversaries.
Observing the festivities and initial preparations for the autonomous administration, one sees that it is not Free Palestine that is being celebrated, but Arafat and the Fatah. Tens of thousands of Palestinan flags have been printed with the inscription "PLO-Fatah"!
The recruitment services of the new Palestinian police are openly the same as Fatah's recruitment services. Even the currents linked to Fatah in the Palestinian delegation — the People's Party (ex-C.P) and the Fida (a dissident faction of the DFLP) - are ignored
The unofficial list of leaders for the new administration only incudes members of Fatah - or former collaborators and pro-Jordanian elements.
The prestigious and highly popular head of the Palestinian delegation in Madrid, co-founder of the PLO and independent left leader, Doctor Haidar Abdel Shafi, has been named sub-director of health services in Gaza (SIC).
All the experts have attributed the murder of Abu Shaaban this week in Gaza to Fatah's internal struggles — but it also makes it clear that the new Palestinian administration will not be soft, particularly in relation to its opponents. In any case, the Israeli State will not do anything to facilitate the strengthening of democracy in the autonomous Palestinian territory.
The recognition of the PLO is a real earthquake for the Israeli public. Yesterday's enemies have become legitimate partners. Those who have been dehumanised for more than two decades have become neighbours with whom one must learn to live. The Palestinian flag, for which so many young boys and girls were killed, now floats freely on cars and buildings, including in Jerusalem.
Unlike the fears of Rabin and his entourage, the great majority of the Israeli
Jewish population is ready to accept the government's new policy, and sees it as a source of hope - even though this hope is attenuated by the fear that the plan will
As we have repeated several times in our articles, the Israeli people is tired of the occupation and the resistance and, while marking time, continues to feel insecure and wants to put an end to this.
The abstention of Likous deputies
Meir Shitrit and Roni Milo during the vote on the accords in the Knesset is symptomatic. The former is very close to the popular base of his party and the latter
10 hopes to be elected mayor of Tel Aviv. They are both very aware of what their electoral base wants to hear.
Many other Likud deputies wanted to abstain, too, but gave in to the pressure of their party leadership. The Likud leaders have made a suicidal decision: to ally themselves with the religious and messianic far-right in a policy of total rejection of
In the right's big demonstrations (up to 100,000 people, there were very few people from Likud's popular electorare. Fundamentalists and rightwing extremist groups were dominant. This explains the disillusioned reaction of the former deputy of the Thiya Party (a settler party shut out from the Knesset in the last elections). She
"the people have lost faith. They prefer peace and security (sic) to Eretz Israel."
On the left, there is euphoria. For activists in the Labour Party, Meretz and Peace Now, the occupation is over and the only thing left to do is to strengthen the government and support its initiatives. Only the Peace Bloc — a regroupment of leftwing forces critical of the government that calls for complete withdrawal from the Occupied Territories and the formation of an independent Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as the capital — has a dif-
While it has a positive response to the accords, it extends no confidence to the Israeli government and has mobilised for real and immediate changes in the Occupied Territories (the freeing of political detainees, the return of those expelled, and so forth) and to neutralise the settlers and begin the evacuation of colonies.
It is by measuring the degree to which such real changes take place that we will see if the accord is a first step towards total withdrawal from the Occupied Territories
- or if it is a collection of methods that allow for a less expensive Israeli control of the Occupied Territories, with the collabo-
In its resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian accords, the Revolutionary Communist League (RCL, section of the Fourth
International in the Israeli State) calls them a diktat imposed on the Palestinians by the
Israelis, on the basis of a particularly bad relationship of forces. It adds that what follows the accords depends on future mobilisations — particularly in the Occupied Territories — which may be facilitated in the new situation.
"It is neither a time for euphoria nor for desperation. We have to read the agreement, but also understand how the
Palestinian and Israeli masses are going to experience the new situation." For the revolutionary left in Israel, in no case should an attempt be made to mobilise against the accord - which in any case would have no practical significance.
On the contrary, we should rely on the desire for peace that exists in the population, to prevent any government attempt to go backward, and to force the government to speed up the rhythms of the accord and go beyond its limits — to create a state of affairs which effectively makes the situation irreversible. This is the meaning of the campaign that the Peace Bloc has launched at the initiative of the RCL for the freeing of all Palestinian political prisoners.
A second task for the left is that of struggling systematically against any attempt to delegitimise anyone that doesn't fall into line with Arafat and the official line of the PLO. The work of educating the majority of Israeli pacifists remains before us; more than ever, they must recognise the right to be, to say, to think what they want, even if they do not conform to what well-intentioned Israelis expect from them.
At the same time, there is a need to promote initiatives that translate, on a popular level, the cooperation that is now being established in the ruling classes: meetings, debates, common initiatives, support to popular committees and so
On this level, everything will depend on the ability of the Palestinian left to emerge from the state of shock in which it finds itself, and to take advantage of the opportunities offered in the new situation
- to relaunch popular mobilisation, not on strategic questions like "for or against the accords", but for immediate demands (right to residence, an immediate and to land confiscations, against repression and so on) and in defense of mass participation in the new framework being put in place.
"We are neither pessimistic nor optimistic. We believe that the masses have their piece to say and will say it in one way or another." This conclusion in the RCL resolution summarises the tasks in Israe and Palestine for all those who have fought for an Israeli-Palestinian peace based on equality, mutual respect and cooperation between the peoples.
Now that the elites have decided on the framework that seemed to them to be the most effective and economic, the task is to let the people have their say. They have the means to go beyond the framework that others will try to impose on them. The Israeli right knows it and henceforth is preparing for a strategy of tension
It remains to be seen if the forces of the left will be able to do the same.*
----- photo credits and running heads -----
DOSSIER