|
Back
to Studies page
As per the
Road Map, the state of Palestine is to emerge, adjoining the state
of “Israel”
latest by 31.12.2005.
In accordance
with Ariel Sharon's speech, delivered end of last year at “Israeli
Security Conference” in Herzliya, it seems that there is no way for
attainment of a tow states status, identifying with George W. Bush’s
view, neither by nor after 31.12.2005.
As per the
declarations of Yasser Arafat, Ahmad Korei and Saeb Oraykat, it is
obvious that Palestinians Authority is clinging to the Road Map, and
is ready to ensure armistice proclamation between the Palestinian
and Israeli parties, on condition that Sharon's
government abandons resistance leaders’ assassinating operations and
terminates its terrorist campaign on the Palestinian people.
In light of
Bush’s continual silence toward Sharon's systematic terrorism
against the Palestinian people, one should hope for a perceivable
American pressure on Sharon, at least from now until the
presidential elections are winded up, early November 2004.
In light of
the American occupation to Iraq, American pressure on Syria,
Damascus’s apprehension of Zionist settlement expansion in Golan,
Israeli air-raid threats therto, Iranian engagement in a strife with
the United States over its nuclear abilities development, Libyan
conversion against its own policy by halting its nuclear ability
building-up project and its content with American and European
cuddle thereof, Egypt’s failure to bridle the Sharonian attack on
the Palestinian people and Palestinian authority, disability of
authoritative Arab regime leaders to hold an assigned summit in
Tunisia; in light of all these facts and challenges what can the
Arabs do? Or rather, what could the Americans do during the period
between this day and the end of the time limit appointed by Bush’s
view point (or rather allegation) for emergence of a Palestinian
state by 31.12.2005?
The above
questions are posed for the people in change to direct to
themselves, or to be directed to them by their nations. What would
their answers be?
It seems that
the concerned responsible people –most if not all- are not in a
hurry. They do not feel (contrary to their nations who suffer from
various kind of subdual and poverty) that they have to answer the
posed questions.
As such,
intellectuals and firm struggles feel invited –not only- to stand up
to answering these posed questions, but to pose additional ones in
an attempt to comprehend what is actually going on, what is taking
place in back stages and what is being plotted in secret rooms, way
from lights and from inquisitive mass media.
Perhaps,
Sharon –knowing exactly what he wants- is actively and effectually
proceeding with what he had started: follow-up assassination
operations against resistance leaders and operative members,
persists in his campaign, terrifying the Palestinian people with
fire, repression and strait subsistence; to tighten siege on Arafat
and his team, to urge completion of the Separating wall, to start
pulling down few uninhabited settlemental sites so as to save Bush
any embarrassment in his electoral campaign and to carry out a
referendum due to the opposition of some right-wing extremists
–inside and outside Likud- to procedures embellishing his
settlemental policy.
All this,
within the scope of his original plan, based on converting the West
Bank into geographically unlinked groups of cantons, when
Palestinians would find themselves amid ghettoes uproaring with
subjugation and poverty, where they would either migrate or be
forced to migrate to the East Bank of the Jordan River, where (as
Sharon believes) an estate for Palestinians would emerge.
Due to the
ascending electoral campaign American responsibles -forgetting about
the Palestinian scene- are distracted by the Iraqi arena and are
ready -any how- to disregard much of what Sharon
does or will do, for the sake of the influencive and powerful Jewish
American Vote.
Most or all
Arab responsibles are distracted from the Palestinian scene by the
internal arena in their countries, where clutter and disorder
–caused by old local and new American reasons- are resumed. It is
not likely that all have the ability and will –regardless of the
required movement fringe- to perceivably support the Palestinians.
The
Palestinian responsibles are engaged with several political,
confrontational, economical and social concerns, the most dangerous
of which is the future of the Palestinian authority now squeezed
between Sharon's powerful hammer – distinguished with suppression,
repression and systemized destruction of mankind, trees and stones,
and construction of the isolating and separating wall on the one
hand, and the anvile of the firm standing resistance in its
struggle, rejection of any armistice with the enemy unassociated by
a halt of the terroristic campaign, termination of West Bank
occupation and withdrawal from Gaza strip on the other hand.
Amid this
perturbation and frustration, a different voice emerges from a third
party, enjoying vast academic and political presence in the
Palestinian and Israeli societies.
The one-state option
Within the
Palestinian society, Dr. Ali Al Jerbawi’s voice (Al Hayat Newspaper
28.12.2003) sprang, summarizing the articulatory deadlock of the two
disputative parties, prescribing the situation as follows:
·
There is an official Palestinian approval for attaining a political
settlement to the conflict with
Israel, based
on a dual state emergence doctrine.
·
The
Palestinian state – acceptable to the Palestinians – is bordered by
the 1967 lines, and should be viable, independent and sovereign.
Less than that would be unacceptable by the Palestinians.
·
Let
Israel have a six months respite to decide whether it is concerned
with the conflict settlement based on emergence of tow states, and
let it send assuring actual indications such as: halt all forms of
settlement and desist construction of the separating wall, in return
with a full armistice by which the Palestinian side would abide.
·
Should Israel refuse this option, the Palestinian side would then be
forced to renounce it, in preference to the other option, which is
the One-State option, which starts with apartheid status (racial
discremenation) moving to the binational state, and arriving a
single state for all citizens.
·
In
this course, the Palestinian side would dissolve the “Palestinian
authority”, allowing
Israel to
undertake full responsibility, resulting from its occupation of the
(West) bank and (Gaza) strip, and various burdens thereof.
·
The
Single State option could release the Palestinian demographic
factor, and could drown “Israel” in the human Arab sea –thus-
loosing what it had always strived to maintain; the Jewish Hebraic
State, pushing it to reconsider its present racial expansionary
policy, and return to the Two-State option.
·
In
short, forwarding of the one state option is only to acquire the
Two-States option, the thing which entails Palestinian authority
dissolution to be a possible self-prompted option.
In the Israeli
society, Mr. Youssi Belin –a former minister of Justice in the Ihoda
Barak government- had urged Washington in “The International Herald
Tribune” newspaper (on 29.07.2003) to accept a (probable)
Palestinian decision for state dismantle by 31.12.2005 if Sharon
tries to procrastinate the Final Status negotiations, in an attempt
to transfer the transitional agreement (including settlements
constructed after September 28, 2001) into an accomplished fact as a
final settlement.
Al Jerbawi’s
and Belin’s invitation, relating to the One State option threat,
indicated three points:
·
Palestinian dissolution threat is only a tactic to force
Israel to
return to the Two-States option.
·
The
Palestinian authority is invited –in case of adoption of the
One State
option- to dissolve itself.
·
Al
Jerbawi and Belin are –in principle- supporters of the two-states
option, but both believe that the danger of the Arab demographic
flood is capable of forcing Sharoun and his band to reconsider his
present policy making him go back to the preferable Two-States
option for preserving jewish style of the Hebraic State.
Top
Resistance
Option All Over Palestine
Is pursuing
the One State
option tactical threat feasible, useful and effectual?
In this field
five questions are to be posed:
First:
Will the Palestinian and Israeli people agree to the One State
option? Palestinian Liberation organization –and later on- the
Palestinian authority have drawn their policy on basis of acceptance
of a Palestinian state lying to the east of the cease-fire lines of
1967. would it be possible now to invite the Palestinians-People,
authority and Resistance – to abandon a choice aging to more than 15
years- and to adopt a completely contradictory one within a year or
two? Will the Israelis, obsessed with Arab terrorism and demographic
flood, agree to abandon Jewishity of the Hebraic state, for the sake
of an ambiguous tactical option named “a binational single state?
Second:
Is it reasonable that resistance organizations agree to the
one-state option at the present crossroads, after a bitter armed
struggle, the ceiling of which, and the preceding accompanying
mobilization there of stand- objectively and practically- calling
for a Palestinian state lying to the east of the cease-fire lines of
1967?
Third:
Will the Palestinian authority agree to dissolve itself after
becoming the core of an emerging state, the pillars of which have
established –for themselves- positions and establishments achieving
–in their view point- and accomplishment that they would not
renunciate or waive, in favor of a tactical initiation with
unpredictable results and consequences? And what credibility
–Arabian wise, regionally or internationally) would this authority
be left with if it dares enough to adopt this dramatic inversion in
its approach and goals?
Fourth:
Will the tactical threat to dissolve the Palestinian authority and
adopt the one-state, make Sharon
and his band abandon his present approach and purposes? Is it not
logical and anticipated that Sharon and his allies would ignore this
threat which lacks field effective support, and accuse propagandists
there of –regardless of who adopts this that- of being deceivers who
say things different to what they conceal, confirming his adherence
(as his way always is) to the Road Map?
Fifth:
Will
America
and the world really apprehend the One-State option or the threat
there with, as a means for re-exerting pressure on Sharon
to make him return to the Two-State option? Furthermore, what state
would remain for the Palestinians when they switch to the Two-State
option, loosing all the support –no matter how little it is- from
Europe and America during the last decade?
Nevertheless,
all these questions seem to be surpassed by the developments. During
the Bush-Sharon meeting on 14.04.2004 the American president entered
an almost full change on Washington’s policy relating to the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict when he declared three remarkable
attitudes:
1.
His
belief that it is unrealistic to think of going back to Israel’s
borders drawn by the 1949 armistice agreements; the thing that gives
way to amendment of the borders, existent before Jane 1967 war.
2.
His
support to
Israel’s
retaining big settlement blocks in the West Bank, the thing which
legitimates and augmentates settlement.
3.
paralyzation of refugees’ right to return to their homeland i.e to
their dwellings and properties in the territories occupied in 1948,
inviting them to reside in the future Palestinian state, with no
possibility for their return to their land which is occupied by
Israel.
In light of
the afore said, it is required to acknowledge the need for
renouncing the Road Map illusion, the imaginary effectuating date
there of (on 31.12.2005) and resume resistance with the full
possible willingness and momentum, aiming at complete liberation of
the occupied Arab territories and refugees’ return to their homes
and dwellings. Resistance –civilian and military- is the only real
option available to Palestinians. In its approach, and in light of
its efficiency and effectiveness, and the future arising
developments on the Israeli, Arabian, regional and international
levels, the features of the forthcoming Palestinian state will start
to appear and so will its content, the utility of its acceptance or
rejection in favor of the gradual political and combative change
towards the One State option and the plain road and mechanism to be
adopted for the whole historical Palestine with its Arabs and Jews,
in order to achieve the new strategic quest. It is obvious that
Sharon's setting out to dissolve the Palestinian authority, or his
unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip after
accomplishment of the separating and isolating wall without
negotiations or agreement with the Palestinian side would make
implementation of the One State option an accomplished fact which
shortents the edification, redirection and connection process, and
as such allows effectuation of all forms of resistance all over
historical Palestine. “You may hate something in which welfare for
thee lies.”
Post Ahmad Yassin Stage
Up to the
assassination of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, and due to his leadership to “Hamas”,
three characteristics distinguished the Palestinian Resistance.
a)
National and religious mating in the military struggle. The onsets
and objectives of the Resistance were nationalistic and patriotic,
while its soul and values were Islamic, without being interclosed or
isolated from other national powers.
b)
National and political opposition under political, economical and
military non commensurability with the Zionist enemy. With this
worrisome disequilibrium on most levels in the power scale, there
was no use or need for negotiations as the result –which is a
logical outcome of the non commensurable status complained of- was
known beforehand. So, Hamas –rightfully- objected Oslo Agreements.
Later incidents and happenings proved that it (Hamas) and those who
had similar appreciation of the stage and its consequences- where
right.
c)
Field resistance to attenuate the enemy’s will. Along this course,
Hamas gave the military struggle precedence to political maneuver.
In fact, it staked and adopted martyrdom operations in a direct
attempt to break the enemy’s will so as to force him to retreat
politically to what ensures –for the Palestinian people- a
geographical and political area, on which he could practice –to a
tangible extent- his national sovereignty, freedom and economical
and social construction.
With the
martyrdom of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin –and his successor Dr. Abdul Aziz
Rantissi- this stage (with its three characteristics) reached its
end, or say his martyrdom consecrated its end after befalling of
three consecutive incidents, with consequences and effects not only
on the Palestinian “Intifada”, but on the whole Arab region as well.
Top
The First Incident
Occurance of
September 11, 2001
attacks on New York and Washington, and the out break of what could
he considered a Third World War, named “War Against Terrorism”. This
disastrous mishap hit the United States’ symbol of economical
ability (International Trade Center) and the head quarters of its
military power (The Pentagon) and had ripped out its solemnity in
front of the whole world, the thing which made the United States’
retaliation to be quick, comprehensive and very intensive, uncouthly
engaging the right for self defense in support of an imperialistic
overwhelming project, which George W. Bush’s administration –backed
up by the new conservative band- had precedently defined its
objectives and means of implementation.
The objective
of this project is to fully control production, Transportation and
marketing of oil in the Islamic Middle Region (from Mauritania to
Malaysia passing by the Arabian Homeland) where as its means would
be through political, cultural and economical reformation of this
area –the heart of which is the Arabian Homeland- in a way to ensure
long lasting Western American central over the current century.
The Second Incident
Occupation of Iraq
with its great strategic importance, being a three worlds connecting
joint:
The Arabian,
Persian and Turkish. With this occupation the United States has
–militarily, politically and economically- moved to the heart of the
Arab and Islamic world, and through this occupation, has transferred
war with its enemies to their very homeland, and in the course of
this occupation has commenced its imperialistic project which fully
integrates with the Zionist one.
Evidently, Israel
– lead by Ariel Sharon- has rushed to invest the emerging
geopolitical status with great courage and severity, with uncovered
support from Bush’s Administration, the thing which very harmfully
effected the Palestinian Revolt (Intifada) and the Arab democratic
and Islamic national powers as well.
The Third Incident
Errection of
the wall separating between West Bank regions and Israel, in a way
which isolates the Palestinian society from the Israeli society on
the one hand, and separates the Palestinian areas from on another on
the other hand. Under the Separation Wall and resultant isolations,
Sharon intends to commence implementation of a “Unilateral Solution”
for the Arab-Israeli conflict, based mainly on placing the
Palestinians in front of an accomplished fact, which in its turn
shall force them to erect “A State” looking –more or less- like a
skinny mock banana republic, consisting of isolations –high tense
population societies- with no economical resources, destined as such
to great sufferance and continual destitution, leading to nothing
but continual migration.
Top
Requirements for
Comprehensive Resistance
Winding up
these three incidents on the eve of Sheikh Ahmad Yassine’s
assassination, one stage in the history of Palestine,
the Islamic Mid Region and the world was ended and another started.
With this
emerging stage new facts and challenges appeared, different from the
facts and challenges that faced Palestinians, Arab and Moslems
during the fading stage. All this necessitated the following new
progressive approach to existent challenges:
Firstly: Confrontation’s Integrity
Errection of
the separation and isolation wall, continuation of the Israeli
occupation to key areas and locations in the West Bank and ferocity
of the Zionist attack –at all levels- on the “Intifada” had rendered
field resistance by itself ineffective and hence inadequate. Field
resistance i.e military resistance should be accompanied by
political, popular and civil resistance, and these three resistances
must integrate to form –all together- a civilized accession and
confrontation to the Zionist and American projects, and a
performable and combative program for the awakening democratic,
Islamic and national powers.
Secondly: Arabism of Confrontation:
The
Palestinian powers now –as was their situation after 1948
catastrophe- find themselves unable to face challenges of regional
and international nature. As the Palestinian national powers found
in the Arab struggle unity and the Arab unity struggle during the
fifty’s and sixty’s of last century a practical approach for
confronting the Zionist challenge supported by the old colonialism
and the emerging American Imperialism, the Palestinian Intifada
Powers and the Arab Democratic and Islamic powers in the age of “War
Against Terrorism”, and under the American Imperialistic project,
and militarized Internationalization, are destined to face all those
dangerous challenges with the scope of a regional, national and
Islamic integral front and (combatant) field organizations that
would play the role of a political regulator, cultural instructor
and field leader for the Democratic, Islamic and National Arab
resistance.
Thirdly: Internationality of Confrontation:
The Islamic
and national liberation powers, modernity and democracy powers and
international peace and cooperation powers are all in continual need
for international support and back up in this single polarity world.
The required support and back-up are represented by nations and
their movement against war, and against uncivilized capitalistic
domination. Nations and International public opinion –amid this
informatic and communications revolution era- are the new
international pivot, rising to face the American pole which is
trying to have exclusive leadership of the world amid an augmenting
competition with second class poles (France, Germany, China, Japan
and Russia), and against active resistance of the Islamic and Arab
world nations in particular, and against poor nations of “The
South”.
This different
and advanced confrontation, distinguished by its international,
Islamic and Arab integrational nature is apt to take a
confrontational and peaceful orientation –at the same time- with the
political regimes ruling in the Arab and Islamic world. It will
encounter with regimes that resist democratic social, economical and
political reform, and that make various pleas and excuses in order
to confine or even avoid deep rooted reformatic merits. Stagnancy,
autocracy and collusion with the foreign colonialist or with
investing new comers, has always been a distinctive feature of the
practice of the subdual, corruptive and collusive regimes, the thing
which makes its continual opposition to reformation –after all the
calamities that befell the national in Palestine, Algeria, Iraq and
others…- a clear evidence of their collusion with the investing
colonial greedy foreigner, or their great powerlessness towards him.
Yet, in cases where existent political regimes respond to civilized
upstanding democratic reformation and to changes, the democratic,
Islamic and national powers who carry resistance and reformation
obligations will be on good terms with these regimes, in
confrontation with Zionist and American projects.
In other
words, relation with these regimes will be or rather should be on
basis of the resistance and democratic reformation conditions, and
not by the conditions of regimes claiming objectives and
expectations that has always proved –in practice- contradictory to
the resistance’s goals and expectations, and in all cases
antagonistic to the Arab and Islamic nations and to their freedom
and aspirations and as well to democratic reformative movements.
Reconsideration Approaches:
In light of
the afore said, the democratic reformation and resisting powers –in
their progressive understanding of the existent challenges- have to
carry out a comprehensive reconsideration of all catch words they
raise, all objectives they call for and all mechanisms and
approaches they employ for meeting the requirements of the emerging
era at all levels.
This required
reconsideration shall –necessarily- include ideological, political
and organizational aspects, in addition to employed mechanisms and
approaches. It may automatically start –with an initiation from
lively leading members of the democratic reformation and resistance
powers’ ranks- to prepare for meeting and gatherings to achieve the
objectives anticipated from this comprehensive reconsideration. If
this –for any reason- proves to be unfeasible, or if agreement on
the basis of the required reconsideration and the required approach
to be adopted along this route is delayed, then the way –out would
be an initiation proposed by the Arab National Congress and the
National Islamic Conference together with Arab Parties Congress for
formation of a ten –members- committee that would include
intellectuals and leaders, skilled and experienced in the political,
resistance, democratic reform and civilized renovation fields, so as
to approach all different and varying democratic reform and
resistance powers in order to uniform the view points and reduce
differences there in between and to establish the basis required for
carrying out objective negotiations and later on agree on the
documents and preparations leading to convocation of the required
constituent congress.
Resistance, or
rather the nation is at the verge of a difficult options juncture,
facing many complicated and serious challenges. So, there is no room
for obstinacy, no advantage in delaying, no use in evasiveness nor
in alliance with time.
In work
lies hope. Is there another option?
|
