|
·
The Palestinian Resistance and Lebanon:
Another Bitter Experience
·
Camp David Agreement and the Victory of the
Revolution in Iran
·
The Popular Uprising in Palestine (1987)
·
The Palestinian Leadership thwarts the
uprising
·
The Enemy and the Alternative of Forceful
Separation
·
The Victory of the Lebanese Resistance
(2006): Another Zionist Fiasco
·
Conclusion
·
Preface
Sixty years have elapsed since the occurrence of what has always
been known in the Palestinian, Arab, Islamic and human conscience
as the "Palestine Nakba". After a series of massacres and
slaughters (about 114 massacres) in which thousands of innocent
Palestinian victims – mostly women, children and aged people –
have been killed, the Zionist – colonial alliance (with a special
role played by the British) managed, in 1948, to take control of
about 77% of the land of Palestine and to uproot and displace
approximately 85% of its people, who wandered about lacking any
form of protection. The racial Zionism was never satisfied with
preventing the return of the displaced Palestinians to their homes
and properties, but rather went on demolishing and razing more
than 500 Palestinian towns and villages with the aim of
terminating any renewed hope of return in the minds of these
uprooted people.
For many international observers, experts and organizations, this
process constituted one of the most sizable mass expulsions in the
modern history. Moreover, it is one of largest processes of fact
falsification and effacement of the vestiges, civilization and
history of a people and a land. The Years of "Nakba" have extended
and long lasted, to an extent that the number of those displaced
people and their descendants has now overreached seven millions,
in various spots and exiles all around the globe. Today, the
Palestinian refugees constitute the largest refugee community in
the world and their cause is considered the oldest one – still on
until this day.
The [Zionist] aggression had resulted in what was later termed as
"Nakba" – the calamity which struck Palestine and its peaceful
people who lived in this country away from racism; whereas all
Palestinians – Muslims, Christians and Jews alike – coexisted as
cooperative citizens of equal rights and duties, until they were
afflicted – as their country – with the disease of hateful and
racial Zionism, when the "Nakba" trans formed the citizens of this
country from a civilized people into dispersed communities.
With the aim of establishing and exploiting the state of division
and backwardness which over whelmed the Arab and Islamic world,
theorists and leaders of the Zionist – colonial alignment, who had
previously launched the Zionist project, maintained that the Nakba,
with all its ramifications, would destroy the Palestinian people
and ground the falsity of "…Palestine: a land without…" as
declared by the then U.S. State Secretary John Foster Dallas:
"…The Palestinian people will become extinct the aged will die and
the young will forget…".
However, the evolution of this conflict did not result in what was
desired by Zionists and colonists. Based on scientific facts, it
is obviously safe to say that all Palestinian countrymen have
already confirmed their absolute commitment to their homeland and
their readiness to sacrifice their lives and whatever they deemed
priceless in the way of redeeming their country. In spite of
forceful conditions, most Palestinians insisted on staying stead
fast on the land of Palestine and in its closest vicinity; some of
them remained in the territories occupied in 1948 (despite the
injustice of the Zionist invaders, the emergency rules, the
military government and the stark racial discrimination) numbering
today about a quarter of a million (20% of the total population
registered in what they call "Israel"), while approximately 85%
live in the miserable and wretched [refugee] camps built in the
West Bank and Gaza strip or in neighboring countries (especially
in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon).
Although "backwarded" and divided into many disputed entities,
Arab and Islamic peoples have never given over the Palestinians
and so was the case with the rising political movements. Even the
regimes that ruled the nascent entities expressed their commitment
to work for the liberation of Palestine. Hence, The Palestinians
pinned their hopes on these regimes and national movements,
contributing to the establishment of the frameworks within which
the "Arab Nationalists Movement" has consequently emanated or
joining the Nationalist Movements that developed later in the Arab
world (the Ba'ath Party and the social Nationalist Syrian Party)
as well as the Muslim Brotherhood Movement. They also intensively
joined the whole array of Nasserist formations, especially after
the nationalization of the Suez Canal, the tripartite aggression
and the Egyptian – Syrian unification. In collaboration with some
Arab regimes of a nationalistic trend, many Palestinian combatant
formations were established.
They frequently managed to break through the Armistice line and
attack Zionist colonial settlements, either in Gaza strip
(guerrilla units under the then widely known Egyptian officer
"Mustafa Hafeth") or at the Syrian front (the special
reconnaissance unit in the Syrian army).
The Contemporary Palestinian Revolution: a Natural Response to the
"Nakba"
The emergence of what has been known as National Liberation
Movements in many states and the prominent role of such movements
in fighting colonist in countries like Vietnam Algeria and
Cuba…etc. started to affect the Palestinian theatre. In 1959, the
initial core of Fatah Movement was established; containing several
intellectual currents and, that same year, the "Palestinian
Liberation Front" organization emerged within the Palestinian
community in Syria, as an armed guerrilla (Fidaee) force.
Moreover, Palestinian formations within the "Arab Nationalists'
Movement" witnessed qualitative developments that lead to the
establishment of a special Palestinian apparatus: "the Palestine
Section", which started to make steps towards preparing for armed
action. Then, a combatant unit was set under the title: "Youth of
Revenge". However, with the support of Arab official regimes and
for various reasons, the dramatic events of the 1960's (i.e. The
failure of the Egyptian – Syrian unity experience; the waning
fervor of the Arab unity project; and the expansion of the state
of affairs which called for the crystallization of a Palestinian
national formula for the liberation of Palestine) lead to the
declaration of the establishment of the Palestinian Liberation
Organization" [PLO] – under the chairmanship of Ahmad Shuqayri, a
prominent Palestinian leader known of his loyalty to Palestine –
during the 1964 Arab Summit in Alexandria.
Then came the disastrous results of the June 1967 aggression to
expose many facts, the most important of which were:
·
The expansionist aggressive
nature of the Zionist project, which, according to its leaders and
thinkers, is an entity that has no final borders and that its
borders are in every place trodden by its troops or reached by its
tanks.
·
The in capability of the Arab
official regime and its conventional armies of encountering the
Zionist army, which the world arrogant states had promised to
provide with the most advanced and modern weapons so that it can
always remain superior to Arab armies altogether!
The leaders and theorists of the Zionist project had seriously
sought to obtain the maximum benefit from the results of the June
[1967] aggression, through working at several fronts:
Firstly:
At the front of "world Jewry"… Israel tried to convince those that
it was the most powerful state, that its army was invincible, and
that it became the safe home land for Jews and the stable base for
their project of dominating the whole Arab and Islamic region.
Thus, the world Jews increasingly gathered around "Israel" and
behaved as if Palestine were really a "land without people", even
claiming that no people existed in Palestine in the first place,
as expressed by many Zionist leaders. Golda Meir once asked,
during her term as Prime Minister: "…Where are the Palestinians?
…I have never heard of them before…!"
Secondly:
To confirm to the imperialist center, presented by the United
States of America, that it was safe to count on the Zionist entity
as a successful project capable of performing its aggressive
function, in order to keep the Arab and Islamic world divided and
backwarded, by subjugating the peoples of the region and
chastising the "insurgent" regimes. Indeed, the relationship
between the United States, the Zionist entity and the Zionist
movement entered a new "qualitative" stage.
Thirdly:
to cause the Arab and Islamic peoples to feel frustrated by
telling them that whatever they do in order to eliminate "Israel"
would be of no avail and that the only alternative they have is to
consent to the existence of the Zionist entity in Palestine and
live with it.
Fourthly:
To dispatch a letter to the Palestinian people purporting to say
that "…all your hopes of liberation and return are nothing but
mirage… and you have to accept the fait accompli…" which means the
remaining part of Palestine has to surrender to the "Israelization"
process and agree to serve the Zionist project, while the other
uprooted part of Palestine has to look for other alternative
"homelands"!
However, the civilization heritage originating from the
monotheistic creed of the Palestinian people makes it intractable
in the face of all attempts of enslavement and subjugation to the
colonist, no matter how great his material power is, and the same
thing is true for other Arab and Islamic peoples. In addition,
peoples' experiences proved that oppressed nations are capable of
resisting aggressors and triumphing over them, which lead to the
crystallization of a strong and serious Palestinian trend with
self – dependence, support from Arab and Islamic peoples and
backing from freedom seekers all over the world.
The phenomenon of "Fida'ee [guerrilla] activity evolved from an
"elite work" into a broad popular framework for the resistance.
Fida'ee organizations have developed, increased in number, and
grew stronger in terms of equipment. They managed to establish
many bases and military camp, especially in Jordan. In February,
1969, Fatah Movement took command of the P.L.O under the
Chairmanship of Abu Ammar. "Armed struggle" and "people's
liberation war" became central in the battlefield against the
Zionist project. Indeed, one can say that the stage of 1967 – 1970
was the "Golden Era" of the Palestinian Fida'ee action and that
the "Karama Battle" (March 21, 1968) was the "Jewel" of this
stage, after which hundreds of Palestinian, Arab and Muslim
volunteer, along with many freedom advocates from all around the
world, joined the revolution bases and training camps.
Furthermore, Palestinian factions succeeded, at that time, in
establishing a national council within the P.L.O. encompassing all
Fida'ee organizations. Soon after, Fida'ee operation intensified
both quantitatively and qualitatively, until the massacres of
"Black September (1970), when the Palestinian Revolution lost its
central front in Jordan, through which it had once been able to
communicate with the Palestinian "unside" and fight much more
effectively against the Zionist project.
Top
The Palestinian Resistance and Lebanon: Another Bitter Experience
After ousting the forces and institutions of the [Palestinian]
resistance from Jordan and their locatization in Lebanon, everyone
realized how difficult the trip was on this rough road: The
Zionist entity, which enjoyed vital and organic relations with
world arrogant powers, had been capable of building up its army
and of defeating the armies of the neighboring Arab countries,
while the Palestinian resistance has lost its essential
springboard in Jordan; a kind of development that objectively
placed the Palestinian cause on a new stage, to an extent that
necessitated innovation in consistency with the state of affairs
as they were.
However, the nature of the Palestinian factions' combination and
structure was hardly helpful to make these factions qualified
enough to learn true lessons of their bitter experience. Hence,
they fell for the bait which many have started to propagate: "The
possibility of reaching with the Zionist entity some sort of
settlement that would enable the P.L.O to establish a Palestinian
state in the territories occupied in 1967, in return for
recognition of the state of "Israel on the lands occupied in
1948".
The year 1974 was a crucial one on the course of the Palestinian
cause: in that year, the Arab summit (in Rabat) recognized the
P.L.O as a sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian
people. Init, also, the twelfth session of the National Council
approved the notorious sixteen – point – agenda… the many other
ill – boding events followed…
Things never stopped at any "red line", but rather reached an
extent that threatened to undermine the basic achievement
accomplished through the Palestinian struggle in the course of
over on hundred years: maintaining the Palestinian identity with
all its dimensions and protect it against loss and elimination. It
started when the "state" illusion began to dominate the hearts and
minds of the Palestinian leaderships and the moment these
leaderships believed in the possibility of reaching an
"historical" settlement with the Zionist project. With the
adoption of the staged project, an original and integral part of
the people of Palestine was being abandoned. Some began to call
this stead fast people, on the Palestinian lands occupied in 1948,
The Arabs of Israel". Then, some factions embarked on establishing
Jordanian parties mostly containing Palestinians who were supposed
to be living on the East Bank of Jordan "temporarily" and
"compulsorily", as another step in this direction (and, here, I
must add that my note does not start from any "entity – oriented"
trend, but rather aims at safeguarding the Palestinian dimension
increasingly targeted with liquidation and /or elimination).
If something, this indicates that some Palestinian factions lacked
the right scientific conception of the nature of the Zionist
project and its goals that fundamentally contradict the presence
of the Palestinian people and the aspirations of the nation after
progress and unity. Moreover, it convincingly signals the failure
of the numerous formulas – then approved in the Palestinian arena
– to construct a revolutionary framework strong enough to
encounter the Zionist – Imperialist plans that aimed at pushing
the Palestinian revolution away from its basic goal: The
unification of all resources ad efforts towards the liberation of
Palestine. Al though the Palestinian resistance and its back –
bone (Fatah) had recorded in their constitutional documents that
"…Liberating Palestine is a patriotic, nationalistic, religious
and human duty…" in practice, actions have never been consistent
with this principle and organizational factionalism replaced
national cohesiveness. Similarly, entity – oriented tribalism,
fanatic chauvinism and dubious relations with international
intelligence apparatuses, correspondingly replaced the
nationalistic dimension, open – mindedness and interaction with
peoples of the Islamic world, and relations with official
leaderships or world liberation forces.
Top
Camp David Agreement and the Victory of the Revolution in Iran
Gaps in the Palestinian resistant action and the inability of Arab
and Islamic leaderships to understand the fundamental nature of
the struggle against the Zionist project coincided with the
dominance of regimes that were legal to the west in Islamic states
neighboring the Arab homeland (i.e. Iran and Turkey) while
strategically allied with the Zionist entity instead of being part
of the battle against the entity that usurped Islamic sanctums.
However, the sacrifices of resistants in Palestine and the heroic
deeds of Arab fighters in the October, 1973 war, in the face of
criminal excesses perpetrated by racist Zionists, were reflected
among Arab and Islamic peoples that began to feel – despite the
collusion of most of their rulers – the depth of the Palestinian
people's grievance and suffering from the criminality of Zionist
racism as well as the intensity of danger posed by this, not
only to the present and future of the Palestinian people, but also
to the present and future of all countries in the Arab and Islamic
world, which negatively affected these (Arab and Islamic) peoples
perception of western policies in general and of the U.S. policy
in particular. At the same time, this perception affected the U.S.
capability of carrying out projects with the aim of controlling
Arab and Islamic countries that contain most of the world reserve
of power resources.
In order to overcome this crisis, the Zionist – American circles
sought after ways to liquidate the Palestinian cause which had
become the light house that attracted the sights and souls of Arab
and Islamic peoples and urged these peoples to think of certain
mechanisms capable of retrieving their rights, so that can assume
the rightful place they deserve on the "world map".
From here, western research and study centers began to set plans
and preconceptions in order to overcome this threat. Perhaps the
document prepared by the Brookings Center on the Middle East
crisis, early in 1977, reveals the outlines of such an
orientation. The document included the following: "The United
States has the furthermost interest in finding a settlement in the
Middle East that would guarantee the continuous flow of oil
supplies, the preservation of its budge and increasing interests
in trade, financial investment, communication… (The report
recommended some preconditions for settlement):
1)
Israel's withdrawal from some territories occupied in 1967, with
special arrangements concerning Jerusalem…
2)
The establishment of a
Palestinian State, whether independent, confederated with Jordan
or in the framework of a Jordanian – Israeli" common market, on
condition that the Palestinian interlocutor be accepted to Israel…
3)
The conclusion of complete
"peace" agreements that would include continuous progress – on the
basis of an elaborated staged process – toward the development of
political, economic, international and regional relations, as
cooperative relations…
4)
These two courses [the Israeli
withdrawal and the Arab orientation towards the establishment of
natural relations with the entity) must proceed on two parallel
levels and this would take years until it is completely achieved.
The Al - Hawadeth (Lebanese) Magazine, 1/4/1977
However, Most developments west contrary to what had been planned
by the Zionist – American circles: the American and Zionist
leaderships succeeded in ensnaring (sadat's) Egypt through the
Camp David Agreement, as an introduction chosen by the Zionist –
American alliance to subjugate Arabs in the context of a certain
plan previously set for settlement. Not withstanding, the
victorious Islamic revolution in Iran, lead by the late Imam
Rouhullah El – Moussawi El – Khomeiny, in 1979, reversed the
equations and forced those (in the Zionist – American coalition)
to reconsider their calculations.
The triumph of the Islamic revolution and, consequently, the
toppling of the tyrannical Shah regime by the Muslim people,
revived the Islamic people's hope of realizing victory. The
Lebanese arena, where Palestinian and Lebanese resistant factions
existed, along with rebels from all over the Islamic and Arab
world, was the most interactive with this triumph. In this arena,
many Calls were heard for benefiting from the lessons of the
Islamic revolution and reconsidering the operational formulas
followed at that time.
Planning and decision – making circles in the Zionist – American
side was never apart from current developments in the Lebanese
theatre, as well as in other theatres interacting with it. Hence,
they did all what they could do in order to augment differences
between various elements in the Lebanese arena, so that it would
be possible to set suitable conditions to deal these elements a
"Knock – out". After a long stage, during which resources and
capacities were being exhausted in the conflicts opened in the
Lebanese arena, came the Zionist invasion (1982), during which the
enemy controlled large parts of Lebanon, including Beirut, the
capital (in spite of all the heroic deeds displayed by hundreds of
Palestinian and Lebanese fighters), to expose the fragility and
impotence of the Palestinian revolution's structures and in
situations vis-à-vis the Zionist project and its schemes. The main
objective of the invasion was to end all forms of resistance on
the Lebanese soil, and impose a pro-American regime that would be
ready to stand against Syria and signed a "peace" treaty with
"Israel".
However, what happened then was inconsistent with the enemy's
desire, as fruits of the blessed Imam Khomeini's revolution began
to appear: the collapse of May 17, 1983 agreement and the start of
resistance operations that chased the Israeli enemy in Beirut,
Mount Lebanon, western Beqa'a and the South.
The Syrian army played a central role in the Mount Lebanon battle
fought by Lebanese resistance fighters and Palestinian combatants
(who refused to accept the agreement mediated by Phillip Habib and
leave Lebanon). As a result, the notion of "pressing" the Arad and
Muslim awareness failed, as did all attempts of replacing the
fundamental contradiction between our nation's peoples on the one
hand and the Zionist – American project on the other hand with
partial contradictions and marginal differences between the
members of the same nation. The results of the Zionist invasion of
Lebanon capsized the perpetuation of engagement with the enemy,
while preventing the transformation of Palestine into a safe
heaven (the land of milk and honey) for "imported" Zionists who
perform their aggressive functional role by "chastising" the Arab
and Islamic peoples and subjugating them to world arrogant powers.
The exit of the Palestinian resistance from Lebanon gave adverse
results compared with the enemy's plans and expectations, whereas
popular actions started against the occupation in tandem with
armed resistance operations ever since the Zionists feet touched
Beirut. Eventually, the invaders were forced to withdraw from
Beirut, the 17, 1983 agreement collapsed, the Zionist – American
plan of liquidating the resistance in Lebanon and turning the
country into a Zionist protectorate failed, while the idea of
resisting and advancing the resistance performance and influence
on the course of the struggle against the whole Zionist project
has become more profound.
Top
The Popular
Uprising in Palestine (1987)
Consistently with the development of the resistance (the Islamic
resistance in particular) in Lebanon, and its heroic deeds and
achievements, the Palestinian people were capable of setting off a
new episode of its long history of resistance (still on for more
than one hundred years). Thus came the great popular uprising
(1998 – 1993) which restored the glare of the Palestinian cause
and opened wide horizons in front of the Palestinian people. This
uprising was capable of effectively transferring the struggle
"inside" mandatory Palestine, though its action remained
concentrated in the west Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.
However, the scope of this action transcended the abovementioned
limits and reached in some cases – through the operations of the
resistance – areas inside the uprising has been successful in
placing the struggle with the enemy "under the window", to borrow
an expression used by some Zionist analysts.
Surely, the uprising has done its job: it began to threaten the
future of the Zionist entity by undermining its attempts to stop
the Palestinian people's resistance and /or limit this people's
ability to renew the means of perpetuating its engagement with the
colonial settlement project.
The uprising put forward the fact that an incessant resistance on
the part of the Palestinian people could certainly con fuse the
Zionist enemy's schemes inside Palestine, but also in the eyes of
Arab and Islamic peoples. In due course, Zionist leaders
identified the qualitative change carved by the uprising in the
long history of struggle against their project. On this, Zeev
Schiff, the well – known Zionist military commentator, says: "…It
is an attrition war… …we have never seen any thing like it in all
our past wars… It is more ferocious than all other ordinary wars…"
(Ha'aretz, 12/2/1988). Zionist leaders also realized the
fundamentalist nature of its objectives. In a special interview,
General Shmuel Arad, commander of paratroops and infantry corps in
the Zionist army, indicated that: "…It’s a war related to our
existence…" (Al ha – Mishmar, 1/4/1988).
The uprising of 1987 – 1993 awakened certain issues and matters
that touch the core and fate of the Zionist project. After all the
Zionist attempts aimed at exterminating the uprising by force,
criminal acts and state – terrorism (perpetrated by the government
of Rabin, who was credited with "breaking children's bones") and
all policies based on siege and starving, leaders of the entity,
as well as officials of the U.S. administration, concluded that
wiping out the uprising by means of military or field measures is
actually impossible and that they had no choice other than
political containment.
Before testing his forces against the uprising, Dan shomron, a
former Zionist Chief of staff, used to boast of being "confident
of reinforcing tranquility, ending the upheavals and the
restoration of the status peace!..."But, after he has tested all
his strength, resources and criminal means, Shomron went back to
say: "There is no military solution to the uprising… Only there is
a need for patience and perseverance…" Not with standing, his
perseverance and all the efforts made by his soldiers and staff
officers failed to stop the uprising and never affected the stead
fastness of the Palestinian people. Consequently, Shomron was
forced to admit, in a lecture at Dayan Center for Middle East Rest
Research, six months after his call for patience and perseverance,
that: "…Only a political solution would result in suppressing the
uprising, and that he did not believe a military step – no matter
how massive – could stop its reactions, maintaining that when
residents of the territories see that a political process has
already started, with "Israel's" approval, the uprising will
abate…" (Hadashot, 26/2/1988).
Top
The
Palestinian Leadership thwarts the uprising
On the Palestinian side, the official leadership thought it was
time to implement its political [sixteen – point] agenda. The
uprising, with all the sacrifices and heroic deeds of the
Palestinian people, did not influence the political position of
the Palestinian leadership in a positive manner, nor was it
capable of relieving it from despair. It even failed to restore
the Palestinian leader ship's confidence of its people's ability
to stead fast and gather the Arab and Islamic nation around the
Palestinian cause. Instead, this leadership became more deluded on
its ability to extract a "Palestinian state" and began to
reiterate the recital "…we have planted and we must harvest",
assuming it would be able to establish a state over no more than
20% of the area of Palestine it relinquished 80% of this land and
recognized the legitimacy of the Zionist entity on it!
This leadership either was or pretended to be ignorant of the fact
that a "Palestinian state with full sovereignty", even on part of
the Palestinian land, would fundamentally contradict the nature of
the Zionist project in terms of both its objectives and
foundations.
If partition of the Arab and Islamic world had been an essential
precondition to prevent the nation from progressing and taking its
natural position among the nations of the world, then Judaizing
Palestine is the guarantee for perpetuating its partition and
backwardness and keeping its land, people and wealth at the
service of world arrogant powers.
The "settlement illusion" leads the official Palestinian
leadership to work for the termination of the first uprising,
blocking its way it development and barring its interaction with
the nation and the freemen of the world. On November 15, 1988, it
held, in Algiers, a session for the Palestinian National Council,
where it declared the "establishment of the state of Palestine on
the land of Palestine (defined as territories occupied in 1967)
with the Holy Quds [Jerusalem] as its capital city".
The P.L.O's leadership agreed on all the conditions and
stipulations dictated by the United States, in return for
participation in the [1991] Madrid [peace] Conference,
unofficially represented by a "sub – delegation" appended to the
Jordanian negotiating Team. Since the beginning of these
negotiations, a state of total imbalance was clearly noticed;
which enabled the Zionists to set some negotiating procedures that
implicitly established the existence of "one" state between the
Mediterranean and the Jordan River – "Israel", along with the fact
that this state would negotiate to define the status of a minority
(the Palestinians) on its lands, as declared by Dr. Haydar Abd El-shafi,
head of the Palestinian negotiating team. However, the leadership
of the P.L.O, then aspiring to gain acceptance as an official
negotiating party, agreed to participate in secret negotiations,
in Oslo – Norway, without any agenda and away from the United
Nations and the "International Legitimacy". The result was a
catastrophic agreement which threatened not only the unity of the
Palestinian people, but also its very existence (Oslo Agreement,
1993).
Never the less, the stead fastness of Palestinians and the rising
resistance in Lebanon and Palestine, supported by Syria, Iran and
the Popular objections mainstream, were conducive to the
obstruction of the "settlement" process and helpful in exposing
the real Zionist – American constants vis-à-vis the Palestinian
people, including:
= No Palestinian sovereign state on any part of the land of
Palestine (not to mention the territories occupied in 1967);
= No Palestinian sovereignty over the Holy Quds Haram [The
Jerusalem Sanctum];
= No Palestinian capital city in East Jerusalem;
= Rejection of the principle of the Palestinian refugees' right to
return to their towns and villages;
= No withdrawal to the June 4 (1967) lines and;
= The enhancement of settlement in Jerusalem, the expansion of the
city limits to include about 20% of the land on the West Bank, the
annexation of Palestinian territories occupied in 1948 and the
subjugation of the Palestinian population to "Israeli" laws.
Yet, those who had readily relinquished 80% of the land of
Palestine [territories occupied in 1948], showing great
willingness to compromise the right of return and turning the rest
of the Palestinian lands [20% - the West Bank, Gaza and East
Jerusalem] into a "disputed land", according to the Oslo logic,
went on deceiving the Palestinian people, claiming that: "…Nothing
more could have been done; America is exclusive deciding power
…Arabs and Muslims have walked out on us… we are all alone… we
have no other choice than proceeding with negotiations!...".
However, the dazzling victory achieved by the Islamic resistance,
lead by "Hezbollah", in May, 2000, which swept the Zionist army
and its agents from southern Lebanon and the Western Beqa'a valley
(except for sheb'aa Farms and Kfar Shouba foothills) back fired
most remarkably and proved – to the Palestinian people under the
yoke of occupation in Particular – that there are many
alternatives other than proceeding with the negotiation process
which serves the enemy in terms of creating more favorable facts
on the ground by following a settlement policy that is already
sweeping the Palestinian lands to blackmail the Palestinians and
force them into making more concessions.
All this has not been sufficient to convince the leadership of the
Palestinian Authority of the Futility of betting on negotiations
any further or on a settlement that would give the Palestinians a
state in the territories occupied in 1967 based on some conviction
that it is still possible to "round the angles" and overcome the
obstacles through the intensive negotiations that have been
carried on along more than one channel and in more than one
station or capital.
On this basis, the second Camp David summit was held (in 2000)
joining the former American president Bill Clinton, the late
president Yasser Arafat and the enemy's [former] Prime Minister
[Ehud] Barak. As a result of deliberations and thoughts proposed
in the summit, President Arafat approached – to a large extent –
the position which has already crystallized in the minds of the
position which has already crystallized in the minds of the
Palestinians, as he was certain that the Zionist enemy would not
give any thing to the benefit of the Palestinian people and that
the United States was more an adversary than an arbiter, not to
mention the fact that the Zionist entity's security considerations
were of utmost significance in this regard.
Hence, all efforts and attempts to "round the angles" failed to
find the "mulberry leaf" which could cover the defects of the
"compromise" meant to be passed and imposed on the Palestinian
people; that is because the Zionist entity sought to use this as a
cover for its fiasco with regard to the "Greater Israel" project
which ended up with failure thanks to the valiant resistance,
especially on the part of "Hezbollah" heroes in Lebanon.
This entity assumed that regional and international conditions
would give it a chance to overcome its failure in performing its
aggressive function through the "compromise" that was meant to be
imposed on the Palestinian people – a "compromise" which could
cancel the right of return and give the Jews "the greatest
Jerusalem" they would have ever had in history, as overly
reiterated by president "Bill Clinton".
The late Yasser Arafat walked out of the Camp David summit after
he had learned the lesson. He announced his firm stance, refusing
to submit to the lesson. He announced his firm stance, refusing to
submit to the Zionist – American dictates, and started to work
actively towards the reunification of Palestinian ranks, with the
aim of resuming the course of resistance, without formally and
completely abandoning the negotiation alternative!
Top
The
Enemy and the Alternative of Forceful Separation
Failing attempts [on the part of the Zionist enemy] to impose
adaptation on the Palestinians and Subjugate them in the service
of the Zionist project brought back to the fore the "danger" of
the Palestinian demography on the project of Judaizing Palestine.
Zionist experts and strategists have clearly realized this danger
after the takeover of the West Bank and Gaze Strip in the wake of
the 1967 aggression, because of the Palestinians' hold on to the
land in which they were deeply rooted, whereas population density
provided an obsession that upset both leaders and guardians of the
Zionist project.
Then, Zionists came up with a new vision: it is possible to
"quietly" subjugate the West Bank and Gaza strip and meet the
security needs there. They settled for military – security control
and embarked upon trans forming the territories into a new kind of
colony, where traditional colonialism (which had changed colonies
into markets and protectorates, in order to loot their richer and
exploit their residents as "cheap" hard laborers) overlapped with
settlement colonialism (which took possession of the optimal lands
in terms of fertility and strategic position and turned them into
settlement colonies as part of its usurper entity established in
1948).
None the less, achieving all this has always been conditional on
the Palestinian people's willingness to submit and agree on
trading its rights, dignity and even its humanity for mere
subservience!
The aim has been to turn the Palestinian people into another
"guinea pig" to test on it the rationalization theory which Max
Fiber defines as follows: "…trans forming the world into an
automotive system in which everything would be used efficiently…
in it, man becomes a unit the works most efficiently and gets
exhausted according to his financial resources, away from any
moral content or human value… a market controlled by whoever
possesses… "gold and money"… never hampered by any moral,
religious or human values or any traits or identities..."
Yet, by virtue of the resistance and stead fastness of the
Palestinian people, the Zionist entity and the United states
failed to subjugate this people or make it surrender, in spite of
all criminal, murderous and terrorist methods used against it.
Some Zionists are already convinced that no alternative could
address the demographic and security obsessions that rob the
entity's sleep and threaten its existence, but the alternative of
"separation" from Palestinian population centers in Gaza Strip and
the occupied West Bank.
Ehud Barak once appointed Dan Scheftan as special advisor for the
separation plan affairs. According to scheftan, "the separation
policy would be spontaneously implemented… [And] national policy
planners would most certainly suggest ways to achieve this in a
directed, systematic and organized manner, as this alternative is
the one that would eventually emerge after "Israel" has already
been "bearing heavy burdens..."
In his summarized view of the matter, Scheftan notes that:
"…"Israel" is not prepared to change the motives of the
Palestinian resistance against it [as] threats can never deter…
[While] the incentive offered by a "Zionist" Israel would make no
difference… Accordingly, there has been a pressing need to change
such conditions and/or create other conditions that would reduce
the serious losses for Israel… …Threatening would not make a
deterrent, because the Palestinians know very well that they enjoy
freedom of action and work, as they wish, inside the Israeli
society and that "Israel" can not hold them responsible for their
attempts to undermine its foundations without harming it self…
Enticement would not leave any considerable effect on the 1948
refugees… because withdrawals from Nablus, Hebron and Ramallah…
and even East Jerusalem would not propose a solution for the
citizens of Jaffa, Haifa and Ramla… and those would spare no
effort to reject all they can get from "Israel" and Persist on
demanding an actual "return to areas inside the Green Line", as
well as on seeking to undermine the foundations of Israel and
attain this goal…
What we need is to acquire ability and courage to bring about
evolutions in the field that is able to be changed and must be
changed… The field through which it would be possible to work
wisely and persistently is the on through which it would be
possible to change the balance in the interest of "Israel" and
spare the Jewish state any risk that could threaten to undermine
its foundations and change the conditions of encounter between the
Palestinian population and Israel, as this could happen in case a
decisive separation strategy has been adopted… the fact is that an
espousal of the separation strategy is the favorable choice for
anyone who wants to rid "Israel" of the serious hardship which
threatens its future and existence!..." (Dan Scheftan– Forceful
separation – translated by Baheth Center for Studies, 2004, p.
46).
The second Camp David agreement failed after the late president
Yasser Arafat had re fused making concessions regarding: the right
of return; of return; accepting formal sovereignty over Jerusalem
and; keeping settlement blocs in the West Bank under the title of
"Land swaps". Arafat did so in order to allow interactions in the
Palestinian and Zionist directions.
In the Palestinian direction, there have been a number of lessons
and examples; perhaps the most important among them were:
·
The first lesson – The Zionist
entity, which had been established as a military barracks or
outpost for world arrogant power, was provided with every thing he
needed in terms of military, economic, cultural and in formational
support, so that it would be able to defeat the Arab armies
altogether. Indeed, this entity has been able to attain victory in
all regular/ classic wars, even so in the October, 1973 war, when
Egyptian and Syrian soldiers proved capable of making victory,
before the results of this war were politically contained and
aborted. How ever, this entity was defeated in people's war,
beginning with the Karama battle (1968), until its defeat and
unconditional withdrawal from Lebanon in May, 2000.
·
The second lesson – The long
experience in useless negotiations with the Zionist enemy have
never prevented this enemy from persisting on taking prompt steps
in order to create new realities on the ground, in away that would
enable it to over come its crises and achieve its goals of
Judaizing Palestine and going back to threaten the nation and
prevent its progress and unification.
·
The third lesson – The struggle
against the Zionist enemy is an historical, civilizational and
comprehensive one in which all military, political, economic,
religious, and cultural dimensions are combined.
·
The fourth lesson – dividing the
Palestinian people, or its causes, would not lead to any solution.
On the contrary, it may result in the liquidation of these causes,
one after an – other, in the interest of the Zionist project.
·
The fifth lesson – Palestinian
national unity has always been an essential and decisive matter in
the open struggle with the Zionist project. Yet, according to its
experience with the settlement alternative, the Palestinian cause
from its depth would most certainly harm Palestine and the whole
nation.
Perceptual images that began to crystallize among the labor
party's rank and file, then, regarding the "forceful separation",
failed to convince the likud bloc lead by Ariel Sharon, who brake
into the holy Jerusalem sanctum [haram sharif] with thousands of
soldiers, policemen and settlers, indicating not only certain
political meanings, but also a great deal of contempt of all
Palestinian, Arab, Islamic and human sanctums, dignities and
feelings.
The Aqsa Intifada [uprising] (2000) and the withdrawal from Gaza
(2005).
Interactions between the two parties directly concerned in the
struggle (Palestinians and Israelis) contributed to the
fermentation of the Palestinian revolutionary state of affairs.
Hence, the "Aqsa Intifada [uprising] exploded as a renewed episode
of the long history of Palestinian resistance, in which the
Palestinian people entered the third millennium armed with all the
lessons previously learned from the experience of the Great
popular uprising of 1987 – 1983, but also from the past experience
of our people in resisting occupation throughout the last century
of the second millennium, which rein forced – to a large extent –
the Aqsa intifada in the face of all the attempts made to invest
it. The Intifada mujahedeen" [freedom fighters] have set a clear
objective: defeating the occupiers and ousting the settlers
unconditionally. The uprising escalated intensively and grew more
comprehensive and wider in scope in the face of the enemy's
increasing criminality and brutality and all military and security
measures failed to stop it or limit its effectiveness. All Arab ad
Islamic peoples expressed support to Intifada through muss
protests and demonstrations from the beginning.
The Intifada advanced in Palestine and made distinguished steps
forward through increasing military operations and the advent of
martyr operations, not only in response to Zionist criminal acts,
but also because the Palestinian people had long realized that
nothing could force this enemy to back down other than resistance
and gross human and material losses… "…Only the loss of many
Jewish lives in war… makes possible the perception of an Israeli
retreat, because it justifies adopting the "Jewish life sanctity"
principle and regarding its preservation as more important than
any other consideration…" (Israel Shahak, "The Jewish Religion: an
impact of three thousand years").
The enemy realized the real danger of the Intifada and its deep
meaning, as expressed by the then Mossad's director, Ephraim
Halevy, who noted that: "…When we have a look at the map of the
threats that would face Israel in the next decade… we find that
they are not against the borders of the entity… the battle between
Israel and its neighbors is basically historical and existential…"
("Al-Kifah – El–Arabi" Magzine – 23/12/2004).
However, after all military measures followed by the Labor
government had failed in terminating the Palestinian people's
Intifada and resistance, Ariel Sharon was elected as prime
minister on top of a government that had as a priority on its
agenda the elimination of the Intifada with in the period of one
hundred bays. Sharon failed in doing this, as the Aqsa Intifada
grew stronger and wider, while the resistant movements developed
its military field confrontations with the settlers and occupation
forces and deprived the Zionist entity of security and stability
on its central ground (the Palestinian lands occupied in 1948).
In the wake of this, scenarists and decision – makers in the
Zionist entity concluded, at the Herzliya fourth Conference
(16-18/12/2008), that the road to the "Israeli – Palestinian"
settlement was already blocked. The conferrers walked out with the
idea of making unilateral steps. Ehud Olmert, the enemy's present
(acting) prime minister, was the first author and publisher of
this idea.
This time, the "resistance alternative" put on record a historical
success on the land of Palestine, when the enemy was forced to
dismantle settlements in the heart of Gaza strip, in addition to
four settlements in the northern part of the West Bank (Abu
Ghuneim, Kadim, Hatsufi and Sanur), in August, 2005.
Yet, what we must never forget is that the Zionist enemy has not
"completely" withdrawn from any part of Palestine and that the
step forced on the Zionists has been no more than a partial
retreat from cities and towns of high popular density, in order to
prevent the resistance fighters from exploiting a weakness that
marks every occupation army: deployment amid a hostile community.
Leaders of the Zionist project still view things from a
perspective that shows only one state on the land of mandatory
Palestine: the state of "Israel". After they had failed in
uprooting all the Palestinians from the land of this "state", and
after they had proved in capable of terminating the Palestinian
resistance, these leaders found themselves obliged – in this stage
– to deal with part of the Palestinian population in the cities
and towns of Gaza Strip and the West Bank as a minority living on
"state lands"!
In order to get rid of security and demographic burdens, as well
as direct control over them, Zionists in research centers and
decision – making circles crystallized a certain vision based on
granting the Palestinian population there the rights of a
"national minority" that runs its civil affairs extensively
(within) the state of "Israel" and not on its own land or private
property!
Dov wiceglaff, a senior advisor in Sharon's office, once revealed
the quiddity of the Disengagement Plan is freezing the peace
process… with this; the establishment of a Palestinian state would
be prevented… This also prevents discussing issues related to the
refugees, the borders and Jerusalem… These issues represent a
total deal; called the Palestinian state… with all its purport,
this deal has been indefinite excluded from our agenda, with the
blessing of the American Presidency and thee endorsement of the
Congress…"
It is evident that the Disengagement Plan was intended to achieve
a set of provisional Zionist objectives that serve the strategic
goal of proceeding in the process of Judaizing Palestine. Among
these objectives are:
= The complete Judaization of Jerusalem and extending the city
area to include an additional 20% of the lands on the West Bank;
= A complete control over the [Jordan] valley area, comprising
approximately 15% of the [West] Bank;
= The construction of the remaining parts of the annexation and
apartheid wall, in order to control the aquifers (that make a
vital water source for the West Bank) as well as the most fertile
agricultural land in the area;
= The preservation of major settlements on the West Bank;
= Turning the rest of cities and towns on the West Bank into
isolated areas surrounded with fences.
Top
The Victory of the Lebanese Resistance (2006): Another Zionist
Fiasco
| 