At the beginning of June, celebrations took place in West Jerusalem to commemorate the 41st anniversary of the “Unification of Jerusalem.” Needless to say, the Palestinian inhabitants of
occupied East Jerusalem did not pour into the streets to celebrate their “unification” with the State of Israel, i.e the ongoing occupation (since 1967) of
their homes in that city as well as the rest of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Four decades is a longenough period for people, Palestinians as well as Israelis, to lose hope, and many are sinking into
desperation, believing the end of the conflict is nowhere near. In the past, most Israelis opposed the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, because they feared such an arrangement will jeopardize their national rights and security. Nowadays, the reason seems to bedifferent. Recent polls conducted by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research in Tel-Aviv University, show that whereas 70 percent of the Israeli public support the two state solution, a similar majority of 60 percent answered that they do not believe such an agreement is feasible. As for
the Palestinian, the picture is similar: according to the recent poll by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center, half of the Palestinians support the same solution, yet more than 60 percent of them are pessimistic as to whether such a peaceful settlement can be reached.
When trying to explain this desperation that exists on both sides, one has to analyze the behavior of the Israeli government since 1999. During this decade, Israelis and Palestinians got used to the idea that as their respective governments are holding so-called peace talks, Israel is creating
facts on the ground that reverse any diplomatic achievement gained by the Palestinian leadership: While the two governments were discussing future
borders – new settlements were being set up deep inside the West Bank; while the two governments assessed possible security arrangements, massive
land expropriation took place, and new military checkpoints were set up throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT).
These negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority slowly became a meaningless ritual, reaching its height at the Annapolis Conference. As the negotiations took place, Israel
was working – with the backing of the White House – to decide unilaterally the future shape and image of the Palestinian state.
During the whole period of the Oslo Accords (starting in 1993), both the Israeli and Palestinian peace movement believed that these accords – flawed as they are – still had a good chance
of realizing the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside of Israel. For many years, this “two-state solution” was supported by the majority of the Palestinians, yet within Israel support for this solution was almost entirely limited to the ranks of the Communist Party of Israel (CPI).
Most Israelis feared the establishment of such a state, and it was not until the Oslo Accords that the two-state solution became the majority trend
among Israelis as well.
After the Oslo Accords were signed, some people in the peace movement raised concerns that these agreements would not bring the much desired end of the conflict, but rather create an economically weak and dependant Palestinian mini-state, which would continue to be dominated and exploited by Israel. In hindsight, some of these concerns were valid. During all the years of the “peace talks,” Israel deepened the occupation, the number of settlers was doubled, and many new military
checkpoints curtailed the Palestinians right to freedom of movement.
After Oslo: Disillusions and Uprising
Naturally, the Palestinians felt cheated. Many felt that they could not wait any longer, and acted out of desperation. The result was the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifadah (Uprising) in October 2000. This uprising, which began as a popular protest against the ongoing occupation, was brutally repressed by
the Israeli army. This triggered a series of bloody suicide bombings inside Israel, which led in turn to more Israeli brutality in the OPT.
The Al-Aqsa Intifadah also provided Israel with the possibility of implementing a very ambitious plan: to construct the so-called Separation Wall inside the West Bank, thus severing it into several non-
continuous areas of land, allowing Israel to annex vast territories and preventing any future Palestinian state from having territorial continuity. This Separation Wall is constructed deep within the West Bank, and not on the Green Line border (the only internationally recognized and legitimate border between Israel and the OPT). Thus, it is clear that it was not constructed for “security reasons” (as Israel officially claims) but rather as
a way to create facts on the ground regarding the future Palestinian state.
As it was constructing the Separation Wall, Arik Sharon’s right-wing government conceived in 2004, as a complimentary act, the “Disengagement
Plan” from Gaza. Officially, the intention behind the “Disengagement” was to pull the soldiers and the (few but privileged) settlers out of the Gaza Strip. But the true meaning behind the Disengagement Plan was far greater: this was a plan for disengaging Israel from any responsibility and commitment towards the material well-being of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, as stipulated according to international resolutions. This was a plan to physically isolate Gaza both from the West Bank and Israel, as well as from the rest of
the world.
The Disengagement Plan – along with the construction of the Separation Wall – created a harsh economic reality for the Palestinians. Up until the Disengagement, those who profited from the exploitation of the cheap Palestinian labor force were usually the small or medium Israeli capitalists - small contractors who employ Palestinian
construction workers, or restaurant owners who employ Palestinians as cleaners, cooks and dishwashers, etc. - but now, the big capitalists, both in Israel and internationally, are the ones who mostly exploit the Palestinian working class. 70 percent of the Palestinian gross national product (GNP) is comprised of “importing” goods from Israel. So almost every Shekel [Israel’s currency
–ed.] a Palestinian family spends benefits some Israeli company. Those Palestinians who used to work inside Israel (especially before the Oslo
Accords), usually employed by small businesses and home owners, now have to settle with working (if they are lucky!) in one of the few jobs available in
the large Industrial Zones, built by Israeli companies right next to the Separation Wall. Some work as functionaries in the Palestinian Authorities, and many require food donations from UNRWA
(the United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestinian Refugees).
Israeli politicians and big business owners, seeing difficult economic conditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that they themselves created, now spring into action, hurrying to help the Palestinians. They plan the construction of new “Free Trade” Industrial Zones in the OPT. But nothing is free in these “Free Trade” zones, nothing for anyone but the corporate owners, who rake in the profits from the super-exploitation of non-union Palestinian workers, who toil in sweatshop conditions.
These “Free Trade” zones will become the new home for many areas of industry, which up until now provided jobs to thousands of Israeli workers.
This is a pattern that we’ve become familiar with during the last decade: Israeli capitalists use the peace process and the Middle East normalization to
transfer factories from inside Israel to the neighboring countries of Jordan and Egypt, where the labor force is cheaper. The Israeli capitalists and the multinational companies then try to
convince those Israeli workers who become unemployed that their jobs were “stolen” by the Palestinians, rather than by the greedy bosses.
The Israeli Trade Union Federation, the Histadrut, did not pose any alternative to this government plan. In the vacuum that was created, the Israeli working class saw only two options: to either
support the so-called peace process (with the resulting unemployment due to the shutting down of factories), or to turn hawkish (which is seemingly a position that helps to defend jobs).
The Communist Party of Israel and its representatives in the Histadrut, has consistently tried to put forward a third option, one of using peace as a way to defend workers’ rights. The
peace process could have been used by the trade unions to further build the solidarity of the working people in the region. Instead of racing towards the
bottom, lowering wages further and further, the Middle East could have become a region of solidarity for decent, livable wages, with trade unions in the neighboring countries cooperating
to keep wages high throughout the region.
Unfortunately, the corporate media silenced our message of peace, social justice and bi-national workers’ rights. As more and more Israeli workers will discover that their jobs have moved to the “Free Trade” zones in the OPT, it will be up to the CPI and the peace camp in Israel to struggle even harder to get this message through.
The New Situation in the OPT
In 2005, elections were held in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC). In these elections, Hamas claimed that Israel’s Disengagement was a response to their
politics of armed struggle and suicide bombings. The Fatah movement (led by Mahmoud Abbas, ‘Abu Mazen’) was seen by some in the Palestinian public
as a weak leadership, one that is unable to exert pressure on Israel. Furthermore, during the years of Fatah rule in the OPT, the problem of corruption greatly increased, and Hamas took advantage of that in their election campaign. The results came as a shock to Israel and to the United States: Hamas won more seats in the PLC than Fatah, and
a National Unity government comprised of both Hamas and Fatah ministers was formed.
The National Unity government was formed on the basis of a political program called “The Prisoners’
Document,” which was written and signed by prominent Palestinian political prisoners held in Israeli jails. The writers of the document – who represented all the major Palestinian political groups – intended it to serve as a basis for national and political reconciliation between the different political factions.
The Prisoners’ Document contained the demand that the resistance to the Israeli occupation continue, but should focus on the OPT rather than inside Israel. This may be interpreted as a call to end the suicide bombings against Israeli
civilians.
The National Unity government, which based itself on the Prisoners’ Document, caused great dismay to the ruling elites in Israel and U.S. They have turned again and again to Abu-Mazen, President
of the Palestinian National Authority and leader of Fatah to demand that he sever the coalition between his party and Hamas, and use force against their militants. But the result was different than expected: in June 2007, Hamas took over Gaza Strip by force, establishing its own government there.
Israel retaliated by further tightening the siege on Gaza, cutting down on its supply of electricity and fuel. Fatah also formed its own separate government in the West Bank, headed by Salam
Fayyad, an economist who worked with the International Monetary Fund. The aim of Israel and the United States – splitting the Palestinian people
into two combating faction – was reached. The Palestinian people now face two leaderships – one is Islamic Fundamentalist, while the other is pro-
western. Gaza saw the conservative Hamas government attack women’s organizations, trade unions and secular parties, while in the West Bank the Fatah government received more arms from Israel and the U.S., but only under the condition that they abide by the U.S. Army “advisors.” As Zakariyah Zubeidi, the leader of the Palestinian resistance in the Jenin refugee camp, said in an
April interview to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, “Today the President of the Palestinian people is General Dayton [Lieutenant General Keith Dayton is the U.S. Security Coordinator in Israel and
Palestine]. Everybody works for him, and he owns the place. The Palestinian Authority no longer exists”.
In this atmosphere, the Annapolis Conference was held in the United States at the end of 2007, attended by Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and
many Arab countries. The corporate media was telling us that this was an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Conference, held under the auspices of President
George W. Bush. But when reviewing the events that lead up to the conference, one can tell that this was actually a further intensification of the U.S. war
plans in the Middle East. The Israelis and Palestinians were invited merely to help portray this as a peace conference, and as an excuse to bring together all of the U.S. allies and somewhat-allies
in the Middle East. The conference was planned against those who were not invited, Iran and Hamas, but also against those who were invited at the the very last minute – Syria.
A Strategy of Despair vs. a Strategy of Hope
As the already complex reality of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict becomes
even more complex, many Israelis
and Palestinians – among them even
committed peace supporters – are
driven into despair.
It was this despair that brought the
Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to support
the shelling of Sderot, as well as other
Israeli towns. And it was this despair
that caused the Fatah supporters to sit
down and wait for the hopeless “peace
process” to bear fruit, fearing that
another uprising would only aggravate
matters.
This feeling of despair turned those
Israelis that supported dismantling
settlements and achieving peace into
a silent minority. Despair caused some
peace activists – in Israel, Europe and the
U.S. – to give up on the just and realistic
two state solution (turned into an empty
phrase in the speeches of President Bush
and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert),
and adopt the problematic notion of
the “one state solution”.
Despair also brought some peace
activists to stop believing the two
peoples will be able to finish the conflict
on their own, and began to set their
hopes on an international boycott on
Israel. This notion of boycott, which can
be implemented in various ways, might
help end the Israeli occupation, but then
again, it might actually help to reinforce
the rule of the ultra right in Israel. It is
impossible to tell in advance. Any action
that raises awareness around the world
to the plight of the Palestinian people
is worthy and good, but one has to
thoroughly analyze the practical results
of boycott, divestments or sanctions.
But is it all grim? Not all. In these
dark times, there are still glimmers of
hope. The popular struggle against
the Separation Wall in the West Bank,
brings together Israelis and Palestinians
in weekly demonstrations against one
of the most brutal manifestations of
the occupation. This struggle became
a symbol of devotion, creativity,
nonviolence and Israeli-Palestinian
solidarity. The villagers of Billin, in the
West Bank, have been demonstrating
every week for three years against the
construction of the wall that seized most
of their land, now used for building a
nearby Israeli settlement.
As the construction of the Wall
continues, so has the popular struggle
against it. In village after village, popular
committees that organize nonviolent
Israeli-Palestinian demonstrations
against the Wall are being formed.
Inside Israel, the struggle continues as
well. In early June, thousands of Israeli
peace activists commemorated the
41st anniversary of the occupation in
a march in the streets of Tel-Aviv. This
demonstration – which was attended
by young workers, high school students
and college students, many from the
Young Communist League of Israel –
showed that there are those in Israel
who are determined to struggle against
the aggressive and expansionist plans of
the Israeli government.
Once the Israeli left finds a way to
explain this complex reality to the entire
Israeli public, and once the Palestinians
succeed in restoring progressive national
unity, our two peoples will then manage,
in spite of U.S. interference, to advance
towards a peaceful future.
Yuval Drier-Shilo is a member of the
Young Communist League of Israel
(YCLI). He lives in West Jerusalem, where
he is active in the Israeli-Palestinian joint
demonstrations against the Wall, as well
as in the ranks of the Communist Party
of Israel (CPI).
But is it all grim? not all. In
these dark times, there are
still glimmers of hope.
|
Top level
Dynamic Magazine
