Your Voice in a World where Zionism, Steel, and Fire, have Turned Justice Mute

 

 

How the Left was Won

 

The *FREE ARAB VOICE*
August 31, 1999
In this issue of the Free Arab Voice (FAV) We Present:
"How the Left was Won", an analysis of the joining of the Oslo
 process by two Palestinian leftist organizations and the liberal
 mindset that infilitrated the Palestinian and Arab left,
 by Ibrahim Alloush.
HOW THE LEFT WAS WON
An Introduction:
- - - - - - - -
Two of the largest Palestinian leftist organizations broke ranks with the
Palestinian opposition in the past few weeks to engage in top level meetings
with Arafat as a practical prelude to joining the Oslo process and the
institutions it generated on the ground.
These two organizations are the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine (PFLP) led by George Habash, the larger and more radical of the
two, and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) led by
Nayef Hawtmeh, widely considered an opportunistic and less popular offshoot
of the PFLP.  But now the DFLP and the PFLP seem to have coordinated steps
in a move that partially disheartened anti-Oslo forces in Palestine and the
Arab world.  This development appears to come on the heels a re-assessment
of their positions after the election of Ehud Barak to power in "Israel" and
the potential re-alignment of Syria in regional politics.
As the Road Turns:
- - - - - - - - -
In the beginning, the organizations of the neo-left emerging in the sixties,
like the PFLP and the DFLP, sneered at the positions of Arab communist
parties, which recognized "Israel's" right to exist following in the
footsteps of Stalin.  The New Left embraced instead the concepts of total
liberation through armed struggle.  Then in the early seventies, the DFLP
declared its "National Authority" platform, stating that Palestinians should
establish a Palestinian National Authority on any PART they liberate of
Palestine.  This insinuated the possibility of the liberation of parts, as
opposed to the liberation of the whole, and thus the possibility of
co-existence with "Israel" at least temporarily.
In the eighties, the PFLP presented the program of "Scientific Stagism"
which opened the door later to interpretations of the same caliber by former
members like Bassam Abu Sherrif for example (SEYASIT ELMAR7ALEYEH).  In
1988, both the DFLP and the PFLP adopted the resolutions of the Palestinian
National Council convened in Algeria calling for the establishment of a
Palestinian state in accordance with UN Resolution 242, which calls for safe
borders to all states in the region, including "Israel".  Thus the
Palestinian New Left had come a full circle, back to the position of the
official Arab communist parties on the eve of the Nakba in 1948.
Liberal Poison:
- - - - - - - -
Today, many Arab and Palestinian leftists espouse very flimsy positions on
"Israel" and even neo-colonialism.  Many of them enjoy generous donations
from Western non-governmental organizations (NGO's) to run local branches
concerned with everything but the real political concerns of our people.
These declare that "Israel" is not our enemy as much as the regimes are, or
the traditional structures of our society; a statement that is only
half-true, since the two thrive on each other.  Others found comfortable
niches in the system from whence they argue sometimes that "Israel" is not
the enemy of the Arab people as much as the Islamists or Arab nationalists
are.  As a result, the left in the Arab world has been marginalized as a
mass movement, and has taken very un-leftist forms, so to speak.
But to better understand this leftist infraction to the right, one has to go
deeper into the thought process and the mindset that turned the parties and
organizations of the Arab and Palestinian left upside down over the decades.
  The issues are many, so for the purposes of this article, I will
concentrate on how the Arab and Palestinian left's position on Palestine was
ideologically softened, leading eventually to not being able to discern any
recognizable difference between its positions and those of CNN, for example.
  As Abu Ali Mustafa of the PFLP put it: "Oslo is a reality we can't
ignore"!
So rather than listing a chronology of the political events that led up to
all this, I will focus on thirteen liberal propositions on the question of
Palestine that paved the way for the gradual transformation of the leftist
mindset in the Arab world into what it has become today.  These are:
1 - "Israeli" Jews migrated to Palestine involuntarily as a result of the
persecution they experienced in Europe.
2 - "Israeli" Jews have the right to live in Palestine, just like Arabs do.
3 - "Israeli" society is not one monolithic bloc, but is made of strata and
classes, the lower of which can be the Arabs natural ally.
4 - This means we have an obligation to win over these potential "Israeli"
allies through political action, in coordination with the so-called
"Israeli" progressives.
5 - For some Arab and Palestinian leftists, this also means the condemnation
and discouragement of the military tactic of human bombs as practiced by
Hamas and the Jihad for example.  Allegedly, these acts prevent the peaceful
break-up of "Israel" through political action, because they unify all strata
of "Israeli" society against us.
6 - It is true that "Israel" was built on injustice and aggression, but how
could that be the fault of the children and grandchildren who found
themselves born in Palestine by sheer coincidence?!!
7 - True liberation is about human beings, not land.  Insistence on the
liberation of land is a chauvinistic and an unrealistic idea.
8 - In a seemingly leftist variation on the theme above, some point out that
land is but a means of production.  Like all means of production therefore,
it should belong to all, whether Arab or "Israeli".
9 - If "Israeli" progressives accept the call to leave Palestine, the
"Israelis" left to deal with will be more like Netanyahu and Sharon, i.e.,
on the extremist side.  Hence, it is in our best interest to ask "Israeli"
progressives to stay, not leave.
10 - Opposing normalization with "Israel" should only apply to the "Israeli"
state, as for having relations with the "Israeli" people, its lower strata,
or its leftist organizations, that is not to be considered normalization.
11 - Whether we like it or not there is now an "Israeli" nation in
Palestine, or at least an "Israeli" nation under formation.  Thus, a
progressive solution to the conflict cannot be chauvinistic, but should
arise on the recognition of the right of all nations to self-determination.
12 - This means either the establishment of two states, one Palestinian, and
one "Israeli", or the establishment of a bi-sexual state in Palestine, as
Azmi Bshara proposes.
13 - In a more extreme version, some say that the internationalist line
requires that we embrace the interests and rights of all people, and
"Israelis" in Palestine are people.  On the other hand, an uptight
reactionary chauvinist concerns himself solely with the interests of his
compatriots or ethnic group.  A true internationalist transcends the
nationalist sentiment completely.  S/he should be willing to sacrifice the
interests and rights of his or her [Palestinian?] people for the sake of the
humanity as a whole.
Of course, these statements are not equally important to all of their
proponents.  Moreover, many leftists don't subscribe to them, and many of
those who embrace them are not leftists but plain liberals.  Arab
reactionaries, defeatists, and collaborators, now flourishing in an
environment of weakness and confusion, peddle some of these themes as well.
Yet that is exactly why they should be scrutinized more ruthlessly when they
seep stealthily into our midst.
What does all this Mean though?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So what do the propositions above lead to in the context of the specific
circumstances of the Palestinian and Arab people?  And whom do they serve?
Do they really contribute to the formation of an anti-colonial and
anti-Zionist consciousness? Can they become the basis for a progressive
platform?
To answer, one has to first find the common denominator in the
aforementioned propositions, and then interpret them not in isolated
abstraction, but in the context of political reality, i.e., the present
Palestinian and Arab political condition of weakness and defeat.  Thus, even
if those who adopt them claim to have a qualitatively different program for
the liberation of Palestine, we may infer that the propositions imply the
following:
1 -  A free recognition of the LEGITIMACY [of the children and
grandchildren] of the invading settlers CURRENTLY conquering Yaffa, Haifa,
and Akka.  So far, the latter, have been staying there by sheer force, not
by the consent of the Arabs, who are the original owners of the land.
2 - A free recognition of the LEGITIMACY of the invading settlers currently
conquering Palestine, not just as individuals, but AS AN "ISRAELI" NATION.
This is the operating principle of both, the two-state, and the bi-national
state solutions.
3 - The above implies therefore that the identity of Palestine is not Arab.
This forfeits the historical Arab right to THE LAND.  Instead, the right of
return for refugees is proposed, in the best of cases.  But the two rights
are intrinsically different.  To say Palestine's identity is historically
Arab is not the same as saying 'the poor refugees need a place to stay'.
4 - The violation of the solid popular Arab psychological barrier in the
face of the invading settlers under the pretext that there are some
allegedly good invading settlers that we need to win over politically.
5 - The condemnation of the human bombs tactic from a seemingly leftist
position, just like Arafat supporters from a seemingly patriotic position
with the claim that Hamas and Jihad had covert connections to the Zionists,
to cover up for Arafat's overt collaboration with the CIA and the Mossad.
Reading Further between the Lines:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
But the truth is that Zionists don't care what positions the condemnations
against the human bombs tactic are coming from when they are reeling under
the brunt of its blades.  What they care for is that these attacks stop, and
that they cease to enjoy such widespread popular support.
Furthermore, the experiences of many a people under occupation teach us that
the creation of a public opinion that is supportive of the struggle for
liberation amongst the colonialists cannot be done like this.  Its necessary
precondition is that the balance of power be titled slightly in our favor,
and that the liberation movement starts to win a few military and political
battles.  Examples are too numerous:
1 - Americans continued to support the war in Vietnam, until the Viet Cong
began to inflict serious daily damage on the invaders.
2 - The calls of some "Israelis" to leave South Lebanon came only on the
heels of successful resistance activity there.  Mind you, Hizbullah never
gave any thought to political action to win over any "good Israelis"!
3 - After a telling 130 years of occupation, the Algerian revolution won
over sections of the French public opinion only after it lit up the earth
underneath the feet of the invading settlers.
Therefore, I suggest that rushing to collaborate with ANY "Israelis", under
the conditions of disintegration and defeat that we are wallowing in, serves
the interests of the stronger party (the oppressor) more than it serves the
interests of the weaker party (the oppressed).  This is especially true
since the cards of recognition of and normalization with "Israel" at the
popular level are some of the few Arab cards hitherto left unburned, even
though we have great potential to turn the tables in the future.
Under these specific conditions, it is the enemy that breaks us up, not the
other way round.  The [peaceful] breakup of the Palestinian opposition is
but a recent example.  Therefore, talking about breaking up the enemy
peacefully, while we are dwelling in our pathetic present state of division,
and lack of leadership and vision, is actually a very funny proposition.
Shouldn't we try at first to build up our strength and close our ranks,
before setting to the extraordinarily shrewd task of breaking up the
enemy…peacefully?!
These liberal poisons then crept into the discourse of the Arab and
Palestinian left to varying degrees over the years to make their frail
political positions towards "Israel" and the so-called "peace process"
palatable. In the case of the DFLP and the PFLP, the process led eventually
to joining Oslo through Arafat's gate.  This is in addition to the general
retreat of progressive movements worldwide and in the Arab world, and the
break down of the Socialist bloc, which provided a handy political excuse.
"We have no other choice.  What else can we do?", they exclaim.  Others are
more blunt citing their dire need for Arafat's cash and political
appointments to survive, but how? With thirty pieces of Arafati silver, for
every radical soul..
On a more positive note, this is not to say that reactionary propositions
veneered in leftist garb never meet any resistance.  In fact, the Egyptian
Communist Party just recently expelled six Central Committee members for the
charge of normalization with "Israel", and unnecessarily attacking Arab
Nationalist and Islamist positions, which shows that there is hope after
all.
A Final Caveat: It would be unfortunate if the words above were
misinterpreted as a call to "throw the Jews in the sea".  The Free Arab
Voice stands for the humane solution: the right of Jews, Christians,
Muslims, seculars, and atheists to live as equal citizens in Iraq, Morocco,
Yemen, and elsewhere in the Arab world.  The identity of Palestine remains
Arab though, as it has always been.  Peace can only come about through
justice, which means the end of Zionist SETTLER occupation in all of
Palestine, and the demise of dictatorships and neo-colonial oppression of
all forms.
                                    The Free Arab Voice/ The Editor
#####################################################################
The Free Arab Voice is an alternative newsletter that comes out
only in cyberspace.
For other FAV issues, please visit:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/favPrevIssues.htm
Sign a real right of return petition at:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/A-RealRightOfReturnPetition.htm
Check out a special slide show on Palestine at:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/RememberPalestine.htm
Read the In Response to Defeatist Thought series at:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/InResponseToDefeatistThought0.htm
To read on Arab contributions to civilization, click on:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/arabCivilMain.htm
For Palestinian Poems in English, go to:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/rhythmsOfTheStorm.htm
The Free Arab Voice welcomes your comments, suggestions, and
submissions.  If you do not wish to be on FAV's mailing list,
please indicate as much by writing to us.




  

    

    

    
FAV Editor: Ibrahim Alloush Editor@freearabvoice.org
Co-editors: Nabila Harb Harb@freearabvoice.org
  Muhammad Abu Nasr Nasr@freearabvoice.org
FAV Home Page - > Please click on the logo above, and we'll FAV you there :)