by Arjan El Fassed
In 1993 the world witnessed the
beginning of the end of apartheid in South Africa, vindicating names
like Mandela, Tutu, Biko, and the millions of others who fought
tirelessly in that struggle. Yet the same year saw a new beginning,
a new life for an apartheid regime in Palestine, hailed and
supported as a peace process - the Oslo Accords.
Israel's apartheid policies are
based on the following elements: The exclusive claim of one group to
a country at the exclusion of non-Jews accompanied by their attempt
to physically separate from them; displacement of the indigenous
Palestinian population and the seizure of their lands and
properties, confining them to small enclaves and transforming them
into a permanent underclass; formalization of unequal power
relations through discriminatory laws and policies, enforced by
political means as well as by the military and security services;
and the formulation of a meta-narrative that supports the claims of
the dominant group over the others, demonizing and excluding the
"others'" claims.
Facts on the ground in Palestine and
Israel suggest a disturbing similarity to South African
apartheid as Israel continues to enclose the indigenous
Palestinian population through a matrix of settlements and
bypass roads, which will ensure Palestinian dependency upon
Israel in terms of economy, resource allocation, and mobility.
The notion that a Palestinian state comprised of such Bantustans
can hope to enjoy even a semblance of sovereignty is quite
simply absurd.
Given his unshakable faith in the
theory that "high fences make good neighbours", Israel's
Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, has obviously made matters worse. The
total separation that he advocated involves the building of overhead
bridges in the West Bank to link the disjointed Palestinian entity
and yet preserve the status quo; "us here and them over
there". The literally translation of the term
"separation" in Dutch is "apartheid".
In the Gaza Strip, it means, among other
things, that 500,000 Palestinian refugees will remain holed up
in 3 square miles of derelict camps surrounded by barbed wire
and patrolled 24 hours a day. While more than one million
Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have access to only 60% of the
land, 4,000 Israeli soldiers occupy 35%. The average Israeli
settler has 146 times more living space than his Palestinian
counterpart. Thus, with the rapid shrinkage of Palestinian
land even to bury their dead, the similarity with apartheid
South Africa is all too self-evident. Under the latter system
a 5% white minority appropriated 87% of the land.
This month India commemorates the
anniversary of the assassination of Gandhi and the anniversary of
his first imprisonment in South Africa in January 1908. It was in
South Africa that he developed his philosophy of "satyagraha"
(firmness in truth). In a sense, his last satyagraha was also in
South Africa. Though he could not be physically present, he guided
and inspired the great Indian passive resistance movement of 1946-48
and lent it enormous support.
In the many years that the
struggle lasted with its ups and downs - jailings, beatings, torture
and deportations of resisters, as well as the intervals when they
were obliged to while away their time on the Tolstoy Farm - Gandhiji
developed the concept of "satyagraha" which was later to
inspire the national movement in India.
One does not need to be a
Gandhian to recognize that the philosophy and example of Gandhi
remain a powerful force in the world, spreading wider and adapting
to the traditions and circumstances in different countries. The
leaders of the freedom movements in many colonial countries
acknowledge the inspiration of Gandhi. The civil rights movement in
the United States, led by the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
was inspired by his example, as was much of the movement against the
Vietnam war. Liberation theology, which has spread in Latin America,
Africa and Asia, draws some of its inspiration from Gandhi.
None of the recent non-violent
movements perhaps strictly follows the tenets of Gandhi, as
understood by his disciples in India, but he has been an inspiration
as people tried to choose the most peaceful and effective means of
struggle against injustice and oppression in the light of the
relevant conditions. The philosophy of Gandhi cannot be codified
into immutable rules, but must always be creative. It evolved with
his experience in forty years of struggle. He kept his windows open
to receive inspiration from all sources. He learnt from the humblest
in the resistance campaigns. He welcomed discussion and debate. He
changed his views many times and never hesitated to admit errors.
Is non-violent resistance
relevant to Palestine? Has "satyagraha" lost all relevance
in Palestine as a means of resistance, especially since the rebirth
of the Intifada on 29 September 2000. The answer is not simple.
I believe that patient suffering with
love has hardly ever melted the hearts of oppressive rulers.
Satyagraha has succeeded to the extent that it aroused public
opinion in the camp of the adversaries and beyond so as to
restrain and exert pressure on the oppressors. That is why
Gandhi always devoted great attention to publicity.
Given the possibility to reach and arouse
public conscience, non-violent resistance makes it difficult
for the oppressors to resort to extreme savagery and thereby
saves lives. It helps the oppressed people to overcome fear of
prison and torture and steels them in the struggle.
In Palestine, however, the movement faced
not only an enemy which became ever more brutal, refusing to recognize
the humanity of the Palestinian people, but powerful
international forces of greed and prejudice hindered effective
pressure against the racist Israeli regime.
Regrettably, many people in the Western
world are not outraged by violence against Palestinians. Mass
resistance in Palestine began at a time when the world was
divided by the "cold war" and cold war calculations
began to influence the policies of powerful nations much more
than justice. Unlike the Palestinian leadership, the South
Africans never accepted the American vision for South Africa.
Mandela never compromised with them. They were always
consistent: "one man, one vote" and they had
international support for that. The US opposed them. The US
considered the ANC as a terrorist organization in the same way
as it has been with the PLO. The ANC remained clear in its
objective to equality and a non-racial state. The PLO shifted
to accommodate the US and Israel for few benefits, but not
freedom or return.
It is, therefore, understandable, to say
the least, that a great number of Palestinians feel that they
need to undertake violent resistance. But that does not
necessarily mean that non-violent resistance has become
totally irrelevant nor that the spirit of "satyagraha"
has disappeared.
In many countries, non-violent resistance
took place at the same time as violent resistance, or threat
of such resistance. There was, for instance, violent
resistance in India on many occasions and a threat of violence
in the United States when Dr. King was leading the Civil
Rights Movement. The oppressors are often obliged to choose
between compromise with the mainstream of the movement
pursuing non-violent resistance and confrontation with the
growing trend toward violent resistance. In South Africa, the
movement has used peaceful means whenever possible and hardly
any other country has seen such persistent non-violent
resistance, even alongside armed struggle, as South Africa.
There are also situations where effective
non- violent resistance by the oppressed people is not
practicable while non-violent action can be carried on by
those abroad outraged by the injustice. For instance, the
Vietnamese peasants could not non-violently resist unseen
persons throwing bombs from high up in the sky, but the
American people could carry on such resistance against
involvement in the Vietnam war. In the case of South Africa,
too, there have been times when "satyagraha" abroad
in solidarity with the oppressed people was more feasible and
effective than non-violent resistance inside the country.
Mass "satyagraha" against
apartheid, occupation and ethnic cleansing and all its
protectors and accomplices all over the world may well be the
most effective means to put an end to the continuing tragedy
in Palestine. The answer to the question of relevance is then
that even though the oppressed people and some are convinced
that armed struggle have become essential or indispensable,
the spirit of Gandhi has not lost all its relevance.
The author is a
Dutch-Palestinian political scientist, human rights activist and is affiliated
to the the Palestine Right to Return Coalition
(Al-Awda).
Source:
