A Palestinian's View On Current Events
by Issa Sarras
There is little doubt that the recent intense
developments have
placed our region at a turning point. The previous
fragile status
quo has collapsed. A succession of events and changes
have mixed
the political cards, and pushed the region and
its peoples
towards the unknown.
The practical collapse of the Oslo process has
encouraged some
parties, especially some Arab and European
governments, to
advocate a return to the UN framework and
international
legitimacy. But the new facts on the ground, and
especially the
sharp turn towards the extreme right in Israeli
society, preclude
any serious movement towards any kind of acceptable
political
settlement.
Israel has introduced new practices and methods of
action which
constantly place the Palestinian population at
great risk,
without any real deterrence or any protection
mechanism available
on the ground. In fact, the destruction of any and all
components
of Palestinian security represents the central
development of
these times.
And though many local civil society institutions
struggled to
address the urgent needs and requirements of the
Palestinian
population, and tried to highlight their real plight
in different
ways, there is little doubt that they have not come
even close to
recognizing or embracing the situation in its
totality, or acting
in accordance with its real implications. The
standard practice
was sending more and more appeals to the international
community,
appeals which usually receive little response. The
absence of
real strategy or planning should ring alarm bells.
The lack of
preparedness also displays a worrying lack of ability
to assess
the implications of political developments, even
though it was
possible for an alert observer to read Israeli plans
like reading
an open book. Palestinian, Israeli and other writers
and thinkers
have written in detail about what was about to happen,
and even
revealed some military secrets and plans. It was
possible to
foretell Israeli plans during the intifada almost from
the start.
Israeli troops ended their siege of Yasser Arafat's
headquarters
in an agreement that is certain to create
trouble within
Palestinian ranks. Placing the detained leader of the
PFLP under
US and British custody was immediately condemned by
the FPLP and
others. There was also a smell of a deal, as
reported by The
Minneapolis Star Tribune (April 30) which stated
that "both
American and Israeli officials said Monday that in
return for
freeing Arafat, the United States agreed to stand by
Israel in
its high-stakes confrontation with the U.N. Security
Council and
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan."
Annan abandoned efforts to send a fact-finding mission
to Jenin
refugee camp following Israel's refusal to
cooperate. Israel's
chief of staff threatened to resign if the mission was
endorsed.
"The Israelis feared that the probe would be biased
from the
outset against their military" according to Los
Angeles Times
(May 1). "Annan asserted Tuesday that the U.N. has
already 'done
everything' it can to ease Israel's concerns about the
personnel,
focus and legal consequences of the fact-finding
mission. 'I
think we've been very forthcoming,' he said"
according to the
paper. "Annan assured the Israelis that their soldiers
and others
interviewed by the fact-finding team would be
guaranteed
anonymity, and that there would be no transcripts that
might be
used in war crimes prosecutions --two key Israeli
demands." But
apparently all this was not enough.
And last night "gunfire crackled and Israeli flares
lit up the
Church of the Nativity" according to Reuters (May 2.)
"The fire
in the Church of the Nativity died down not long after
it started
but at its height smoke billowed from the compound
as flames
licked out from buildings near the church." People
close to the
scene describe a bad fire, but as usual Israel tries
to impose
its own version of events while not allowing anyone
to have a
closer look.
Martin van Creveld, the Israeli historian, was
right about
Sharon's intention to transfer the Palestinians
whenever he gets
an opportunity to do so. It seems that America's plans
to attack
Iraq are specifically meant to give Sharon the
opportunity to
achieve his aim. I disagree with van Creveld that a
"spectacular
act of terrorism inside Israel that killed
hundreds" would
present such an opportunity (Sunday Telegraph,
April 28.)
Palestinian suicide bombings can never achieve such a
result. In
fact most suicide bombings were ineffective or harmed
very few
Israelis, sometimes killing only the bombers
alone. The
possibility to kill hundreds using the primitive bombs
used, even
when filled with nails as happened sometimes, is
simply not
there. The only opportunity is a major upheaval in
the region,
such as an American attack on Iraq (which, as
many fail to
appreciate, impacts the lives of millions of
people in the
region, not only Iraqis, as happened in the last Gulf
War.)
I also disagree with van Creveld that Saddam would
fire missiles
on Israel during such a war. This time it is not at
all in his
interest. In the last war he fired on Israel in order
to try to
split the alliance of Americans, Europeans and
Arabs fighting
against him. This time there will be no such
alliance. America
will be practically alone, possibly joined by the UK
(and Turkey,
but even this is uncertain.)
However, it is not at all impossible that some
missiles will be
fired on Israel (from somewhere, possibly from
Iraq but not
necessarily so) during such a war. Since there will
be a total
media blackout, who will be able to verify who fired
what or from
where? If the Americans want to claim that Saddam has
fired on
Israel, it will be easy to stage such a firing,
especially if
American ground troops occupy parts of Iraq.
And frankly
Americans are not above acting in such ways.
America's initial long silence about what happened in
Jenin does
not have two or three meanings, but only one: Within
the larger
American plan, what happened in Jenin was only a
tiny part of
what is to happen later on. After everybody went to
Jenin and saw
the horrifying scenes, the Americans finally sent
William Burns
to have a look and also say a few impressive words,
while as the
prime sponsor of the (now defunct) 'peace process'
America must
have been there fist.
Notice that after Jenin, the American media started to
talk about
plans to attack Iraq "next year." It is surely
impossible to
attack Iraq soon, given the anger felt worldwide about
Jenin and
the results of Israeli military action in the West
Bank. People
need some months to 'forget.'
I have heard time and again that George Bush's
vision of a
Palestinian state was significant, since he is the
fist sitting
US president to speak in such terms. I tend to agree.
But let me tell you this: Bush did not present one
vision, but
two visions. He spoke about what can make a
Palestinian state,
and also what can unmake it. He did not recognize the
Palestinian
people's natural right to establish their state on
their land.
And he conditioned it on an agreement with israel.
By giving
Israel a veto on the Palestinians' future, Bush has
abandoned the
UN terms of reference, and thrown the Palestinians to
the sharks.
Surely, not all plans work. Not all schemes are
fulfilled. Many
things can change over time. I hope George W will
change his
mind.
Issa Sarras is a teacher in Ramallah, as well as a
respected activist on Palestinian human rights.
