A New Epoch In The Palestinian Struggle
For Freedom
By Salim Nazzal
11 November, 2009
Countercurrents.org
Abbas announcement last week that he would not run for another term in an election scheduled for January has created many debates among Palestinians at home and worldwide. Most of the inter Palestinian debate was focused on what Palestinians do next, become the major speculated question.
From Abbas speech it is possible to conclude three things,
1- that Israel is not interested in peace no matter what Palestinians do, and the second is that the Us will support Israel no matter what Israel does the third that the whole process which began in Oslo in 1993 has ended in failure.
Among the several Palestinian reaction is a Palestinian think that group made of Prominent political, economic, academic and other legal persons, which called for crystallizing a new Palestinian strategy, and the mobilization of the elements of power among the Palestinian people, which enable it to achieve its goals in ending the Israeli occupation and establish their independent state on all the occupied territories in June 1967, and its capital Jerusalem. Yet the challenge remains how could Palestinian overcome their divisions and set plans for the next period.
In the view of a Palestinian intellectual the sad thing about Abbas decision is that it is addressed to the American and not to his nation. In the speech Abbas accused the USA of favoring the Israeli side which is not a new thing.
The history of the United States towards the Palestinian question demonstrates beyond doubt there is no hope that the US would be fair broker in the Palestine question. The evidence is very obvious:
All presidents from Truman and until Obama unconditionally supported the apartheid state of Israel often in contrast to the American interest itself. Obama was even more extreme when he said that the relationship between the USA and the apartheid state of Israel is more than strategic. This carries a massage that, changing the color of the skin of the man residing the white house does not change the policy towards palestinians.
This political line opposing Abbas found in his decision a chance to attack the political choices of Abbas since 2004.This line argues that during the 5 years abbas went from negotiations to another while Israel is active in building more settlement on the Palestinian land in addition to the wall which has taken about half the west bank.
In the view of Abbas critics he should have told Palestinians there is no way to compromise with the Zionist Nazi ideology and the only way are to face Zionist terror by a new political program which observes all means of struggle. He also should have told Americans that as long as Zionist Jews control the USA policy there is no hope and American is a world power everywhere but have not more the size of Luxemburg when it has to do with Israel.
According to this view none violence method succeeded in India but in Palestine it did not work and it won’t work due to the nature of the Zionist displacement project. Ghandi knew the nature of the zionist colonial project in Palestine which explains his support to the Palestinian arm struggle in the 1936 revolution against the British and the enforced immigrants zionist Jewish in Palestine. According to Abbas critics Palestinians has to review the so called realist political thinking which started in the mid seventies of past century.
It is very obvious lately that more and more Palestinians who are calling to dissolve the Palestinian Authority which became in their view a good cover for the occupation.
The Palestinian revolution rose at the beginning the motto of a democratic state in all Palestine for all.
But in 1974 and under the international pressures, Palestinians replaced the one democratic state in All Palestine to a two state solution which means to establish a Palestinian state in 22 percent of Palestine which is half what the Un allotted to Palestinians in the 1947 division, that division which was seen then as an unjust as it divides the country between natives and over sees Jews.
The Dfpl, the Marxist trend which initiate the two state solutions in 1974 argues that this political program is realist and the whole world will support it.
Today palestinians feel that the west betrayed then again. The voting about the Goldstone report in the general assembly where the vast majority of western countries was against or abstained gives Palestinian yet another example of the western hypocrisy towards the question of human rights in Palestine.
However the withdrawal of Abbas will most likely consolidate the trend which was always opposing his policy which returns the conflict to square one and probably marking a new epoch in the Palestinian struggle against the Zionist Appertide state.
Dr. Salim Nazzal is a Palestinian-Norwegian historian in the Middle East, who has written extensively on social and political issues in the region.[email protected]
