14 - 20 December 2000
Issue No.512
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 14 - 20 December 2000 Issue No.512 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
The alternative is here
Oslo has been described as "the only show in town." and, as a culmination of "the peace process" effectively launched by Henry Kissinger in the wake of the October 1973 War, its claim to having cornered the market on the Arab-Israeli conflict -- indeed, on regional political development as a whole -- was not without justification. "What is the alternative?" The question was rammed down critical throats, even as the grim reality of Apartheid was being created step by giant step on Palestinian land. Shouted with aplomb and derision by the US-driven peace process's many champions, the rhetorical question was supposed to be the argument to end all argument -- even when one pointed out to process publicists that they spoke with a forked tongue, for after all, one can defend Oslo either as inescapable submission to the realities of power or as the road to peace, justice and national self-determination, but it is a little difficult to do both.
Well, guys, the only show in town has folded. What's the alternative now?
They have none. They may mumble under their collective breath that, admittedly, Oslo had many shortcomings (no self-criticism or reassessment, however). They may issue half-hearted appeals to a different negotiating framework; to greater European involvement, perhaps, or maybe the UN. But other than desperate bids to draw one last breath out of Oslo's corpse, the leaders of the self-styled "peace camp" in Palestine and the Arab world are obviously at a total loss as to what to do next. Notwithstanding sordid secret channels and shameful talk of the resumption of "security cooperation" (which, had it not been so obviously futile and cosmetic, would have been nothing short of spying for the enemy in war time), they have nothing to offer other than professions of undying allegiance to "the strategic choice of peace."
Such is the Kafkaesque absurdity of the climactic realisation of the 25-year-long Middle East peace process that the Arab "parties" are even now being goaded to rush to Barak's side, strike some sort of deal, any kind of deal, with him, or face the prospect of either an emergency national unity government under Barak, the butcher of the West Bank and Gaza, and Sharon, the butcher of Lebanon, or a Likud government under Netanyahu, the ultimate symbol of the new populist fascism overtaking Israeli society.
Ironically, the Palestinian leadership's next step is so blatantly obvious it is staring it squarely in the face. In fact, it is no more than acknowledging what has already been decided and put into effect by the Palestinian people on the ground. It was the Intifada that delivered the Oslo process its death blow; it has been the Palestinian people's declaration of all-out revolt against the submission that was inscribed in the process from the start, at the very moment of its apparent fruition. Why not admit it? What is preventing the Palestinian leadership from declaring openly, clearly, without the usual mumbling and shuffling and contradictory signals, that Oslo is dead, that the Palestinians have withdrawn from the American-led-and-designed farce called the peace process -- officially and formally -- as they have done effectively, on the ground? It cannot be for fear of Israeli punishment. Both in terms of scale and sheer, unrestrained brutality, Israel's military campaign against the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is unprecedented at least since June '67 and, it could well be argued, since 1948. And this military campaign is, precisely, punishment for the Palestinian people's effective declaration of withdrawal from the peace process.
A declaration of formal withdrawal from the American-led peace process, while no more than an acknowledgment of Palestinian "facts on the ground," is not a mere gesture. And certainly, its value does not lie in sending a "message" of any sort to the Americans, the Israelis or, for that matter, the much sought after but eternally reluctant Europeans. First and foremost it would be a declaration of intent before the Palestinian and Arab peoples; a long-overdue battle cry, proclaiming that the time for negotiations is over and that now is a time for struggle. For the Palestinians, especially, such a declaration will mean that the "leadership" has for once thrown its lot in with the people, that their heroism and enormous sacrifices will not be wasted through the usual back-sliding and sordid secret back-room deals. It will mean that organising, rationalising and developing the struggle -- not its manipulation and ultimate betrayal -- are the order of the day. As for the Arab states, Arafat would no doubt find great difficulty in obtaining their blessings for such a step, but not even the most ardent, secret, "normalisers" among them would dare oppose it, once taken. On the contrary, it would expose them to greatly intensified pressure from their own peoples to raise the level of their support and assistance to the Palestinian struggle.
In short, it would inspire and motivate. And what more evidence do we need for the importance of inspiring, motivating and organising the struggle of the people than that offered by the Intifada during the past two and a half months? Within a few weeks, without a coherent leadership or strategy, the Palestinians brought down an edifice the Americans, the Israelis and their many regional friends have been building for 25 years.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
