When Free Speech Doesn't Come Free

Free speech is not without consequence. In the United States, for example, criticism of Israel is tantamount to heresy. Former US President Jimmy Carter felt a societal backlash last year after the release of his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which condemned Israel’s apartheid-style policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. Consequently, and without foundation, Carter was branded by many in the American press as a one-sided, anti-Semitic propagandist. Similarly, Harvard professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer were lambasted for a paper the two co-authored that discussed the power of the Israel lobby and its adverse effect on American policy. Additionally, Norman Finkelstein, an esteemed professor at Depaul University and author of the bestselling book, The Holocaust Industry, witnessed a McCarthyite-style campaign mounted against him when he came up for tenure. Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, has been an outspoken critic of Israel’s human rights abuses and of pro-Israel apologist and Harvard professor, Alan Dershowitz. Predictably, it was Dershowitz who led the anti-tenure campaign against him; ultimately, Finkelstein was not only denied tenure, but he lost his job at Depaul.

The attacks against Carter, Finkelstein, Walt and Mearsheimer serve as a few well-known examples of the consequences writers and intellectuals face when they breach the line and criticize Israel. Furthermore, the condemnation writers and intellectuals of Arab descent face are invariably higher than Jews of conscience, former presidents, and highly regarded academics. As a result, many writers often acquiesce to the demands of the mainstream. Their self-censorship usually appears in the form of “toning down the message,” be it to please editors or critics—essentially to conform to the reality of purported pragmatism. Yet, this “pragmatism” is a euphemism for acceptance of a repressive status quo and is analogous to the “necessary” practical thinking that silenced a multitude of commentators during the Oslo years—the supposed time of peace. Unsurprisingly, untold Palestinian suffering followed as a result of increased settlement expansion, land confiscation, checkpoints and seizures, and the ultimate failure of Camp David 2000.

Shying away from perceived controversial matters may help to protect a mainstream career, but the intent of a political analyst should not be to produce works of fiction. The vast majority of Americans weren’t open to criticism of US policy during the run-up to the war on Iraq, mainly due to the media’s complicity in promoting the war, but criticism was still the appropriate course of action based on the facts, and Americans would have been better off for it today.

A man who combined principle, activism, and human appeal quite masterfully was distinguished educator and commentator, Edward Said. In the realm of academia and Middle East analysis, Said was by no means viewed as the quintessential radical. Nonetheless, his positions were radical when juxtaposed with “conventional wisdom”: he was a proponent of the one-state solution, an unwavering critic of the Israeli government, and an ardent supporter of the ostensibly controversial right of return. Said was still heavily criticized throughout his career and endured incessant attacks by his detractors, yet his accessible personality and articulate message kept him relevant.

Sadly, Said’s relative acceptance has been the exception rather than the rule. In recent years, there has been increased emphasis on putative pragmatic dialogue. However, this accentuation on so-called rational and balanced thinking has proven to be little more than a sinister means to pressure the oppressed to accept the position of the oppressor. The greatest leaders of the last hundred years didn’t shy away from controversy; they remained persistent, and saw their visions brought to fruition; be they Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, or Mahatma Gandhi. Nevertheless, one cannot overlook that even paramount figures have been castigated for “overstepping” their boundaries, namely Martin Luther King who was chided for speaking out against the war in Vietnam, imperialism, and social injustices that plagued the US.

This week, Palestinians across the US commemorated 60 years of displacement. Yet, the lens the Palestinian people are expected to look through under the pragmatist vision is one that sees a dispossessed people as necessary victims for a righteous state to take form. Unfortunately, waves of writers and commentators continue to adopt this line in fear of retribution, in exchange for nicer houses and comfortable livings, or a combination of both. That is their free will. Free speech is not without consequence. Nonetheless, losing peace of mind is the only repercussion a writer should fear.

Remi Kanazi is the editor of the forthcoming anthology of poetry, Poets For Palestine, which can be pre-ordered at www.PoetsForPalestine.com. Remi can be contacted at remroum@gmail.com.

Stop Calling Me a Jew! Barack Obama and the Politics of Xenophoia

Barack Obama is not a Jew. He was not raised a Jew, has never been a Jew, and is a committed Christian. Nor has Obama ever prayed in a temple. According to a CNN reporter that is referenced on Obama’s website, Indonesian yeshivas (including the one Obama attended) are not radical yeshivas—unlike the ones in Israel and Brooklyn. Obama is so not Jewish, that even his Jewish stepfather, wasn’t really a Jew. Obama has stated that his stepfather had a “skeptical bent, a man who saw religion as not particularly useful in the practical business of making one’s way in the world.” Obama’s stepfather grew up in Indonesia, a country with the largest Jewish population in the world. To be exactly clear, visit Obama’s page: www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_Jew_1.php

Sadly, if you were to take out each reference to being Jewish in the above paragraph and replace it with being Muslim, you would essentially be looking at the “know the facts” section of the Obama ’08 webpage. Obama and his campaign deemed it not only necessary to defend his angelic image against the scurrilous, absurd claim that he is a Muslim, but found it imperative to address this alarming allegation specifically by adding a separate tab near the top of Obama ’08 webpage, labeled, “on Obama’s religion.”

It’s Barack Obama’s choice to liken being Muslim to getting chlamydia from an underage congressional page, but this man of hope and courier of positive politics has taken the high road often enough, so why not this time? Let me guess, this race (like every race of the last 219 years) is “too important?” If cowering to racism and xenophobia is the remedy, well by all means ladies and gentlemen, let Barack Obama step up to the plate and deliver. But keep in mind, Obama hasn’t been accused of murder; his detractors, which include right-wing evangelicals and pro-Israel paranoids, are accusing him of belonging to a religion that encompasses twenty percent of the world and millions of Americans. The tone in which he and his campaign have responded is particularly disturbing. Obama is becoming the antithesis of his media description; he is protecting his image, instead of his message.

Obama’s raging defensiveness is an unfortunate reality, more so knowing that many Muslim-Americans are campaigning for him and faithfully supporting his candidacy today. Over the last few months, Obama skeptics have been lambasted by individuals championing “the lesser of two evils” rhetoric, but even a self-proclaimed pragmatist’s threshold should have been breached by this point. Obama is going to go as far as his supporters let him. First, he sold out Palestine without conscience because “everyone in politics does it.” Then he sold out Iraq—while Moveon.org crumbled and endorsed him—so he could grab the centrist vote. Then, in an effort to appeal to independents and John McCain supporters, he pledged to add more troops to Afghanistan and vowed to bomb Pakistan if “actionable intelligence” necessitated it. Next to go will be his shoddy healthcare plan, along with his flimsy stance on undocumented workers, and before we know it, he’ll be campaigning for his 2012 reelection.

I recognize that it’s easy to sell out Muslim-Americans. Who actually wants to appeal for their vote, never mind get on an airplane with them, right? But it’s time that Americans grow up and get over their post and pre-9/11 bigotry, and it’s high time that our political candidates take the lead.

As Obama’s hope is swallowed by the raging waters of mainstream politics, Muslim-Americans can dutifully forget about change and accede to the politics of xenophobia. Because what reasonable person would want to be a Muslim today, when that person can be a good Christian like Barack Hussein Obama.

Can I Have My Change Back? Arab-Americans and Obama's False Hope

At what point does an individual stop supporting the lesser of two evils? The question became particularly important this primary race, as one man ascended to political stardom ostensibly breaking free from the evils of mainstream politics and creating a platform based on hope and change. This transcendent figure is presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

Searching for substantive policy, I began to chip away at Obama’s political posturing, and came to a daunting conclusion: there are a multitude of reasons one shouldn’t vote for Barack Obama, especially those within the Arab-American community.

Senator Obama is not anti-war, nor does he genuinely seek appropriate alternatives to militarism in the Middle East. Arab-Americans and putative leftists naively, and sometimes willfully, overlook the fact that he is an ardent supporter of the invasion, bombing, and ongoing occupation of Afghanistan. One also cannot dismiss that his views are consistent with the Democratic Party platform, which aspires to refocus on Afghanistan. Such views bode well with Obama’s plan to deploy additional troops and increase funding, but as with the case in Iraq, it will only intensify the struggles of the civilian population of Afghanistan. Obama fully supported the Lebanon war (even as the Israeli military killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians and leveled civilian infrastructure with tens of thousands of US-shipped cluster bombs), and played up his pro-Israel rhetoric nearly as much as his current Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. As with nearly every other candidate, Obama fully supports Israel’s 40 year occupation of Palestinian land and dutifully endorsed the besiegement of Gaza. Surprisingly, this is a politician who once curried favor with prominent members of the Palestinian community, attending a community fundraiser in which Edward Said was the keynote speaker, dining with Rashid Khalidi in Chicago, and receiving praise from Ali Abuminah during his time as a state senator. Domestically, his shift to the right is glaringly apparent, reflecting weaker stances on undocumented residents, the Patriot Act, gay rights, and a host of other domestic issues.

Obama may have voiced opposition to the Iraq war five years ago, but his “courage” came at a time when it minimally affected his political aspirations. Since entering the senate, he has voted in favor of nearly 300 billion dollars in war appropriations and will continue to appropriate billions more if elected president. Obama is already playing up his ability to be hawkish on foreign policy (e.g. his illustrious declaration that he’d bomb Pakistan on “actionable intelligence”) and has tried to validate himself as a “tough when necessary” type of leader.

Post-911, inexperience with foreign affairs has been a sore point for all Democrats. There is nothing more troubling than a field of candidates trying to prove themselves to their opposition. One only needs to look at the rise of Amir Peretz as Defense Minister in Israel. He was a well-known leftist against the Israeli occupation before coming into office. In an attempt to demonstrate his intestinal fortitude and establish himself among the Israeli public, he championed the destruction of Lebanon, and defended the decision as fervently as any right-wing activist. At best, Obama’s inexperience will limit his capacity to control the military occupation of Iraq, as it would every Democrat and most Republicans during the inaugural year. Additionally, expectation for his vaguely outlined phased withdrawal, which creeps well into midterm election campaigning, further denies the mechanics of mainstream American politics and Congressional trepidation. No Democrat or Republican can afford to lose seats in the house and senate; it’s precisely why little is achieved during election years. Potential voters may find it useful to recall the excitement engendered after the 2006 midterm elections when a pullout was “imminent;” assurances were given that mass hearings would take place on Capitol Hill, and accountability was declared to be the wave of the future. Predictably, campaigning supplanted accountability, while the people of Iraq were left hanging in the balance. Ultimately, no viable political candidate will be able to pull out of Iraq before the 2010 elections.

Contrary to public perception, Obama is not a humanitarian. He consistently places the onus of solving the conflict in Iraq on the Iraqi people alone, absolving the US of its responsibility for an illegal invasion and occupation. Nor does he support a sustainable future for the Iraqi people or their right to reparations; rather, he supports an eventual end to the war primarily to alleviate America’s financial and militaristic burden. His position illustrates a profound difference between a humanistic and militaristic approach to Iraq, the latter of which will have a dramatic negative effect on Iraq’s civilian population. Moreover, Obama squarely blames Iraqis for their own misery, focusing little attention on the US campaign. The incessant mantra that Iraqis refuse to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and accept democracy ignores a simple reality: it was never presented to them in the first place, nor has there been a serious attempt to rebuild Iraq infrastructurally or economically.

Arab-Americans should not be confused. No matter how appetizing the Bobby Kennedy-style rhetoric and charismatic speeches may be, if our community keeps acquiescing to the status quo, it will never change. We must begin building solid coalitions with other groups that face similar challenges (i.e. the Latino and African-American community), or our small vote will amount to little more than election-time pandering. Unfortunately, organizational work and outreach is in its infancy stages. Many of the organizations that purportedly speak for us have become part of the system, consequently stripping away their constituents of their legitimate demands. Furthermore, our community has become enthralled with general election politics, but it isn’t sufficiently focused on working at the state and local levels, where we can have the most impact. Barack Obama may lend more support to our issues than Mike Huckabee, but if our community starts supporting candidates who do not recognize our plight (as well as the plight of other minority groups) our community at home and our families abroad will suffer for endorsing him.

One question still remains: which viable candidate is left to vote for? Unfortunately, in its existing capacity, our vote isn’t strong enough to make a viable impact. Reaching out to prospective candidates can be effective, but it must be coupled with a plan to comprehensively inform the field of where we stand on the issues. Enthusiastically endorsing candidates who refuse to appreciate our concerns is a fundamentally flawed approach. If the system is broken and the game of Washington politics is corrupt, then playing it with a weak hand only strengthens that system. The naysayer will proclaim that our votes count in swing states. Yet, if this was truly the case, our vote would be coveted, not ignored. No viable candidate on either side of the aisle even bothered to show up to the Arab-American Institute's National Leadership Conference in Michigan, where the largest portion of our constituency resides.

Our current predicament underscores the limitation of the two-party system: small voices have no voices. The only way to build a better future for the Arab-American community and positively impact policy toward the Arab world is to invest in ourselves, and begin to build coalitions, where smaller voices can come together to effectively change society. This method will legitimately allow us to empower ourselves without acceding to a blind principled stance. We can’t just hope for a better future; we have to work for it, and sadly, the empty rhetoric spewed by Barack Obama, and the rest of the mainstream candidates, only serve to solidify our problems in perpetuity. So, Yalla Vote! But do it in good conscience, and in a way that makes sense for our community.

One Country: Reviewing an Alternative Vision

For years the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been mired by a series of failed peace negotiation, enmeshing Israeli Jews and Palestinians in a seemingly intractable struggle. Even 59 years after the creation of the state of Israel the quest for Jewish security has not been realized, while Palestinians—those dispossessed in 1948, 1967, and the 3.8 million living under Israeli occupation—have not seen a just resolution to a conflict that has marred their history and shaped their identity. The international community, including many Israeli and Palestinians, still subscribe to the notion that the two-state solution is the only way to settle the conflict.

Ali Abunimah’s new book, One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse, exposes the impracticality of partition and presents an alternative vision, one that encompasses both peoples on the basis of equal rights. The vision Abunimah presents is a one state solution.

One Country begins by revealing the various layers of Israel’s occupation and the grim realities of the proposed two-state solution. The accepted international and Palestinian call for a two-state solution is based on 22 percent of historic Palestine—the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital. The Palestinians (entitled under United Nations Resolution 194) insist on the right of return to their homeland or to be duly compensated for their expulsion. Yet, no Israeli prime minister or prominent figure to date has endorsed this right, nor has any Israeli government proposed a full withdrawal from the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Abunimah reveals that, during the Camp David talks of 2000, Israel’s most “generous” offer to the Palestinians included just 76.6 percent of the West Bank (while Israel would effectively annex East Jerusalem and the territorial waters of the Dead Sea) and demanded that “at least 80 percent of the settlers remain in place.” Abunimah further states, “Israel…insisted on permanent control of Palestinian airspace and a long list of onerous ‘security’ arrangements that would rob the Palestinian state of any real independence from Israel and introduce enormous opportunities for delay and backsliding as had happened with the Oslo Accords.”

Israel couldn’t simply withdraw from the entire West Bank. Israel’s impetus was predicated on the notion that the expansion of its borders and the enlargement of the demographic majority were necessary for its survival. Once the settlements were integrated into the Israeli narrative, successive US administrations acquiesced and declared—privately and publicly—that Israel was “entitled” to keep “parts” of the settlements in a final two-state solution. The settlement process, however, sectioned Palestinians off into inaccessible ghettos, dividing Palestinian land in such a way that a contiguous state became inconceivable. Israel never diverged from its initial plan to annex the settlements into the greater state. Abunimah correctly asserts, “It is not credible that a society would invest billions of dollars in roads and housing that it truly intended to give up.”

Whether Camp David 2000 or a host of other proposals, including the supposedly dovish Geneva Initiative (which scarcely deviated from the Camp David proposal), no plan had envisioned two separate states that would satisfy both Israelis and Palestinians. An initiative has yet to be produced by the Israeli left or right that resembles anything more than a continuation of the mistakes of Oslo and the self-serving policies that emerged during its “peace process.” Abunimah argues that those on the left, such as Yossi Beilin, have advocated plans that, “seek Palestinian endorsement of Israel’s annexation of territory and its refusal to readmit Palestinian refugees to their country.” Abunimah further suggests, “The leaders of the mainstream Israeli left came to embrace Palestinian statehood in theory while undermining it in practice.” The appropriation of Palestinian land and the expansion of settlements accelerated under leftist governments, debunking the myth that “dovish” administrations were needed to make peace with the Palestinians. What the Palestinians continue to need is a viable partner willing to engage with their government on the basis of equality and acceptance exemplified by action rather than words.

A new line of thinking transpired during Ariel Sharon’s administration. The iron-fisted military man, once fixated on annexing the remainder of occupied Palestine, came to grips with Israel’s demographic reality: Israel could not forever control the occupied territories without eventually assuming responsibility of its inhabitants. This transition triggered the shift towards unilateralism, ironically transforming Sharon (in the eyes of the international community) from a military strongman into a “man of peace.” The views articulated through unilateral “disengagement” and represented in the platform of Sharon’s new Kadima party were nothing more than Sharon’s attempt to ensure Israel’s Jewish majority, even if they necessitated militaristic and territorial reshuffling. While Israel “disengaged” from the Gaza Strip and removed 8,500 settlers (keeping full control of Gaza’s borders, airspace, and ports), it added an additional 14,000 settlers to the West Bank that same year. Given the demographic reality, separation was deemed vital, while annexing as much territory with as many settlers as possible remained the fundamental goal. Continued land appropriation, the further development of the apartheid wall, and the incessant efforts to increase the settler population only fan the flames of the conflict and sends a direct signal to the Palestinian people that a unilateralist Israel is disinterested in peace. Abunimah asserts that unilateralism “offers Israel a Jewish-Zionist state at the price of constant bloodshed and growing Palestinian desperation, which, despite all efforts to wall it out, will deprive Israelis of the normality they crave. It is not a solution, but a dangerous delusion.”

Extremist elements in Israel are also facing a daunting certainty: the influx of Jews into the state of Israel is not stably rising and guaranteeing a demographic majority is not possible given that the Palestinian birthrate within Israel far exceeds the Jewish birthrate. Some extremists have called for the outright expulsion of the Palestinian population living within Israel to neighboring Arab states, going further than the policy of keeping Arabs out the country and Palestinians from returning to their homes. Others have called for selective birth control laws for the Arab population, while one Russian-language newspaper, Abunimah writes, “published an article proposing that Arab men should be threatened with castration and that Arab families ‘who have more than one child’ be ‘deprived of benefits, lose their jobs, and [put] under threat of exile.’” Groups calling for the expulsion of Palestinians, such as Yisrael Beytenu and the National Union, are not fringe factions without power. The leader of Yisrael Beytenu, Avigdor Lieberman, now serves as Israel’s Minister of Strategic Affairs and as Deputy Prime Minister, while Yisrael Beytenu has been in the Kadima-led coalition government since October of 2006. Abunimah notes, “Even if most Israeli politicians do not openly advocate expulsion, their tolerance of those who do is alarming.” The fears of such extreme policy were heightened after this summer’s war on Lebanon, which forced hundreds of thousands of Lebanese civilians to flee their homes. These extremist attitudes reinforce the failure of the Israeli “peace camp” and further illustrate the infeasibility of the two-state solution.

Abunimah’s comprehensive criticism of the two-state solution is an insightful, well-founded argument that is essential for any reader looking for an alternative approach to resolve the conflict. Abunimah proposes that “Creating a single state for Israeli Jews and Palestinians could in theory resolve the most intractable issues: the fate of Israeli settlements built since 1967, the rights of Palestinian refugees, and the status of Jerusalem.” The alternative: perpetual conflict, absent of security for Jews or Palestinians, coupled with regional turmoil and the continuation of biased American foreign policy that stands to benefit no one except a select few in Israel, America, and a handful of quislings in the Palestinian Authority.

Over time most Israelis and Palestinians have come to the realization that no matter the settlement, the Jews and Palestinians of Israel will remain living together and the Palestinians of the occupied territories will stay on their land. Abunimah presents a solution that meets the geographical needs of both peoples. He argues, “The main attraction of a single-state democracy is that it allows all the people to live in and enjoy the entire country while preserving their distinctive communities and addressing their particular needs. It offers the potential to deterritorialize the conflict and neutralize demography and ethnicity as a source of political power and legitimacy.” Abunimah lays out a plan consisting of eight principles (based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Belfast agreement) for the one-state solution. Drawing upon such well regarded documents and models gives his argument the credibility that the two-state solution sincerely lacks. While calls for a two-state solution have come with slogans and promises of peace, little work has been done outlining what achieving peace entails.

Many Israeli Jews contend that Palestinians do not want to participate in a free and fair society with the Jews of Israel. Yet, as in most societies, issues such as economics and education bind people together—while conflict and oppression pull them apart. Abunimah points out that, “Within Israel a significant number of Arab voters have traditionally supported the Labor Party for economic and social policy reasons despite its alienating Zionist ideology.” The road to a one-state solution will not be easy, but it is the only practicable solution that ensures the security of both peoples. Abunimah often cites Belgium’s democratic process, a “modern one-person, one-vote democracy…with modest safeguards” as a model which Israelis and Palestinians can look to. Belgium continues the process of constitutional reform which, as Abunimah notes, has led to a decline in separatism in Belgian society. Many of Abunimah’s detractors fear that the one country proposal may indeed work, which would run counter to the ideals of political dominance and exclusivity. Abunimah’s insight gives reason to be hopeful, and his approach comes with a deep sincerity that should be admired and taken seriously.

The primary reason that Abunimah’s vision for a one-country solution can work is that it positions the two peoples forward based on equality. In a conflict such as this, intention matters as much as action: if two people are progressing down a positive path, and good faith measures are employed, the fear of the other will slowly subside with each positive step. One Country is not an insidious outline of what Palestinians must do to gain access to all of historic Palestine. Abunimah makes a point throughout the book to not only address Palestinian issues such as the right of return and Palestinian property rights but also discusses the property rights of Jews who were stripped of their residency in the Arab world after 1948. Moreover, Abunimah understands the personal significance Jews see in having their Diaspora be able to return to Israel. This was a belief that the late Edward Said advocated: the Palestinian people cannot be brought forward by marginalizing the Jewish population, but rather the goal is to strengthen the two communities by embarking on a path together. Abunimah tackles such contentious issues as Israel’s education system, the disparity of funding within Israeli society regarding Jews and Palestinians and presents “a suggestion for a shared future for Israelis and Palestinians in a society that is democratic and tolerant, where two peoples who have fought for decades agree on rules that all can live by.”

Nonetheless, it is hard to imagine how Israeli and Palestinians could do the unthinkable and forge a future together after so many years of conflict. They both can learn much from the South African model and the fall of apartheid. Abunimah suggests that peace and reconciliation seemed impossible to the white Afrikaners and the native black population. After 400 years of white South African rule, with diverging narratives of their respective history, it appeared virtually inconceivable that a peaceful resolution to the conflict could materialize, but it did.

Abunimah exposes the patent similarities of the Zionist and white Afrikaner narratives, which both were “shaped by memories of expulsion, persecution, redemption, and rebirth and guided by a single-minded quest for national survival.” Both groups staked their claim upon the myths that the native populations were uncivilized and that the native rejection of the newcomer’s dominance was based upon hatred. Zionists and Afrikaners alleged that they brought their respective uncivilized population a superior way of life, with new technological advances, and argued that the native population should have been appreciative of their arrival. It is unsurprising that the Israeli government was a critical supporter of the apartheid government, even after the international community had turned on the apartheid regime and imposed sanctions. Abunimah notes, “To the ears of Palestinians or Africans, the justifications of Zionists and Afrikaner pioneers presented a stark choice: Submit or disappear.” The Afrikaner population also presented the theory that if they were to relinquish control and give rights to the barbaric African population, the black population would use its new-found power to seek the destruction of the Afrikaner people. Zionists use the same rationale: giving up control to the Palestinian population would lead to the Jews being driven into the sea. The fall of apartheid and the process of reconciliation in South Africa shattered the myth that the marginalized and oppressed black population would seek retribution against the Afrikaner population.

Abunimah asserts that once whites were forced to get over their fear of black supremacy and retribution, the implementation of a just solution and the process of reconciliation became much easier. He explains that reconciliation was vastly brought forward by Nelson Mandela, “Mandela urged South Africans to embrace any Afrikaner who abandoned apartheid, and thus Afrikaners gained a legitimacy in the eyes of other South Africans that they were unable to wrest through centuries of domination. It is an incredibly simple and powerful maneuver, yet one that so far has been beyond the ability of most Israelis and Palestinians.” Abunimah insists that Palestinians must look towards Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC) and its Freedom Charter, a move that could be instrumental in bringing the Palestinians forward to reach out to the Israeli people. Unfortunately, it is usually the oppressed who must come forward with a vision of peace and hope, engaging on an internal and global campaign to lift the unjust measures placed upon their people. The Palestinians have yet to fully realize this model, which Abunimah contends, is due in large part to the freshness of Palestinian wounds, while black South Africans had been dealing with white dominance for more than 400 years. He argues that this is why the principle of equality will quell the fears of both peoples, “The moment Israelis and Palestinians commit themselves to full equality, there is no rationale for separate states.”

A key step Palestinians must take is the further development and utilization of the resistance movement. While the Palestinian movement has expanded internally, it still has much work to do. Protests, such as the ones against the apartheid wall in Bil'in (which includes not only Palestinians, but Jews and international activists), are crucial steps in the right direction, but they haven’t sparked a broader movement in the occupied territories and Israel, which could significantly affect Israeli society. The global divestment movement has ignited interest and dialogue among several churches, as well as numerous teacher and labor unions. Arts and culture has served as a model of resistance, including the Made in Palestine art exhibit in the US, the showcasing of My Name is Rachel Corrie after one theater company canceled the show in New York City, the myriad Palestinian film festivals spanning across the globe and the Palestinian hip hop movement that has emerged not only in the occupied territories but throughout the Diaspora. In addition many individuals and groups have used the internet as a tool for documenting and sharing the Palestinian narrative, including websites such as the Electronic Intifada (which Abunimah co-founded). Engaging and supporting these forms of resistance and engendering new methods are vital for the Palestinian people and the supporters of their plight.

Palestinian groups internally continue to keep the moral upper hand through the cessation of suicide bombings that target civilians, but must continue to embark upon a campaign of resistance. Abunimah argues, “It was only when internal and external pressure made the monopoly on power too costly to maintain that whites grasped for a way out and listened seriously to the ANC’s ideas. Hence, continued resistance and struggle to raise the cost of the status quo for the powerful party is also essential. But a delicate balance requires that resistance exacts a price yet avoids creating so much new suffering that reconciliation becomes impossible.”

It is easy for those within Israel and America to evade negotiations by proclaiming that they will not engage in dialogue until Palestinian rocket attacks stop (attacks which have killed fewer than five Israelis in the last five years). On the other hand, Palestinians argue, how can they stop their attacks when Israel conducts “operations” inside the occupied territories that often kill more than five civilians in a single day? Nonetheless, negotiations toward a future together must take place, as was the case in South Africa, proceeding whether or not the conflict comes to calm. Abunimah explains, “Like Israel, the white government of South Africa always insisted that it would not negotiate as long as violence continued,” yet Abunimah cites former apartheid President F.W. de Klerk who stated, “South Africa was burning with violence, but no one allowed himself the luxury of believing that we could wait with the negotiations until the violence ceased.”

The lessons from South Africa are invaluable to both Israelis and Palestinians. Abunimah contends, “What Palestinians can learn from South Africa is that the promise of a future of reconciliation rather than revenge can rob an unjust system of the support it needs to survive because such systems are often built on fear—in the case of Israel and South Africa, the fear…of being destroyed. The lesson for Israelis is to listen to their enemies rather than demonize them, which may lead to a secure future free of the burden of ruling others by force.” This is not to suggest that the process can happen overnight, but through incremental steps, which actuate positive results, this process can gain momentum, bringing a better future to both peoples.

Palestinian polls consistently show that Palestinians want peace for their people and that they are willing to coexist with Israelis. The major gripes Palestinians continue to have is the unjustness of occupation, the rejection of the right of return and the absence of a proposed settlement that includes their narrative and rights. After 39 years of occupation, Palestinians remain adamant in their calls for democracy and equality within their society. Despite the fact that Hamas was overwhelmingly elected into power in the January 2006 elections, Palestinians have not called for the installation of Islamic Law, rather they used their democratic vote to call for reform and oust the thuggish and self-serving Fatah-led government. While different cultural and community identities would persist in a one-state solution, they would not necessarily alter the feasibility of the two peoples living together as many other diverse societies do today (and as is the case with the 1.3 million Palestinians living inside of Israel, albeit under unequal conditions). Edward Said commented on the possibilities of one state in 1998, “Once the initial acknowledgment of the other as an equal is made, I believe the way forward becomes not only possible but also attractive.”

Many other great thinkers, including Azmi Bishara, Joesph Massad and George Bisharat have called for a one-sate solution to end the current conflict. Abunimah asserts, “Those who believe in a two-state solution for years came to realize that it only offered false promises of peace.” It would be foolish to suggest that a one-state solution will happen overnight, while an untold number of obstacles must be overcome and surely new obstacles would emerge, but a growing number of Palestinians and Israelis are coming to the conclusion that a one-state solution is the only reasonable solution to end the impasse, which makes its realization all the more achievable. Abunimah’s book may not be the key to a one state solution, as he readily admits, but it is surely a well founded guide to help Palestinians and Israelis begin to resolve the conflict.

One Country is an inspiring message of hope and reconciliation, and presents an intricate and well-crafted path for two peoples that deserve not only reconciliation, but also a prosperous future.



*One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse is available at www.Amazon.com.

Unmasking the Second Palestinian Intifada

Over the last five years, the Palestinian people have faced a host of obstacles in their fight for sovereignty, preventing them the opportunity to create a life those in the Western world brag about. A principal impediment facing the Palestinian struggle today is the constant reaffirmation that the Palestinian people—deemed by Israel and the US—are “terrorists,” “militants,” or animalistic beings lesser than those of the “civilized world.” In Ramzy Baroud’s new book, The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of People’s Struggle, this myth is shattered. The propaganda that has infiltrated Western discourse has proven counterfeit; misinformation that has framed US policy regarding Israel, leading to a multitude of double standards imposed upon Palestinians. These inconsistencies have exponentially magnified the suffering of the Palestinian people and hindered their efforts to gain control of the land in which they live.

Baroud poignantly describes the dilemma Palestinians face. The generalization that all Palestinians are “terrorists” or “militants,” allows the Israeli government to act with virtual impunity and equips Israeli forces with a moral endowment; they are acting in the name of “good” and challenging this policy is tantamount to collusion with the “forces of evil.” Baroud offers the reader this grim truth, “Being a Palestinian activist means you could be targeted in a taxicab, in your office, sipping coffee with your neighbors, or sitting in your home. When you live, you live in poverty, deprived of all freedoms and joys of life. And when you die, it’s a horrible death by a surface-to-surface missile, a car bomb, or a sniper’s bullet.”

The sincerity and passion in Baroud’s approach is remarkable and commendable. The reader is given the opportunity to feel the angst and heartfelt anger sparked inside Baroud, a Palestinian born in a Gazan refugee camp and a writer who searched Jenin in hopes of finding the truth and preserving the stories of those that had suffered. Baroud has worked tirelessly to shine light on the mischaracterized Palestinian; civilians and activists who have been and continue to be sacrificed as inconsequential variables in Israel’s fight for “the greater good.”

For more than five years, successive Israeli governments implemented policies that undermined the possibilities of freedom and democracy in Occupied Territories, the very principals the United States proclaimed it tried to spread throughout the region. Palestinians further saw their human rights and chances for sustenance and sustainability calculatedly stripped away by Israel’s supposed “moral” military. Time and again, Baroud debunks the falsehoods put forth by Israel and America, falsehoods consequently disseminated by Western media outlets. Israel’s objective is to reinforce the notion that it is the Palestinian people who are the aggressors, while Israel is the patient victim—acting in self defense under only the most extreme cases. Baroud notes, “It’s the same dreadful scenario repeated incessantly. Israel murders many innocent civilians; the international community hears nothing, sees nothing, and does nothing…in anger and desperation, a Palestinian blows himself up in a crowd of Israeli…the Western world is utterly overcome with a wave of condemnations of “Palestinian terrorism,” “the enemies of peace.”

Baroud comes back to the issue of suicide bombings several times in his book. An erroneous claim presented in Western circles is that the Palestinian people are brought up to hate, kill, foment intolerance and engage in regressive thought and actions. This supposedly triggers the reason for a Palestinian to become a suicide bomber. Baroud aptly asserts, however, that Palestinians are not driven to end their lives because they are products of intolerance or consumed with hatred. Rather he gives a more practical motivation for one to commit such an act. Baroud states, “When a policy of starvation, assassination, and systematic killing is imposed, when people are brutalized in the streets, when schools are raided by Apache helicopters…when a whole nation is collectively abused and violated with almost no protection…for those victims…blowing oneself up might actually seem like a rational way out of a despairing situation.”

Baroud makes it clear that the way forward is to take the moral high ground, no matter how hard the struggle, and no matter what dividends one may think it yields, politically or personally. This is what has fundamentally separated the occupier and occupied for so long in this conflict; a clear cut victim existed, it was the Palestinians, suffering 39 years of occupation, with many still affected by the hardships of dispossession 58 years later. Baroud writes, “To maintain its moral edge, the Palestinian revolution should not depart from its all-encompassing, tolerant, and inclusive path, it should not be tainted by the fallacies of the occupier…These values must remain untainted, wholesome even, so that the will of the people might some day prevail over tyranny and oppression. And it will, of this I am certain.”

The spirit of non-violent resistance has been alive since the birth of the Palestinian struggle. Most notably, the non-violent protests of the first Intifada, which were met by the iron fist of the Israeli state. This iron fist policy was a specialty of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon during the second Intifada. Baroud writes, “They go to the streets to protest the killing of a child, and they return home carrying another shot while protesting.” Non-violent protests have been plentiful in the second Intifada, but through growing desperation, measures that were traditionally absent from the Palestinian struggle were taken up by individuals consumed with feelings of helplessness and anger, triggered by the wrongs inflicted upon their people by the Israeli state.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the “Butcher of Beirut,” the rogue military man who wasn’t afraid of controversy and saw diplomacy as a nuisance, wasn’t scared to put down resistance of any kind, whether the resistance came in the form of children throwing rocks or a group non-violently protesting against the Apartheid Wall. His bulldog tactics and ruthless policies were not only his modus operandi but his raison d’être. It was in this context that his policies were carried out, without regard to “collateral damage.”

Baroud aptly asserts that the Palestinian response to Israeli aggression “should have been a wake-up call for the Israeli government, making it clear that violence begets nothing but violence and…that a solution to the conflict would only come through the implementation of international law, not Apache helicopters and missiles.” If the Israeli government wouldn’t pull back the reigns of Ariel Sharon, then surely the US, the UN, the EU or any country with the slightest backbone could have uttered words of condemnation against Israel. The status quo, however, continued: America rallied around Israel, the rest of the international community remained silent and the Palestinians suffered the consequences.

In deep rooted conflicts, it is important to note that intention matters much more than action. Take for example, the unilateral disengagement of the Gaza Strip; Sharon had no intention of giving the Palestinian people autonomy, nor did he have the intention of giving Gazans control of their resources, airspace, territorial water, or borders. Sharon saw the pullout as a necessary militaristic and political move, a shift in policy that benefited Israel, without any consideration for the lives of the 1.4 million Palestinians that would be left living in an open air prison, under de facto Israeli occupation. Without missing a beat, the international community and media applauded Sharon’s “gesture of peace.” This was the fundamental flaw of the unilateral disengagement of the Gaza Strip, it was predicated on the assertion that disengagement equated to peace, and it’s what makes the notion that Sharon had gone through a transformation such an egregious fallacy.

Throughout the conflict, the primary US excuses to support Israel has been that “Israel is our friend,” it is the “only democracy in the Middle East,” and “given the times we live in” (i.e. the post 9/11 world), it is more crucial than ever to support Israel’s struggle against “tyranny and Islamic fanaticism.” After that tragic morning, when nearly 2800 American citizens lost their lives, the people of the US have been constantly ingested with propaganda promoting policies suitable for the US government and its “friends”, but directly contradict the principals of humanity and any sensible definition of justice. Policy makers and government officials in the West have used this heartbreaking event to create an “us versus them” type of world, without educating us on who “them” is.

Baroud explains the new model, “Fighting terror is the new trend; whereby aggressive, powerful countries crush their weaker foes, deprive them of freedom, while continuing to blame them for all the woes of the world. And we, the people of this world who mean well but fail to act, are expected to believe everything we are told. Israel is defending itself as though it were the Palestinian who occupy Israeli territories, besiege the Israel people, blow up their homes, steal their land, and gun down their children.” At some point the light switch has to turn on in our heads that killing and creating “evil empires” when it serves interests, rather than when it serves logic, is a flaw that tears at the very fabric of truly democratic societies. Baroud writes, “When will we treasure the lives of people of all nations on an equal level, whether they be American, Afghani, Iraqi, Israeli, Palestinian, Turkish, Kurdish, Russian, Chechen, or any other? How long will we remain blinded by empty slogans, unexplained hatred, and pretentious condemnations?”

Baroud leaves no one untouched in The Second Palestinian Intifada. He does much to underscore the shortcomings of the late Yasser Arafat, the weakness and lack of credibility of Mahmood Abbas, and the many failures of US intervention (passed off as honest brokering). Baroud doesn’t pull punches when critiquing the Palestinian Authority (PA), particularly its corruptness and incompetence.

Baroud specifically uncovers the disingenuousness of “negotiations” led by Abbas and highlights the acquiescence and political posturing of Palestinian figures in times when strength and political purity was needed. Under the rule of the “old guard,” the PA lost sight of the Palestinian struggle. The PA’s duties were supposed to include preserving and fighting for the rights of its people, defending its citizens against the sordid policies of Israel, and demanding that the international community intervene. Yet, the leaders within the PA were so intent on keeping power and following defunct policies rooted in corruption and nepotism, that they failed to remember that they weren’t representing themselves, but a population of 3.8 million people, a people who were suffering the daily realities of occupation.

Palestinian ineptitude only strengthened Israel’s position and policy, which Israel had no intention of changing. Israel never had any desire, or pressure, to implement international law, nor did it intend to pursue a course of action that respected Palestinian human rights. Whether Labor, Likud, or Kadima, each Israeli administration knew that a change in policy would fly in the face of what it was trying to accomplish: the territorial control and expropriation of fertile Palestinian land in the West Bank, the annexation of East Jerusalem, the control of the Palestinian people’s water supply, and the suppression of the Palestinians inalienable right to autonomy and freedom from occupation in any form. This is why resolution 194 (calling for the right of return), and resolution 242 and 338 (calling on Israel to pull back to the June 1967 borders) have never been seriously discussed—not after the signing of the Oslo Accords, not at Camp David in 2000 and surely not since.

It is not just the ruling Palestinian Authority that faced problems, but rather all factions, particularly in the lead up to the unilateral “disengagement” of the Gaza Strip. Baroud suggests, “By failing to take care of their own destiny in a unified fashion, Palestinians…were taking the risk of being marginalized and victimized by mandates and caretakers…A[n] internal dispute coupled with muscle-flexing would deeply harm all that the Palestinians had fought long and hard to achieve. The media was, as ever, willing to condemn and lambaste Palestinians, their incompetence and failures, retrospectively validating Israel’s policy”

Baroud’s glimpses of frustration, anger, and jarring sarcasm gives his story a distinct humanness, a tone that is refreshing, and one that the reader can identify with. After being inundated with death tallies and daily reports of carnage, readers many times become desensitized to the news, making one forget how horrible, tragic, and grueling occupied Palestinian life truly is.

At one point, Baroud seems fed up with the almost comical confines the Palestinian people are put in. Baroud asserts, “It [Israel] killed and wounded hundreds of civilians in its ‘targeted killing’ sprees. Yet, Palestinians were condemned if they showed the mere desire to respond. Even the targeting of occupation soldiers was taboo. So what were the Palestinians permitted to do in self-defense, in accordance with the twisted pro-Israeli Bush doctrine? How about marching in a peaceful demonstration? In, Rafah, that too was anathema and could not be tolerated. It was handled with resolute vigor, the same way a ‘terrorist’ threat deserved to be handled: A missile fired from a U.S.-supplied Apache helicopter was all that it took to eliminate that option of resistance.”

The Second Palestinian Intifada is not merely a tirade on the Palestinian people being subjected to Israeli policy and US support of that policy. The way forward is clear: the acceptance and instituting of international law, the end to the 39 year occupation, and the emergence of fair brokers, mainly the US, the UN, and the European Union.

The relevancy and necessity for Baroud’s analysis and critique in these pressing times cannot be overstated. The genuineness of Baroud’s approach is one to be admired and applauded. His insistence to uncover injustices carried out by Israel (with full support of the US administration) is unwavering, yet doesn’t cloud his judgment.

At his core, Baroud stays hopeful, “It has always been an old habit of mine to sign off messages in the days preceding the New year by expressing: ‘I pray that the coming year will bring peace and justice to our troubled world.’ Despite disappointing experiences, I persist in this, because hope is essential.”

The fight for Palestine, a vision to end the injustice imposed upon them, illustrates the common threat of injustice that plagues all oppressed people. This struggle is something to be cherished, to work for and to improve. Baroud explains, “In spite of dashed hopes and failed summits, peace and justice movements around the word, representing an array of struggles, continue to look to the Palestinian people as an icon of resistance.”

What is happening today in the Occupied Territories isn’t politics. It is an overwhelming nightmare that plagues 3.8 million people every day. Each person in the Occupied Territories has a story, a story that is equally significant and heartbreaking, whether revealing that a relative has been killed, land has been taken from them, their home has been bulldozed to the ground or the humiliating act of being stopped, restricted, or harassed by Israel forces, this is the reality with which they live. The human story Baroud puts forth is meant not only to educate and inform, but to encourage and inspire. The peoples of struggle mustn’t be forgotten, nor should they be silenced. Baroud does service to this cause and because of it, has left the flame of struggle burning brighter.


The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle, published by Pluto Press, can be found on Amazon.com.

Hazardous Intent: US Brokers in Palestine

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is back in the Middle East and she is in a “very concerned” state. For someone who has played Israeli ambassador to the Middle East since her tenure began, her on again, off again call for the plight of the Palestinian people has become more predictable than orange alerts during election season. In her newest stint, providing false promises and pernicious rhetoric, Rice vowed to “redouble” US efforts to “improve conditions for the Palestinian people.” Rice, however, came to the table empty handed, with photographers trailing closely behind to capture images of hope, concern, and heartfelt declarations. Nevertheless, eye catching headlines and West Bank photo ops will not put food on the table for the Palestinian people, nor will it end the economic, physical, and political blockade imposed upon the Occupied Territories by the international community.

If Rice was concerned for the wellbeing of the Palestinian people, she wouldn’t have waited until hundreds of Palestinians had perished at the hands of Israeli forces to take interest. A humanitarian would have intervened to stop Israel’s siege and immediately combated its effects: the rise in poverty and unemployment, the drop in wages, constant food shortages, and the heightening of tensions between factions in Gaza and the West Bank. At any point, Rice could have rode in on her white horse to fulfill last year’s promises: the implementation of bus convoys between the West Bank and Gaza, the sustained entryway and exit through the Rafah border and a bolstering of freedom and democracy throughout the region. Furthermore, the feeding tube that had been inserted into the Palestinian economy—made necessary by 39 years of occupation—would not have been pulled with her expressed support.

The BBC quoted UN special rappoteur on Palestinian human rights, John Dugard, as stating, “In effect, the Palestinian people have been subjected to economic sanctions – the first time an occupied people has been so treated.” Moreover, as we’ve seen in Lebanon, the enforcement of Israel’s requirements—i.e. abiding by UN resolution 1701, which Israel clearly violated by conducting a Special Forces mission in the sovereign state of Lebanon—has not been enforced, adding to the multitude of double standards already in place. The Palestinian government is expected, and pressured on a variety of levels, to accept Israel’s right to exist, end armed struggle, and accept the Oslo Accords and all previous agreements (a condition which hardliners in the Israeli Knesset refuse to do). These demands come at a time when Israel unabashedly flouts international law and refuses to implement just one UN resolution pertaining to it. Nonetheless, this continues to be standard US policy—safeguard Israel from criticism and punishment at all costs.

The Future of Palestine

The Palestinians for their part have fallen into the trap set by Israel and America—divide and conquer each other. Hamas and Fatah know well that the way forward is together rather than in disgruntled factions vying for power. Civil war status will bear fruit for no one. It will only serve as a catalyst for further Israeli attacks and augment the future bombing campaigns in Gaza. Now that its first round in Lebanon is over, Israel will undoubtedly use the coming days to focus on Gaza.

The Palestinian voice has been its strongest when unified. It is crucial that the two parties join together, whether based on the joint Hamas-Fatah prisoner document or on negotiations of their own making. The Palestinian people’s best foot forward will emanate from cohesion rather than submission to Israeli/American pressure. Those in the Occupied Territories were taught a lesson by the blockade: in the absence of complete acquiescence, the international community is willing to coerce, strangulate, impoverish, and kill in the name of the greater goal. This lesson should have been learned after the years of the international backed sanctions on Iraq, the NATO bombings of the Balkans, and America’s relentless pursuit to conquer Vietnam. Yet current and past victims seem to let these events become distant memories, while its proponents justify crimes with omission and attempt to cleanse themselves of fault with post-invasion phrases like “in hindsight.”

The Palestinian people cannot continue to let the international community omit their struggle, nor can it let the international community degrade the value of their lives with taglines and catchy phrases. There is too much at stake: the future of Palestine, the security and well being of its people and the right to create a life of its own design.