What do Palestinians want?

Ahmed Bouzid

One of the sad tragedies of the Palestinian struggle is the reality that Palestinians have suffered and continue to suffer such an array of injustices that just advertising them to the world, let alone fighting and resisting them, can consume one emotionally, intellectually, and physically, beyond the point of exhaustion: houses demolished, land confiscated, villages cut off, towns and cities under siege, military check points harassing hundreds of thousands of civilians on a daily basis, rock throwing children and teenagers shot at and killed, civilians at home killed by Israeli fire, medics shot at and killed, workers kept away from their jobs, state sponsored assassinations carried out regularly, refugees denied return to their land and houses, etc. etc. etc.

As a result, the bottom line of what Palestinians want is somehow lost in the outcries raised against the unending stream of Israeli outrages. At least here in the US, if one were to ask a relatively well-informed, well-educated American: "what do Palestinians want?", chances are that one would not get a clear and straightforward answer. For your above-average American, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is perceived to be complex beyond comprehension, beyond hope, so that Palestinian outcries, even when they are received favorably (and many of them are), somehow do not leave the residue of sympathy they should be leaving.

One of the reasons why this is the case (and probably not the only reason, and probably not even the main reason) is that Palestinian outcries against Israeli aggression have not been properly framed within the context of a clear and easy to understand moral and political goal.

Compare this to the carefully crafted and carefully managed framing from the Israeli side: the number one concern for Israel, we are told over and over again, is Israel's "security". The whole history of the conflict, along with the rationale behind Israeli actions, are reduced to one single word: "security". With this framework in place, the job of explaining actions and reactions can be carried out in a coherent, consistent manner, thus creating the illusion of truth. Why does Israel cut off whole towns? -- to deter "terrorism" and ensure "Israeli security". Why did Israel invade the West Bank and Gaza along with the Sinai and the Golan Heights? – because it wanted to create a "security buffer zone". Why did Israel invade Lebanon in 1982? -- to pursue "terrorists" who were jeopardizing Israel's "security". Why does Israel build settlements deep in Palestinian territory? -- to maintain its "security". Why does Israel insist on a demilitarized Palestine? -- "security". Why must Palestine be cut off from all other Arab lands – "security". What does the IDF shoot at crowds of stone throwing youths? – because it must ensure the "security" of its armed forces. Why does Israel maintain military presence in a town with a population of 120,000 Palestinians and 400 Israelis? – to ensure the "security" of the Israelis living there. Everything is explained through this one powerful lens: "security".

To say the least, the strategy has been effective. Indeed, one of the oldest tricks that good propaganda machines know how to turn is the trick of coherence. A tightly coherent picture compels one to believe that it is based on reality, even when it is based on pure myths and falsifications. By the same token, a fragmented story, even when based on glaring reality, is hard to absorb – its reality reduced to disconnected anecdotes, each eliciting sympathy, but together creating a world of confusion.

Fragmentation of the Palestinian message, of course, is not only precisely what the Israeli occupation wants: it is something that the occupation has consciously promoted on all fronts: politically, economically, socially, and militarily. Scatter the opposition and buy time. And with time, the fragments will grow smaller and eventually will vanish. It worked quite nicely in the United States with the Natives - Israel is doing nothing but emulating its benevolent guardian.

I say all this because I find it striking that the Palestinian struggle, after decades of resistance, still does not have one uniting slogan! Or at least, has not come across as having one uniting slogan. Apartheid had one clear call to arms: "End Apartheid now!" around which people could rally. And one reason why the anti- Apartheid movement succeeded was because the rallying cry -- the goal to be pursued by one and all -- was clear cut and could be articulated in one simple sentence: "End Apartheid -- now!" Moreover, it was not only a moral call, but a political one that could be defined concretely - e.g., by passage of a law by parliament. The question is: why don't the Palestinians also have one simple, unifying message, such as "We want a fully independent Palestine now!"? Why don't Palestinians have a clear, simple message that can be repeated over and over again, by one and all, so that when you ask anyone, no matter how distantly they may be following the conflict, "what do Palestinians want?", they will readily answer you with: "they want an independence state"?

Asking for a fully independent state is a moral goal that no fair- minded person could reject on its own merits: it is an internationally recognized right, and one that anyone, including Americans, can immediately grasp and identify with. And it is also a politically measurable desideratum: full independence means total evacuation of the occupying force from Palestinian land.

If the world were to clearly grasp the one goal that Palestinians want - full independence - then Palestinian actions can begin to be framed as actions towards a specific goal, and not just as manifestations of anger, of frustration, of desperation, of hatred -- the framing that the occupation wants the world to maintain about the Palestinian struggle. Palestinians should begin to push one clear message and rally around that one message, so that the whole world can answer with one simple word the question: "What do Palestinians want?". And that word should be: independence.