Dr. Majed Nassar
Union of Health Work Committees
Palestine
For most people in the West, the terms "Palestinian" and "Intifada" are synonymous, though few understand the real meaning of "Intifada." Altering a passage from an Israeli tour guide (on Massada) will give some insight into the concept of "Intifada." (The text in parentheses is the original text.)
Intifada (Massada) is one of the most important symbols of heroism in the history of the Palestinian (Jewish) people, witnessing to a magnificent chapter in the struggle of a nation for freedom: the resistance of a few against the many, of the weak against the strong, of the choice made by the defenders of Palestine (Massada) when they could have lost hope, to realize their political and religious independence, preferring death to slavery. It serves as a source of inspiration and a symbol of courage not only for the people of Palestine (Israel) but for all the peoples of the world as well.
Intifada 1987
The first Intifada (1987 - 1993), was a spontaneous explosion of popular resistance to the Israeli occupation, a resistance which had begun some fifty years before. The Palestinian people made a conscious and determined choice to consolidate their efforts in the struggle toward independence, regardless of the cost. The coordination of resistance activities through a body called The United Leadership of the Intifada, illustrated the depth and breadth of Palestinian aspirations for freedom. The force with which the Intifada began and continued for eight years stunned not only Israel, but indeed, all countries of the world.
One of the consequences of this first Intifada was the international conference in Madrid. No matter how frequently the negotiators met in Washington and elsewhere during this time, Israel refused to comply with the basic requirements for peace. United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 were suddenly not acceptable for Israel, not to mention Resolution 194, which calls for the right of refugees to return. The Madrid Conference served to divert the growing public awareness of Israel as an occupying power with a violent, oppressive, expansionist, colonialist, and racist character.
Two years later, the world was taken by surprise at the announcement of the Oslo Accord, signed in September 1993. While the world was sold a "peace myth," the reality was something quite different. The primary aim of Oslo was to kill the Intifada and to ensure that Israel gained as many political benefits as possible, all the while transforming its identity into that of a peace-making country. Israel did not withdraw from the occupied territories, as it had been agreed upon at Oslo. Hebron was divided. More land was confiscated. Jerusalemites were forced to relinquish their residency rights. Settlements increased at breakneck speed, which make the concept of Israeli withdrawal almost impossible (from an Israeli point of view, at least). Houses were demolished and trees were uprooted. Finally, Palestinian lands were torn into areas A, B, and C (not to mention the complete closure of Jerusalem), creating easily- controllable and easily-suppressible bantustans.
During and after Oslo, the Palestinian people lived a nightmare of schizophrenia: pro-Oslo, contra-Oslo; Palestinians inside the territories, Palestinians outside; Gaza, West Bank; 1967 Palestinians, 1948 Palestinians; the Palestinian Authority marching to the tune of Oslo, the parliamentary opposition exercising its legitimate and democratic right within Palestinian society to reveal that Oslo was a dead end.
In the midst of all the confusion, most Palestinians were waiting patiently for Oslo to restore their national freedom, lost 33 years ago. They were waiting for Oslo to bring peace and prosperity. They were waiting to see how they could finally move freely within and outside the country. They were waiting for their prisoners to be freed. They were waiting for their own state where they could finally find peace and security. They were waiting for family reunions which would unite families who had not been together in 50 years.
The reality, however, quickly jarred their patient waiting. Instead of prosperity, the economic situation deteriorated to a level worse than in 1987. Instead of experiencing unity, Palestinian lands were torn apart. In Hebron, for example, 400 Jewish settlers were given free reign to control and terrorize the lives of 120,000 Palestinian people (with the aid of the Israeli army). The Palestinian people were subjected to a charade of evil and deceit. In addition, the Palestinian leadership, impotent in the face of Israeli aggression, agreed to seemingly unlimited concessions to Israeli demands - until there was no more to give. Instead of setting the stage for Palestinians to move toward freedom and independence, Oslo was dragging them toward fragmentation and surrender. Negotiations with the Israelis were starting to address the four points that had been postponed seven years earlier, namely: Jerusalem, the settlements, refugees, and the establishment of a state.
Not only is Israel unwilling to give back occupied East Jerusalem and to stop its settlement activity, it is unable even to recognize its moral and historic responsibility for the catastrophe of the Palestinians people. Israel rejects any responsibility for the Palestinian refugee problem. A Palestinian state may be "acceptable" to Israel, only if it is bereft of all the typical ingredients of a viable state, foremost among them, sovereignty. Suddenly, we see the transformation of the establishment of a Palestinian state into an Israeli prerequisite for the completion of its hegemony. Any peace agreement that might be signed based on these conditions would amount to an agreement of surrender on the part of the Palestinians. The Paris Economic Protocol (1996), on which Israel insists any future relations be based, is one example of the intended circumcision of the coming Palestinian State.
Al-Aqsa Intifada
The first Intifada, characterized as it was by its popular support and non-violent nature, served a critical purpose in the Palestinian struggle for liberation. Similarly, Al-Aqsa Intifada, characterized somewhat differently, is also a vital component in the struggle, sending a clear message that surrender and subordination are unacceptable as a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
The role of the media in altering reality during both Intifadas has served to mask the primary purpose of Intifada, namely, the struggle toward freedom from Israeli occupation. The Zionist-controlled media does its best to conceal the true nature of the Palestinian resistance. For example, German TV, the BBC, and Euronews broadcast the news about the attack on a military convoy escorting settlers in Gaza by stating, "Palestinian gunmen shot at an Israeli bus, killing three, among them a woman." No one bothered to mention the fact that it was a military convoy escorting settlers in Gaza.
The Israeli government has concentrated its efforts, together with the US government, to systematically eliminate any effective Palestinian presence in Palestine. Since Israel failed to eliminate the Palestinians as major players in the "peace process," the Palestinians were given a minor (basically insignificant) role that would be easy to manipulate. Israel's intentions and policies since 1948 were not changed by the handshake of Rabin and Arafat. Noam Chomsky writes that in 1948, the Israeli government Arabists had an internal discussion while ethnic cleansing was under way. Their expectation was that the refugees would be crushed and die, while the rest would turn into human dust and the waste of society and join the impoverished classes in other Arab countries.
As documented by various human rights' organizations, and most recently by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Israel's response to the Palestinian resistance is vastly disproportionate. What these organizations fail to realize, however, is that Israel's use of excessive force and aggression is an integral component of its general policy toward the Palestinian people. According to Chomsky, Israel relies on support from the US and on the "Powell Doctrine": use massive force in response to any perceived threat. The perceived threat, of course, is not the pitiful weapons used by the Palestinians, but the fear that resistance and revolution will become a Palestinian "way of life."
Shlomo Ben Ami has repeatedly asked President Arafat to call on his people to stop protesting against the Israeli occupation. The world's media is repeating this nonsense without thinking twice about who should be asking whom to stop the atrocious human rights violations, foremost among them the right of a people to resist occupation. The United States and Israel, together with their mutant child "Oslo," were able to delude us into believing that there is peace in the occupied territories. Even the media joined in the conspiracy. Was it ever broadcast that 40% of Gaza was still occupied? Did anyone ever bother to ask why in the world Israel should seek the most populated piece of land on earth (8 x 32 km, with over one million people) to build its settlements?
In an article in the Irish Times (17 November 2000), Lara Marlowe writes: "The Arabs in general, and the Palestinians in particular, failed in their attempt to focus European attention on the fundamental injustice of the Israeli occupation and the need to return to the United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 which demand that Israel leave the West Bank and Gaza". What kind of deception is this? Which country in Europe does not know 242 and 338? Oslo? Or Madrid, in which the infamous conference took place? Paris, in which the Paris Economic Protocol was signed? Rome, whose Italian government held the presidency of the European Union? Copenhagen, in which a conference took place where the seeds for "normalization," dialogue, and reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis were planted even before the war between them was ended? Stockholm, in which all secret negotiations took place and finally culminated in the unwise remarks of Queen Silvia, as reported in the Jerusalem Post, regarding the barbaric Palestinians deliberately sending their children to die? Athens, whose Minister refused to meet with Faisal Husseini in Jerusalem, hoping to play a good game with the Israelis, after the latter had begun relations with the Turkish government? Brussels, where even the ECHO department has no idea why they are in Palestine and what they should be doing? And which fields should they support? If not Beduins and water, then what? (Maybe the purpose of Al-Aqsa Intifada is to rescue them and restore their "raison d'etre!") Berlin? No! Germany was silent. The German Secretary of State, "Mr. Green," preferred not to speak at all, not even when Mr. Schroeder came to Palestine and took 50 wounded Palestinians back with him for medical treatment as a gesture of humanitarian assistance. Even when a German doctor was killed by two Israeli missiles while he was attending his injured Palestinian neighbors, the German government did not have much to say. Imagine for a moment if a German doctor had been killed by Palestinians somewhere in Israel?
And Canada….In the 1999 annual report of Canada Fund in Palestine, all the problems of the West Bank and Gaza are mentioned, except one, of course: the Israeli occupation. Jean Chretien, Prime Minister of Canada, moreover, found it necessary on 3 November 2000 to write a letter of apology to the Canadian Jewish Community after he had recently held a meeting with them. Mr. Chretien writes, "In our meeting, I heard frustration expressed that the unprecedented risks taken and courageous compromises offered by the Israeli government in pursuit of peace have not been reciprocated. Our government understands this frustration. We regret that Canada's vote on UN Security Council Resolution 1322 has added to this distress and frustration."
Why is it that (as Robert Fisk put it) we are unable, after more than half a century, to understand the injustice of the Middle East? Why does the media insist on praising Israel's military "restraint" while Palestinian resistance is denounced as "terrorism?" When two brothers in Nablus are killed by an Israeli missile inside their home, or when a disabled man in his wheelchair is shot, then Israel is described as "restraining itself." The same is true when Israel shoots at stone throwers from a distance of 200 meters. Of course, we are supposed to be relieved when we hear that the army has been instructed not to shoot at children under the age of twelve. Since when are 13- or 14- or 15-year-old children prey for sharpshooters?
In confronting Al-Aqsa Intifada (the legitimate Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation), Israel apparently has four possible options, while the Palestinians have only one:
If Israel chooses to return to "pre-Oslo" occupation, the Palestinians have only one option, and that is to resist occupation.
If Israel escalates its military force and aggression (bombing, siege, building of settlements and bypass roads) in order to impose a political solution (i.e., surrender), then the Palestinians have only one option, and that is to resist occupation.
If the Israeli government decides to regionalize the conflict by attacking Syria, Lebanon, or any other Arab country, then the Palestinians have only one option, and that is to resist occupation.
Even if Israel declares its readiness to pull out its last soldier from the occupied territories, but stalls in its implementation, then the Palestinians have only one option, and that is to resist occupation.
Knowing that Israel is well aware of the only Palestinian option, it tries its best to crush the resistance. History has confirmed, time and again, however, that no military power, regardless how strong, can defeat the will and the aspiration of a people determined to be free.
The Intifada of 1987 broke out to demand a solution for the Palestinian problem based on the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. Al-Aqsa Intifada broke out as a rejection of the proposed solution that was about to be imposed on the Palestinians by Israel and the United States.
The Palestinians, the "People of the Intifada," will continue their resistance to the Israeli occupation, the resistance of a few against the many, of the weak against the strong. The defenders of Palestine have chosen to continue, when they could have lost hope, to realize their political and religious independence, preferring death to slavery. The Intifada will be a source of inspiration and a symbol of courage not only for the people of Palestine but for all the peoples of the world as well.