[News] Examining the Palestinian Left at SOAS : Episode I
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Wed Jun 30 10:55:17 EDT 2010
Examining the Palestinian Left at SOAS : Episode I
By
<http://palestinethinktank.com/author/mary-rizzo/>Mary
Rizzo Jun 30th, 2010 at 12:46
http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/06/30/examining-the-palestinian-left-at-soas-episode-i-by-cafe-thawra-intro-by-mary-rizzo/
WRITTEN BY CAFE' THAWRA, Intro by Mary Rizzo
I am always astounded that activists, especially
those in the West, have got little to no grip on
the history of Palestinian political movements.
Yes, they know one or two things about the PLO
(most of it very vague), al Fatah,
Hamas, Arafat, those who are slightly more aware
of things even have an opinion about the Oslo
Accords and the Rejection Front. Yet, there is a
gaping hole in the awareness of politics in
Palestine and of the Palestinians who live in
Israel, that I believe leads activists to be
precisely where the Hasbara wants them to be,
entrenched in a reductive state of ignorance and
generalisation. I am always astounded that STILL
today, there is the misconception about
secularism in Palestinian politics and the
hasbara lie that the Left (even the Palestinian
one) is atheist, just because some of the
earliest proponents were Marxists. This of course
works to create a divide between Palestinians,
which is the last thing they need, seeing as how
the only real threat to Israel and Zionism is the
return to the Arab body of the Palestinian
people. Rhetoric does not bother Israel, but a
mass movement that is united like the Intifada
does. I do understand that many do not engage in
dialogue with people in these groups, so perhaps
this ignorance may be forgiven, but we can't
persist in it. Indeed, to continue to insist that
there are the strictest of political divisions is
something that makes sense in the West but is
completely irrelevant in Palestine and is
actually an effective Hasbara tool to maintain
division, which only serves the zionists and any
others who do not put "Palestine First". As Rabah
Mohanna of the PFLP in Gaza stated:
<http://www.antiimperialista.org/ar/node/5176>http://www.antiimperialista.org/ar/node/5176
"I don't think that we are going to civil war.
There might be the continuation of clashes
between some factions of Fatah and Hamas. I don't
see we have the conditions for civil war. The
mentality and the constitution of the Palestinian
society will make it difficult for the clashes to
expand into a real civil war. The constitution of
the Palestinian society holds a kind of control
over this situation. You might imagine this as if
for instance in my house, I am with Fatah, my
wife is with Hamas, my son with PFLP. People have
strong relations with each other and they are all interconnected."
That is, there is a tolerance, understanding and
reciprocity that is deeply rooted in Palestinians
so that the divisions that in Israel or the West
that we take for granted have complete and total
irrelevance in the family/society that is
Palestinian. Indeed, to illustrate this concept
that makes perfect sense to many Arab
nationalists, Palestinian patriots and those who
follow these lines of thought, but is alien to
those who try to stick their own reductive
reading of politics onto everything they get
near, I present a conversation on a very popular
discussion forum in English that is mostly used
by Palestinians or non-Palestinians sympathetic
with the PFLP and the DFLP (Al Jabah). The issue
of secularism came up when discussing the music
used in some of the videos depicting the armed
resistance operations. Several of the comments
were very interesting, and I will reprint a few here:
Question:
"i am talking about why be communist if you have Islam.
and i am talking about why be secular if Aqsa is for Islam?"
Reply:
"I think we have to remember that not everybody
in PFLP are Muslims but there are many Christian
members too. It seems to me that they basically
protect their homeland and their freedom to live
in their homes, without occupation of zionists.
Their goal is same than other Palestinians, even
if they don't do it for the name of Islam."
other replies:
"maybe you should know more about Palestine, first. history, politics
etc.
and i wouldnt call PFLP communist, i see it says that on wikipedia.
and the word secular is being misinterpreted. it doesnt mean atheist.
it basically means religious sectarianism is not
part of the political system, secular does not mean atheist.
even the most religious person can be a communist, socialist.
or even a fascist, zionist or whatever
."
"al-Jabha is not Communist, we adhere to a
Marxist style politics, there's a small
difference. Also, I didn't appreciate the one who
said Falisteen is for Islam only, there are many
Christians who have given their lives and blood
for our independence movement, while many Muslims
(Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Gulf states) sit on their
arses and watch as our people die. I am a Muslim,
but many of my comrades are Christians, and we
dream for the same goal-to have a homeland for
our people, and to return to this land without restriction.
By the way, I have Islam but I'm secular in my
politics. Why? Because not everyone has Islam,
nor desires to have it. It's not the politicians'
job to deal with religions. That's the clerics'."
In order to truly honor God and his judgements,
we must respect those around us who may not share
our faith. Not only will it ensure a safe and
happy future for Palestine but it will be what
separates us from the Zionists. Never forget the
goal is not just national liberation, but the
defeat of Zionism and hatred in the region.
Whatever gets in the way of that should be set aside. Palestine first!
So, it is in the spirit of indicating a current
"state of affairs" of the Palestinian left, so
that we can cast off a dangerous ignorance, that
I'm presenting the very fine report made on the
recent conference in London. Hope it helps to
contribute to understanding the true essence and
reality of Palestinian politics, where the heroes
also have the names of the greatest patriots of
all time, George Habash, Laila Khaled, Azmi
Bishara, Ahmed Sa'adat and others whose love of
their land and people means exile, imprisonment
and seeing their ideas and ideals thwarted and
distorted by "friends" whose own ignorance could
be lethal for the cause of National Liberation. Mary Rizzo
from Café Thawra:
I was very excited a few weeks ago to come back
to my beloved university SOAS and attend the
conference about the Palestinian left organised
there. I was also able to see my ex classmates,
going back to our old debates regarding our
beloved region: the Middle East. The subject of
the conference was very special to me, as I feel
on many issues and positions very close to the
Palestinian left. Georges Habash, a central
figure within the Palestinian left, is actually a
personality that I respect and look up to very
much, it is I think our Che Guevera of the Middle
East, directly involved with armed and political
struggle, as well as an incredible and inspiring
thinker, never forgetting the interest of the
masses. The Revolution was always in his mind.
Right, after this rather politics/sentimental
episode, let us come back to our conference,
where many personalities gathered to give the
public the best overview of a Palestinian left currently in perdition.
Many speakers mentioned the terrible situation in
Palestine and the inability of the left to fill
the vacuum or present an alternative to both
Fatah and Hamas. Azmi Bishara, who intervened
through video conference, criticized the neutral
position of the left as a mark of its
incompetence in relation to the conflict between
Hamas and Fatah. He added that the struggle is
actually not between an Islamic movement on one
side and a secular group on the other side, as
reported many times by the Western press, but
rather an opposition between collaboration and
resistance. The left should have claimed its
clear support to resistance and denounce the
security cooperation between the PLO and Israel.
Azmi Bishara ended his presentation by declaring
that the unity of the PLO cannot be used as an
alibi, and this inability to take position is on
the opposite an indicator of the lefts crisis in Palestine.
This weakness brought us back to the history of
leftist Palestinian political parties and what
made them strong in the past. Leila Khaled, from
the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of
Palestine (PFLP), and member of the PNC, who
wasnt by the way allowed to come because British
authorities refused to grant her a visa,
explained the evolution of her party the Popular
Front for the Liberation of Palestine created in
1967. They recruited most of their members in the
refugee camps in the neighboring countries. The
1st document of the organization determining the
political strategy of the party and the paths to
Revolution was published in 1969. It defined
notably very clearly who the enemies were:
- USA imperialism
- Zionism racist ideology and the Israeli State
- Arab reactionary regimes
It also showed the friends of the Revolution, in
order to demonstrate to their members that they were not alone in the struggle:
- Arab liberation movements
- Socialists and workers
- Progressive States
The Party had a very clear Marxist ideology: the
workers, the petit bourgeois and the proletariat
were the classes interested in the Revolution,
whereas the bourgeois class was not. The 1st
objective of the Revolution was the creation of a
Palestinian State, with Jerusalem as its capital
and the return of the refugees, which was and is
still its most important request. The
mobilization of the masses was made through numerous ways:
- contact with the masses, forward information and organize seminars
- contact with the workers, the syndicates and the PLO
- information activities, newspaper, tracks
-Political education, sending members to
socialist countries, learn Marxism and its
theories, and then members would come back and
diffuse the message to the masses. They
established schools in refugee camps in Lebanon
and Jordan. They sent students abroad to pursue
their studies and offered them scholarships.
- Education of Palestinian culture
- Implement masses organizations for women, youngsters, workers, etc
The left at that time was very successful in
mobilizing different sectors of the society
including women, youth, workers, etc
After 1982, the Palestinian national movement
declined, as well as the armed struggle, the
departure of Lebanon was indeed a heavy blow to
the movement. The mobilization nevertheless
continued and the 1st Intifada gave the
Palestinians a lot of hope. The position of the
left was revitalized and the focus of the
struggle was transferred from the outside to the inside of Palestine.
M. Jaradat, a Campaign Unit Coordinator for Badil
and an activist during the 1st Intifada, supports
this version and adds that the Left in the 80s
was part of the community, not an arrogant and
elitist movement, their members were mostly
peasants. Popular movements influenced by the
left had strong civic networks, they were
autonomic and self financed depending on local
resources, and composed mostly of youth, students
and workers. Women associations were numerous and
played an important role in girls education.
Popular education was enshrined by the left in
several regions. Education was actually the most
important capital for the Palestinians, as M. Jaradat reminded.
The 1990s were the beginning of the downfall of
the Left on different levels. On the
International level, they lost their main support
and model: the USSR. The left was not prepared to
the demise of the socialist block. On the
regional level, Arab regimes ceased to support
the PLO and the left. On a national level, the
conclusion of the Oslo agreements marginalized
the role and the importance of the PLO and
therefore weakening the left. This latter opposed
the Oslo agreements because it achieved no
objectives of the Palestinian Resistance such as
the right of return or the establishment of a
sovereign State. Many leftist seniors and
militants were actually arrested because of their
opposition to the Oslo agreements by the new
Palestinian security services. The newly created
Palestinian Authority has actually gathered since
then the power and the financial resources given
by the International Community. The left was in
its majority not included in the PA, only few
officers, who supported the creation of a
Palestinian State even on a small part of the territory, joined it.
On societal issues, the left also stepped back,
Aitemad Mouhana from Swansea University and ex
PFLP member, reports how in the beginning of
1988, some young boys started to throw stones on
the young girls unveiled in Gaza. Leftist parties
as PFLP did not try anything to solve this
situation; on the opposite, they claimed it was
not their problem and that in a traditional
society such things are normal. PFLP cadres knew
that Hamas was behind this trend, but for the
sake of the Palestinian unity they did not
intervene. Certain FPLP cadres even used this new
trend or tradition to control women in their
close entourage. Aitemad Mouhana denounced this
state of affairs claiming that political
coalitions should not sacrifice women or personal
freedoms, and that, quite on the opposite,
national liberation is linked by all means to the
liberation of women and other personal issues. In
her opinion, national liberation should erase all
forms of social and traditional inequality. This
showed the contradictory practices of the PFLP
and allowed the historical foundation of Hamas
expansion. Hamas bargained on the political scene
but continued to spread their religious program.
In 1995, the majority of women were veiled in
Gaza, this islamisation of the society by Hamas
was consolidated by a pragmatic strategy. As
Gramscis theory stated it, Hamas has advocated
as a particular class that provides the dominant culture: the Islamic culture.
The leftist political parties also lacked
understanding of the situation, the
transformation and the realities of Palestinian
and Arab societies, as pointed out by Jamil
Hilal, an Independent Researcher in Ramallah and
Gilbert Achkar, a Lebanese teacher at SOAS and
leftist militant. Many members of leftist
organizations were indeed sent in socialist
countries, adopting Marxism as a dogma while not
understanding the dynamics of their society. They
should have started with their own country
reality, as remarked by Hilal and Achkar; there
was a clear absence of the socio political
conception of the conflict. The class structure,
as Jamil Hilal noticed, was different for a
Palestinian in Gaza, the West Bank, in the Gulf
countries and in refugee camps in Lebanon or Jordan.
These elements weakened considerably the left in
different manners as explained by few
participants; the main ones were the following:
- Lack of recruitment mechanisms
- Lack of financial resources, which were only
available through the PLO and Western donations
through NGOs. This complicated their opposition
to the Oslo agreement; the leftist parties
therefore became a kind of loyal opposition
towards the PLO or adopted a more liberal stand
towards western countries to receive funds. They
were many withdrawals of qualified cadres from
leftist parties who joined NGOs. Leyla Khaled
besides talked about the emergence of NGOs in
this period and the way they tried to become an
alternative to the leftist political parties,
particularly after the Oslo agreement.
- The leadership in Damascus claims their will to
become the 1st political party on the Palestinian
scene, but they failed on the diplomatic scene to
achieve this objective and they did not try to unite a common leftist front.
These elements led to a sharp drop in popularity
for leftist parties which were around 17% in 1993 to 5 % today.
Gilbert Achkar also criticized from a Marxist
perspective the historic strategic deficiencies of the left of the PLO:
- The Palestinian left was characterized by a
Palestinian centralism after 1967, independent
from other Arab movements. Their key principle
was actually: non intervention in Arab regimes
affairs. This Palestinian centralism was not
valid in the Palestinian case because of the
conflicts nature and because the Palestinians
are being divided in different countries. This
strategy was and is non sustainable, the
advantages were therefore for Israel in this
configuration. Jamal Zahalka, Chair of the
National Democratic Assembly/ Tajamu and Member
of the Knesset, also stressed out the need to
connect with other Arab movements to lead a
successful struggle against Israel. Dr Achkar
affirmed the need for the Palestinian left to
create links with other leftist parties in the Arab world.
- After 1967, financial resources were needed to
support the bureaucratization of the party, and
this led in seeking rapprochement with Arab
dictatorial regimes such as Syria, Iraq and
Libya. This was in opposition with the
revolutionary discourse of the party. The FPLP
had besides known a faster increase in numbers
when it was active as an underground movement and
not linked to certain of these regimes.
- FPLP always criticized the social class and the
infrastructure of the PLO, but never left the
organization. The PLO structure was indeed not
democratic and was under Fatahs control. The
demand to change the PLOs structure was
abandoned later by the FPLP which perpetually
recon ciliated with the Fatah and Arafat after
important political disagreements. The main key
principle of the left has always been Palestinian
Unity and this at any means. This has
unfortunately meant a lack of critical attitude
against the PLO and the left failed to present
itself as an alternative to it. This was one of its main problems.
- Last but not least, armed struggle should not
be the only perspective; a global political
program should be put on the table by the left.
Few speakers also explained Hamas success, which
on the opposite of the left clearly presented
itself as an alternative to the PLO. Hamas always
refused to enter the PLO in his current
infrastructure, without any reforms which would
lead to a democratization of the organization. In
addition to this, Hamas had a political
independent stand against the corrupt Palestinian
Authority and had enormous financial resources.
These elements explain partially Hamas arrival to
power. However Hamas ideological use of the armed
struggle was criticized and characterized as very
elitist: a small group of armed men struggling
and resisting against Israel, while the rest
should only support them and stay aside. During
the 1st Intifada in 1988, which was the peak of
the Palestinian struggle, there was a huge social
mobilization and no heavy arms were used, every
Palestinian participated in the revolt and not a small armed minority.
In conclusion, Jamal Juma, member of popular
committee in Palestine and expressing himself
through video, said that the left in Palestine is
currently unfortunately not very influential and
respected. The foundation of a gathering of
leftists and progressive associations is
necessary and this movement should have a one
secular state solution objective. This remark was
echoed by different speakers such as Jamal Zahalka and M. Jaradat.
Stay tuned for more discussion around this SOAS Event!
<http://cafethawra.blogspot.com/2010/03/examining-palestinian-left-at-soas.html>http://cafethawra.blogspot.com/2010/03/examining-palestinian-left-at-soas.html
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863-9977
www.Freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20100630/7fc50554/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list