<html>
<body>
<font size=3><i>Below is an article from the upcoming 5th Anniversary
issue of Left Turn magazine. Because of the timeliness and usefulness of
the article, the authors and editors wanted to make it available now so
that it can be distributed and discussed widely. This article comes at a
critical time for the movement and will be very helpful for a wide range
of activists so please forward to your listservs, post to websites, and
share it with others you work with.<br>
</i> <br>
<b>Challenging the New Apartheid: Reflections on Palestine
Solidarity<br>
</b>by<b> Rafeef Ziadah, Adam Hanieh, Hazem Jamjoum<br>
from
</font>
<a href="http://www.leftturn.org/Articles/Viewer.aspx?id=855&type=W">
<font size=3 color="#003399">Left Turn</a><br>
</b>
<a href="http://www.leftturn.org/Articles/Viewer.aspx?id=855&type=W" eudora="autourl">
http://www.leftturn.org/Articles/Viewer.aspx?id=855&type=W<br>
</a></font><font size=3> <br>
The Palestinian solidarity movement has made significant gains since the
onset of the Second Palestinian Intifada in September 2000. Over the last
five years, a new generation of Palestinian solidarity activists has
mobilized in the streets, campuses, and schools across North America.
Among the left and progressive movements, there is broad acceptance of
the proposition that US foreign policy in the Middle East is based on
support for Israel as a “colonial-settler” state, to draw upon the title
of Maxime Rodinson’s classic work. Every major mobilization against the
war in Iraq has seen the Palestinian struggle placed up front in opposing
the US war machine, and most activists new to the movement are introduced
to the Palestinian struggle and history through an anti-Zionist
perspective. <br><br>
This is an unprecedented achievement. Throughout the second half of the
20th century, radical and progressive movements in the advanced
capitalist countries generally refused to take an unequivocal stance in
support of Palestinian liberation. Zionist organizations were active in
the movements against the Vietnam War, South African apartheid, and other
progressive causes. Palestinian solidarity was marginal to the large mass
struggles that took place in the latter half of the 20th century, and the
left commonly countenanced a supposedly “progressive Zionist” stance.
<br><br>
While the Zionist movement remains extremely well-funded and dominates
the mainstream press there has also been an important shift in this
regard. Zionism has shown itself as a political current completely
aligned with the pro-imperial policies of the US administration in an
openly racist and anti-emancipatory fashion. There are many indications
of this beyond the policies of the Israeli government. Throughout North
America, Zionist student groups openly invite representatives of the CIA,
US Department of Defense, and the Canadian Security and Intelligence
Services to speak at meetings they sponsor. The witch hunt against
progressive academics and activists is led by an alliance of
neo-conservative journalists, academics, and think tanks with Zionist
groups such as the David Project and Daniel Pipes’ Campus Watch. Pipes
explicitly advocates that US academics should work to serve US foreign
policy interests; first and foremost, the defense of Israel. <br><br>
The pro-imperialist character of the Zionist movement has impacted their
ability to mobilize students on university campuses. While their paid
organizers are active they are unable to win a significant hearing
amongst students and lack the ability to do effective outreach on the
ground. Each day brings news of initiatives around the world to isolate
the Israeli state through boycotts, divestment, and sanctions. Zionist
propaganda is increasingly responsive to the campaigns of the Palestinian
solidarity movement, and a quick read of the Zionist press indicates a
widespread fear that they are losing the ideological battle in an
unprecedented fashion. <br><br>
Moving into 2006, however, it is clear that the Palestinian solidarity
movement is also faced with significant challenges in the coming period.
In some cities throughout North America, Palestine activists have lost
momentum given the shifts on the ground. The routinization of the
Intifada and the seeming intractability of Israel’s apartheid wall have
led to a certain demoralization and loss of focus. Activists are confused
about how to respond to the new situation following the victory of Hamas
in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections. The purpose of this
article is to set out a balance sheet of the solidarity movement in North
America and to begin a discussion of where to go next. <br><br>
<b>Current political situation</b> <br><br>
An enormous shift has taken place with Hamas’ overwhelming victory in the
elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council on January 25, 2006.
The popular vote for Hamas was principally a rejection of the disastrous
negotiations process that followed the signing of the Oslo Accords in
1993. Countless voices have criticized the Oslo Accords as a fig-leaf for
the ongoing colonization of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, far removed
from the avowed goal of a genuinely independent Palestinian state. Under
the cover of “peace” negotiations, Israel continued to encircle and
isolate Palestinian towns and villages with its network of settlements,
bypass roads, and checkpoints. <br><br>
The Israeli military controlled Palestinian transit with a complicated
system of permits and movement restrictions. These isolated population
islands were given the trappings of autonomy but effective control
remained in the hands of the Israeli state. Oslo (and the subsequent
agreements) aimed at having Palestinians police themselves while allowing
Israel to deepen this system of apartheid. “Peace” has simply acted as
newspeak to mask the apartheid blueprint. <br><br>
Hamas’ victory is a striking indictment of this so-called “peace
process.” Promoted with the deliberate deceit of Western governments and
the corporate media, the myth of negotiations was fully shared in by the
leadership of the Palestinian Authority (PA), most particularly by
individuals such as Palestinian President Abu Mazen and Prime Minister
Abu Ala. The PA leadership came to represent submission and surrender
under the banner of peaceful negotiations and empty condemnation of
violence. Indeed, immediately prior to the Legislative Council elections,
Hamas leader Khaled Mishaal pointed out that “the experiment of fifty
years taught us this road was futile” and Hamas would not continue to
deceive the Palestinian people with this “political fiction.” <br><br>
If Hamas makes good of its promise not to sustain these structures of
occupation, this will be a huge setback for Israeli and US interests in
the region. The situation, however, defies simplicity due to the
labyrinthine network of factions and interests located throughout the PA
apparatus. The Legislative Council is a weak body and considerable power
officially remains in the hands of Abu Mazen and the Presidential Office.
The security forces—in particular the Preventative Security
branch—remains a Fatah-led body under the nominal control of Abu Mazen.
Hamas itself, particularly in the Gaza Strip, maintains a strong network
of armed cadre. <br><br>
A number of commentators have raised the fear that the election results
could herald a repeat of the 1991 Algerian experience, where the election
victory of the Islamic party FIS was overthrown by a French-backed FLN
military coup and led to prolonged civil war. Any repeat experience in
the Palestinian context would undoubtedly see the involvement of the
Israeli military and security apparatus in both provoking and maintaining
internal armed strife. There is no doubt that Hamas is cognizant of this
threat, repeatedly stating that it supports a government of national
unity and refusing to being drawn into armed clashes with other
Palestinian factions. Nevertheless, covert Israeli support for such an
eventuality is a real and concrete possibility. <br><br>
A key question will be how Hamas manages the contradiction between its
commitment to the national struggle and maintaining the structures of the
PA. The economic dependency of the PA will not disappear with the Hamas
victory, although the political character of this relationship has been
made strikingly obvious with threats by the US and EU to cut funding. It
remains to be seen whether Hamas finds alternate sources of support,
attempts to implement some form of wealth re-distribution or strategy of
popular reliance, or begins to redefine its politics to become more
acceptable to the West. While the latter appears unlikely at this stage,
it is certainly not possible for the situation to remain static.
<br><br>
This contradiction is not of Hamas’ making and is precisely a consequence
of the structural limitations put in place by the Oslo/Apartheid process.
The only way out of this bind is to break with the conception that the
Palestinian struggle is principally about what happens in the West Bank
and Gaza Strip. A conscious aim of the Oslo process was to narrow the
Palestinian struggle to a dispute over land percentages in the West Bank
and to sever any link between Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza
Strip, those who remained in 1948 historic Palestine as Israeli citizens,
and those exiled outside of their homeland. Key to this was the
destruction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as a national
liberation movement and its replacement by the Palestinian Authority
“state” building project. <br><br>
The formation of the PLO in the 1960s was a critical step forward for the
Palestinian struggle as it unified the dispersed Palestinian nation
across many generations and countries. The bed-rock demand of this
struggle was the right of return: the insistence that Palestinians had
the right to return to their homes and lands from which they had been
exiled. A key feature of all negotiations since Oslo was an attempt to
undermine this demand, reducing it to the symbolic return of a few
thousand Palestinians to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Nevertheless,
despite the open willingness of individuals such as Abu Mazen to
acquiesce to such attempts, Palestinians across the globe remain united
behind a full return to historic Palestine. Central to the dynamics of
the coming period will be what happens to these broader Palestinian
national structures and the possible reinvigoration of the right of
return movement. <br><br>
<b>Apartheid analysis</b> <br><br>
The overdue end of the Oslo process and its attempt to narrow the
“Palestinian question” to a state-building project in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip opens enormous opportunities in the coming period. In
particular, the space has opened for renewing an analysis of Israel as a
colonial, settler state based on a system of apartheid resembling
apartheid South Africa. <br><br>
Israel is an apartheid state not just because of its policies in the West
Bank and Gaza Strip. The Israeli state defines itself as a Jewish state
and, therefore, cannot be a state for all its citizens. More than 90% of
1948 occupied Palestine is land that only Jewish people can control or
develop. The apartheid character has been clear from Israel’s inception.
It is illustrated by the fact that Palestinian refugees are prevented
from returning to their homes and lands from which they were expelled. In
contrast, any person of Jewish descent from anywhere in the world may
become an Israeli citizen under the so-called Law of Return. <br><br>
This apartheid analysis provides an extremely powerful strategy for our
movement. It bridges all parts of the Palestinian people: those who are
citizens of Israel, those living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and
those in exile. It is a strategy grounded in the right of return of
Palestinian refugees to their homes and lands. It also makes sense:
equality of all in a democratic state regardless of religion or
ethnicity. <br><br>
The analytic link with South African apartheid helps to clarify the real
nature of Zionism as a reactionary and exclusivist colonial project. The
strategic demands of boycott, divestment, and sanctions that we put
forward help to illustrate the powerful ties between North American and
European capital and the Zionist state. We can also build upon the
experiences and lessons of the earlier anti-apartheid movement. <br><br>
There is a powerful momentum building around the world for a boycott,
divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign. On July 9, 2005 a call was made
by over 170 Palestinian organizations to launch a global BDS campaign.
Churches in North America have begun to investigate the possibility of
divestment. In Norway, the first provincial council to have adopted a
boycott of South African apartheid recently did the same in regards to
Israel. Twenty Quebec organizations, including the Fédération des Femmes
du Québec (FFQ) and the provincial union of CEGEP teachers, have endorsed
a new campaign to boycott Israeli products and companies supporting
Israeli apartheid. <br><br>
The Zionist movement is fully cognizant of the implications of this
movement. At the University of Toronto, the Arab Students Collective
recently held their second annual Israeli Apartheid Week. The week
received widespread coverage and pro-Zionist groups such as Hillel, Bnai
Brith, and the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center pressured to have
the word apartheid removed from the event’s name. In the words of Avi
Benlolo, Canadian director of the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center,
“seeing the name will register in the minds of students that Israel is an
apartheid state, and that is an issue.” In 2006, Israeli Apartheid Week
was also held at Oxford University, Montreal, and Kitchener-Waterloo.
<br><br>
<b>The solidarity movement and the national movement</b> <br><br>
It is important to draw a distinction between the solidarity movement and
the Palestinian national movement. While these two wings can support and
strengthen each other—and steps forward on one side will push forward the
other—rebuilding the Palestinian national movement is a task of
Palestinians in exile, not of the solidarity movement. For this reason,
the regrouping and organization of Palestinians in exile is of critical
importance at the current juncture. <br><br>
There is often considerable confusion on this point. Solidarity activists
frequently comment that life would be so much easier if there was a
“Palestinian ANC” to clearly articulate goals and strategy of our
movement. Nevertheless, we need to work with the reality that exists.
Non-Palestinian solidarity activists cannot substitute themselves for the
lack of Palestinian leadership. But building an effective solidarity
movement that consistently tries to make links with Palestinian
initiatives can push forward and inspire the reorganization of the
broader Palestinian national movement. <br><br>
The PLO’s signature on the apartheid blueprint of Oslo rendered the
institutions of the national movement (the PLO and the Palestine National
Council—Palestinians’ parliament in exile) a hollow shell. The national
leadership transformed itself into the PA; the prison warden of the
Palestinian Bantustans representing no more than the minority of
Palestinians in 1967 Occupied Palestine. Palestinian activists and
organizers should recognize the centrality of rebuilding the institutions
of the national movement. <br><br>
This being said, the Palestinian movement is part of a broader
anti-imperialist struggle and cannot be built in isolation from movements
within North America. Israel’s apartheid character is reinforced through
its role in maintaining US hegemony in the Middle East region. For this
reason, the dispossession of the Palestinian people is ultimately linked
to the fate of US imperialism. This is the root explanation for the
growing convergence between US imperialism and the Zionist movement in
North America, and its opposite reflection in the anti-war movement. In
countries as far apart as Iraq and Venezuela, we are witnessing a
resurgence of popular movements across the globe. These struggles are
beginning to roll back the power of US imperialism, and our Palestinian
solidarity work must continue to make real and effective links with these
struggles. These struggles will be central to pushing forward the
struggle for Palestinian liberation, and they provide a basis for
optimism in the coming period. <br><br>
The role of Palestinian grassroots activists who straddle both the
solidarity and national movements is vital to the success of this
project. Like all minority groups, the supposed leadership of established
Palestinian communities in North America is often tied to dominant
political parties and interests in North America, or to Palestinian
sectarian divides. This is reflected in strategies that channel the
community into supporting capitalist electoral parties or advocate
lobbying tactics that emphasize US interests in the region. Part of
challenging this conservative leadership is to build real solidarity with
other anti-capitalist movements in our cities. We strengthen the
anti-imperialist character of the Palestinian movement when we are active
in struggles of women, workers, people of color, immigrants, prisoners,
and particularly indigenous peoples. This means being active as real
participants in these struggles and moving beyond mere lip service or
sloganeering. It is clear that the Palestinian movement is healthiest in
those cities in North America where this approach really does exist in a
non-sectarian and honest fashion. <br><br>
<b>Strengthening our movement</b> <br><br>
A boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaign based upon an apartheid
analysis can provide an overarching framework for our other Palestine
work. It doesn’t replace the need for outreach, education, and action
around the myriad of issues connected to Palestine such as refugees, the
apartheid wall, or prisoners. Rather, a BDS campaign can answer the
question: what to do next? It provides a concrete strategic focus that
raises consciousness around Palestine as we carry it out. Pushing a
divestment motion through a union requires sustained work to convince the
membership of Israel’s apartheid character. Recent successes show that
these demands are winnable and can provide tangible gains. <br><br>
The experience of many divestment campaigns thus far has shown the
difficulties with localized campus activism. The high turnover rate of
students, combined with the fact that most students are in transit,
without significant roots in the local community, has meant that many
campus initiatives wither away as central organizers graduate and move
on. The success of a BDS campaign depends on its being based in the
community of long term residents of a locality. Efforts on campuses, if
they are to be sustained, must be a branch of such a community based
effort, and not the other way around. Campus activism itself should be
viewed as an opportunity to funnel students’ energies and resources into
the struggles waged outside of the campus. <br><br>
Our movement faces many challenges in the coming period, challenges that
go beyond being campus-centered. A persistent problem is the widespread
sectarianism that exists in many cities. A multiplicity of different
(usually small) groups with little substantive differences between them
compete against each other for political audience and memberships. The
roots of sectarianism lie in fetishizing minor programmatic differences
and organizational forms ahead of the interests of the movement as a
whole. Often this sectarianism is brought into the movement from
competing left organizations or other movement divisions (such as those
within the anti-war movement). We need to change the way we relate to
each other, realizing that building unity in practice is our most
powerful weapon. We need to truly internalize the reality that the best
political line is something developed through a common political
practice—not bequeathed to the movement from historical texts or
pontificating from outside the struggle. This means swallowing our egos
and realizing that whose name goes first on a leaflet, who gets to speak,
and which banner is the biggest in a demonstration is not as important as
what we achieve by marching together. <br><br>
We also need to realize that the larger our movement grows the more it
will contain differences in political interpretation, focus, and tactics.
We are often paralyzed by sterile debates over emphasis on large
demonstrations, direct action, lobbying, or educational outreach. The BDS
campaign provides the perfect political vehicle for allowing these
differences to exist while marching in unity. Individuals and
organizations can support and build a BDS campaign with their own focus,
constituencies, and tactics yet each victory achieved helps to strengthen
the work of others. Clearly, this ideal is best achieved when the
individuals and organizations involved can put sectarian divides aside
for the purposes of coordination and cooperation. <br><br>
A related problem is our weakness in building a collective leadership.
Too often our movements are associated with individual “stars” rather
than a truly broad and accountable leadership. We don’t consciously think
through who gets to speak and how we can expand the number of people
taking on responsibility for our work. This can easily lead to other
problems such as reinforcing gendered divisions of labor where the
day-to-day organizational tasks fall upon women and the speaking,
writing, and public face of the movement is male. <br><br>
This lack of a conscious approach to movement building also means that we
don’t pay enough attention to those who are joining activist politics for
the first time. Few people are naturally able to do public speaking,
write an article, facilitate a meeting, or hand out a leaflet. The
political education that sustains lifelong committed activism needs to be
carried out consciously—it doesn’t happen through osmosis. If we don’t
help to foster these skills and political education in new activists then
our movements cannot sustain themselves in the long-run. <br><br>
All of these problems are reflected in the lack of common projects and
vision within the Palestinian solidarity movement across North America.
The unevenness of activities across different cities points to how much
there is to learn from each other. The retreat to the “local” that
characterized much of the anti-globalization movement means that we often
fetishize this fragmentation rather than look for ways to build and
strengthen the commonalities that we all experience. <br><br>
The important steps made in the last five years towards strengthening
popular solidarity for the Palestinian struggle lay the groundwork for
future victories. The possibility of building a successful campaign to
isolate and end Israeli apartheid is probably more likely today than at
any other time since the establishment of the Israeli state. Accompanying
this possibility is the responsibility to sustain and improve what has
been built so far. <br><br>
<div align="center"> <br>
</div>
<b><i>*This article, located at
</i></b>
<a href="http://www.leftturn.org/Articles/Viewer.aspx?id=855&type=W">
http://www.leftturn.org/Articles/Viewer.aspx?id=855&type=W</a> ,
<b><i>will appear in the Spring 2006 issue of Left Turn magazine, which
will be a special issue marking the magazine's five year
anniversary.</i></b> <br><br>
<div align="center">**********<br>
</div>
<br>
<b>ABOUT THE AUTHORS<br>
</b>Adam Hanieh, Hazem Jamjoum, and Rafeef Ziadah are active in a variety
of groups in Toronto, Canada, including Al Awda (Toronto), Sumoud
Political Prisoners Group, the Arab Students Collective (University of
Toronto), and the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid.<br>
<br>
________________________________________<br>
<br>
<i>Also check out Left Turn's article collection,
</font>
<a href="http://www.leftturn.org/Articles/SpecialCollections/hamasvictory.aspx">
<font size=3 color="#003399">Palestinian Elections: Hamas Defies
Predictions and Preconceptions</a></font><font size=3>, for more analysis
on the current situation:
</font>
<a href="http://www.leftturn.org/Articles/SpecialCollections/hamasvictory.aspx">
<font size=3 color="#003399">
http://www.leftturn.org/Articles/SpecialCollections/hamasvictory.aspx</a>
<br><br>
</i></font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">The Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br>
(415) 863-9977<br>
</font><font size=3>
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.freedomarchives.org</a></font></body>
</html>