Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May - June 2001, page 86

Arab-American Activism

 

Shifting Tactics in the Intifada:

Voices from Palestinian society have called for a shift in the “tactics of the intifada [toward] nonviolence,” said Bassem Eid, director of the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, at an April 5 luncheon at the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine in Washington, DC. Eid believes that Israel, while continuing to use “tanks and bullets,” might employ less brutal means against nonviolent demonstrators. Moreover, he argued, a stronger focus on nonviolence may improve media coverage of the conflict in favor of the Palestinians.

Some Palestinians, acting independently of the Palestinian Authority (PA), have fired on various Israeli outposts and settlements within the occupied territories. Such shootings have inflicted very little damage, yet have served to harm Palestinians because of Israel’s punitive retaliation.

Israel’s excessive use of force has resulted in a higher Palestinian death rate than during the first intifada. Since the 1948 war, Eid contended, Palestinians have never seen such a stringent closure, including helicopters hitting civilians, and tanks firing at civilian homes. In the current crisis, the PA “has become so useless,” he said. It is unable to do anything to stop the helicopter gunships, closures, and other repressive policies of the Israeli government.

“What can the Palestinian Authority do for us?” Eid asked. It seems “we have no leadership anymore. People are getting killed every day,” and PA President Yasser Arafat cannot give them any protection. “Arafat is not responsible anymore for the situation,” Eid argued.

Israel blames Arafat for inciting Palestinians. This is not true, Eid said. The intifada erupted “because the people are so frustrated by the situation.” It was not planned at all, he added. Nonetheless, Israel demands that Arafat stop the uprising. But how can he ask the Palestinians to end the intifada, asked Eid, “when there is no deal in his hand” to offer them?

During the first intifada, the Palestinians received more support from the international community. The conflict was viewed as an army battling civilians. This is less the case now, Eid said. If Palestinians shift tactics, some still may be killed, but “is it our violence or their violence” that will be apparent?

Such a tactic, he advocated, may help address one of the Palestinians’ key problems: their lack of media support. When a nine-year-old Palestinian is killed in his home by the Israeli army, it does not make the front page. When a 10-month-old Israeli settler child is killed in Hebron, however, her photo is on the front page of newspapers all over the world.

“I am blaming the media,” Eid said, particularly the U.S. press, for this biased coverage. More Israelis than Palestinians are quoted in the press, even though correspondents know many Palestinians. Still, the PA also bears responsibility for the biased media coverage. The Israeli government closely monitors the media and puts pressure on them, while representatives of the PA do not.

At the moment, Eid said, Arafat is “between his own people’s hammer and [the anvil of] the Israeli army.” There is a “huge contradiction” between the demands made by the two sides. Palestinians want to end the occupation, while Israel wants to end resistance to the occupation. Meanwhile, Arafat gets no support from the media, no support from the international community, no support from Arab countries and, finally, no support from his own people.

In an effort to improve the situation, Palestinians want to see more Israeli peace activists enter the occupied territories to reopen roads and support them in other ways. During the past month, Eid noted, Palestinians have organized more civilian demonstrations; in response, more Israelis have participated. He referred to 200 Israelis from Rabbis for Human Rights who helped to reopen the blockaded road leading out of Rantis village. Villagers offered refreshments to them as they worked. Although the Israeli army re-closed the road after the activists were finished, nevertheless, it was a positive step that Palestinians supported.

Eid argued that the international community as a whole must pressure Israel to change its policies or the “whole Middle East” will be in “danger.” If Israel wants to end the intifada, he concluded, it must understand that “excessive force” will negatively effect its own security in the long run.

—Wendy Lehman

 

Arab-Americans Meet with Colin Powell

Twenty representatives of 15 Arab- and Muslim-American organizations met with Secretary of State Colin Powell at the State Department on March 13. In a briefing closed to the press, Arab Americans said they had expressed their concern to Powell about his remarks the previous week when he called Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Powell reportedly told the group, which included the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee’s Ziad Asali and Khalil Jahshan and the Arab American Institute’s James Zogby and George Salem, that his comments did not reflect U.S. policy on Jerusalem, which remains unchanged. He reportedly acknowledged he had inadvertently mischaracterized U.S. policy. The group, which also included the Islamic Institute’s Talat Othman and Khaled Saffuri, said Powell reiterated that the final status of Jerusalem must be determined by direct negotiation between the two parties.

Arab Americans also said they’d urged the secretary to press Israel to lift the siege imposed on Palestinians in the occupied territories. They expressed their concern that Israel was using American weapons against Palestinian civilians in violation of U.S. law. According to the representatives, while expressing the U.S. commitment to Israeli security, Secretary Powell reportedly stated that Washington is equally committed to finding a settlement that realizes the political aspirations of the Palestinian people.

The Arab-American delegates also said they’d urged the secretary to lift the sanctions on Iraq, saying the only smart sanctions are no sanctions at all.

“The Arab and Muslim communities in the United States welcome the open-door policy of the Bush administration to discuss their issues and concerns,” Saffuri said. “We hope to continue this beneficial relationship throughout Mr. Bush’s presidency.”

—Delinda C. Hanley

 

Right to Return Rally

April 7 was the day for rallies around the world to demonstrate support for the Palestinian Right to Return. They were organized by Al-Awda (The Return) and endorsed by more than 150 organizations. The demonstration in New York City was so large that it was difficult to see or hear the many speakers who addressed them across the street from the Israeli mission.

The mass of supporters marched down 2nd Avenue to rally at Union Square. The program there began with silence in memory of the massacre at Deir Yassin on April 7, 1948. Abbas Hamidah, born in Puerto Rico, spoke as the son of a survivor of the massacre. Not only were the perpetrators never punished, he said, but one of them—Menachem Begin—served as Israel’s prime minister.

A message in Arabic from George Habash, formerly secretary-general of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, was translated by Elias Rashmawi, a California activist. Habash urged people to continue their efforts to educate the American public.

Another speaker, Dr. Mazen Najjar, a professor at the University of Southern Florida, spent three years and seven months imprisoned on the basis of secret evidence. His family is originally from Lydda. In 1948, Zionist troops ordered everyone to leave. His grandfather, being old, chose to remain. Zionist soldiers took him away and he was never seen again. Najjar’s mother, then 12 years old, became in one moment an orphan, homeless, and stateless. Najjar said everyone present is on high moral ground: “We are here to reverse an unjust situation.”

Muna Hamzeh described what life has been like recently in Daheishe refugee camp. In the morning helicopter gunships circle overhead; at night the bombing begins. After one schoolboy was shot dead on his way to school, other children were afraid to wear their book bags, thinking they were somehow targets.

Professor Edward Said exhorted people to ask everyone, “Where do you stand on the question of Palestine?” Supporters of Palestinian rights should make their voices heard, Said said, in spite of indifference in the public and neglect by the media. He urged people to work for policies of divestment and boycott. His response to the repeated demand that “Palestinian violence must stop” is, “It’s not violence. It is resistance, and it must never stop!”

—Jane Adas

 

Palestinian Right to Return Rally

Thousands of people gathered in front of the Israeli consulate in New York City for a rally on April 7 to call for the Palestinians’ right to return to their ancestral lands or be justly compensated for their loss. Though the police numbered the crowd at about 10,000, most observers figured it at closer to 4,000 to 5,000 participants.

Following the fairly brief demonstration in front of the consulate, the crowd marched to Union Square—a distance of several miles. The procession included an Uncle Sam figure on stilts with bags of U.S. money for Israel and two “Israeli tanks” complete with keffiyehed youth throwing paper machŽ rocks at them. There were flags and banners depicting Palestinian scenes, and a little girl’s drawing of a dove with the caption “Free Palestine,” which she proudly displayed. There were old women in hijab, young boys in keffiyehs, members of the Palestinian diaspora, non-Palestinian Arabs, anti-Zionist Jews, Native Americans, Puerto Ricans, American Green Party members, representatives of the International Action Center, older concerned Americans, and a range of all kinds of people in between who joined the Palestinian group Al-Awda (The Return) to raise awareness of this large group of refugees. Musicians accompanied the long march, contributing to its hopeful atmosphere.

Along the route, many well-wishers signaled their approval. Although one woman yelled Zionist slogans out her window, most observers who took a stance did so in favor of the Palestinian marchers. If the number of American activists involved in the march, and those supporters along the way, are any indication, American public opinion is beginning to change.

—Sara Powell

 

Palestinians, Others Protest Sharon Visit

In Washington, DC on March 19, Palestinian protesters were joined by a large and diverse group angry that the U.S. would accord full head-of-state treatment to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, considered a war criminal for his role in the Sabra and Shatila massacre and other atrocities. These protesters included non-Palestinian Arabs, American activists, and Jewish activists who do not wish to see their religion tarnished by supremacist elements.

Though the group numbered just less than a thousand, they nevertheless vastly outnumbered those gathered in support of Sharon as he spoke to AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) at their annual meeting at the Washington Hilton. Those demonstrating in favor of Israel included several young people who crossed the street to heckle pro-Palestinian protesters. Sharon’s supporters were allowed to stand on the corner directly outside the hotel, whereas those in support of Palestinian rights were relegated to a position across the street. Sharon’s motorcade did pass within sight and sound of the demonstration, however.

Protesters hoped for good coverage by the many news cameras in evidence. Middle Eastern news services were joined by German television, CNN and CBS, among others. While viewers in the Middle East and Europe may have seen the demonstration on television, those in the U.S. did not. Coverage was extremely perfunctory, both on television and in the newspapers the following day. The AIPAC meeting and Sharon’s visit, on the other hand, both received extensive coverage.

—Sara Powell

 

Palestine Lost: The Life of George Antonius

Dr. Susan Boyle discussed her new book, Betrayal of Palestine: The Story of George Antonius, at the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine on March 27, 2001.

Antonius (1891-1942) was the highest-ranking Palestinian member of the British Mandatory government, and is best known as the author of the seminal The Arab Awakening. In his introduction of Boyle, CPAP chairman Dr. Hisham Sharabi said that The Arab Awakening marked the first time that Palestinians “knew we had a case, a right, and international agreements.” The documents Antonius appended to the book, Sharabi noted, remain the center of any international framework on Palestine.

Boyle, whose book is an outgrowth of her doctoral thesis, called Antonius “the Palestinian Mandela.” His life and work, she said, compels us to go back in time, prior to 1948: “We have misdiagnosed the problem of Palestine because we don’t have any history.”

Antonius addressed the 1939 St. James Conference on Palestine, and Boyle believes that “if there had been no World War II, there would have been a Palestinian state.” The conference was confronted by Antonius’ book, which lucidly presented the fact that the Palestinian case would have to be addressed. His arguments were soon overridden by the Holocaust, however, and later by the Cold War mentality.

Asked about Antonius’ views on Nazism and the Jews, Boyle noted that he made numerous trips to London and Geneva during the 1930s, and was aware of developments in Europe. His stance was unequivocal: “Everyone must stand up and help the Jews.” This, of course, did not happen; no one acted on their knowledge of German atrocities. Even at the 1939 Conference, Antonius said that Palestine could take some Jews as refugees. What Antonius could not accept was the Zionist policy of expropriating Palestinian lands for the Jews; this to him was treason.

The betrayals inherent in this case are multiple: betrayals of promises made among the Allies, of promises made to the Arabs, and of basic rights. The rule of law and personal property laws were established in England in the 13th century. Antonius knew British history, and held Britain accountable for its actions overseas. Antonius was, in Boyle’s words, “very much an American…fundamentally a profound democrat.”

For Antonius, individual rights really mattered, and justice consisted of upholding fundamental rights. Antonius stressed the importance of institutions, because with institutions, he believed, politics becomes predictable. Palestine’s problem was that it was a nation without a state, lacking institutions, a political framework, and popular government. He pushed for a local, decentralized government ruled by a constitution.

Boyle noted that Antonius was “a beautiful personality,” a reminder of what pre-20th century Palestine was like. There was no unnatural division along religious, national or ethnic lines. Antonius was a man of Levantine culture, a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, with no trace of racism.

—Hugh S. Galford

< Prev		Next >