Siah
20-11-04, 14:55
Questions of chaos
As Bush and Blair reaffirm their commitment to solving the Palestinian question, Azmi Bishara finds himself in a perfect piece of Becket
Democracy, as an idea and practice, has never been as thoroughly abused as it is these days by Britain and its colonial offshoots, the US and Australia, in their handling of Palestine and Iraq.
Against the backdrop of fire and smoke rising from Falluja and the tumultuous funeral ceremonies for Arafat in Palestine, Bush's and Blair's joint press conference on 12 November was quintessential Samuel Becket. It makes for an excellent introduction to the theatre of the absurd, if you can last it out all the way from Bush's opening remarks, "Thank you very much. Prime Minister Tony, as I like to call you, thanks for coming. It's great to see you. Me and Laura are delighted to welcome you back to the White House again," to his closing, "Good job, Mr Prime Minister!"
After such a conference any one of good will would have to admit that the Palestinian people are not to blame for their plight. True, they have made many mistakes, there has been chaos and in recent days we have almost drowned beneath a heap of lies. But this does not diminish the enormity of a plight that has become so inextricably entangled in the international situation, the Jewish question and the likes of Bush sitting in the Oval Office.
At their press conference Bush and Blair gave what they wanted to sound like firm and solid answers to questions over the schedule for democratic transition in Iraq, the type of people who will assume the reins of democratic government there and the type of forces that oppose them. How refreshing it was to hear "reactionary forces" as a term of contempt echoing in the White House. But then it could only have been inserted by a labour partisan of the likes of Blair at a time when leftist concepts pose a threat to no one.
But the last thing we had expected to hear in that press conference was that the Palestinian cause was the cause of democracy. They were not talking about democracy in the Arab world, however this might have appealed to radical Arab democrats (as distinct from neo-liberals the extent of whose commitment to democracy is suspect) who believe that the road to end the Palestinian plight leads through Arab capitals, just as Arab leftists before them held that the road to Palestinian liberation led through a socialist revolution that would transform Arab capitals into new Hanois. Needless to say this was the last thing on Bush's mind, a mind that could not contemplate coming anywhere near the left that even Blair ostensibly represents. Bush meant democracy in Palestine. But do not let your imagination run wild and think that Bush and Blair have suddenly joined that camp of crazies calling for a secular democratic state in Palestine. In Palestine at present there is only one state: Israel. Democratising Israel can only mean one thing, which is to extend suffrage throughout the entire land of Palestine in the framework of a democratic secular state for all its inhabitants. But this is not what they intended. What they meant was democracy in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, and freedom of expression, no less. Yes, freedom of expression in the West Bank and Gaza. Try to work your mind around that one. Apart from George and Tony, and perhaps Laura and Cherie, the devil only knows what they were getting at.
But let's take a closer look at what they said anyway: "Our commitment to freedom and peace in that region requires us to make every effort to help resolve the conflict between Israel and Palestine. On Wednesday the prime minister of Israel presented his plan to withdraw from Gaza and some parts of the West Bank. I support that plan. It's a good opportunity. It gives the Palestinians a chance to create a reformed, just and free government. Palestinian leadership must rise to the challenge. It gives all sides a chance to reinvigorate progress on the roadmap. I'm committed to the vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side, in peace and security."
The Palestinians will have a chance to get a hold of democracy with the Israeli unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. The challenge then is to accept the disengagement plan. The principles of democracy and freedom and even progress on the roadmap are subsidiary to a plan authored by Sharon and the extent to which the Palestinians comply with it. That is all that is left of the roadmap and the test of democracy will be in Gaza. "Where?" you ask. Yes, you heard me right. In Gaza. Gaza is where democracy is to be given its trial run.
At this stage of the press conference Bush concluded his introductory remarks with the following proclamation: "Yet this difficult work is also necessary work. In the Middle East, as elsewhere, the path to peace is the path of liberty. And all who choose that path will have the strong support of the United States and the United Kingdom. In all these efforts, the American people know that we have no more valuable friend than Prime Minister Tony Blair. As we like to say in Crawford, he's a stand-up kind of guy. He shows backbone and courage and strong leadership. I thank him and Cherie for coming. I thank the British people for their strength and their unyielding commitment to the cause of liberty."
The president then turned the podium over to Blair.
Before heading off to the US Blair had vowed that this time he would impress upon the US president the importance of the Palestinian cause. He returned with declarations about democracy in his hand. Three days after this momentous affair Ha'aretz (15 November) reported that the office of the Israeli prime minister had announced that it was pleased that Bush was fulfilling his promise to Sharon to block any attempt to pressure Israel or any international action outside the framework of the disengagement plan. Bush had kept his promise to Sharon while in a joint press conference with his foremost ally he had used words intended to assuage Blair, who by now must be convinced by Bush's actions that Sharon is a more important ally than he.
When he took his turn to speak Blair stressed his government's commitment to Iraq and its resolve to "take that country and turn it into a democracy". After an unsolicited repetition of new reasons for having gone to war there, which are now being drummed into us to justify the war now that the old reasons are so clearly past their sell-by date, Blair said, almost as an afterthought, that the goal now was to draw up an agenda that "will permit us to defeat the security threat and to tackle the problems that terrorists exploit towards their own ends, to remedy poverty, and religious and ethnic strife in the world.... In this regard, we reaffirm again the importance of a solution for the Middle East peace process. We welcome the Israeli proposal to disengage from the Gaza and parts of the West Bank. We want the Quartet to meet as soon as possible to discuss how it can support the Palestinian Authority in particular, economically, politically, and in respect of security, to respond to that offer. We reaffirm that this is part of a process to get us back into the roadmap, which we continue to believe offers the only realistic route to the two states, Israel and Palestinian, living side-by-side in peace." And so on...blah, blah, blah.
Representatives of the press could not pass up the opportunity to ask Bush how all this might be possible now that Sharon had Bush's letters of understanding in his pocket. One journalist cited Sharon's remark that Bush's guarantees to him had put an end to Palestinian dreams. Blair stepped up to respond, and with a practised politician's art of slickly sidestepping a direct answer said, "I don't -- I haven't come across those particular words, and I would like to see the context of that. But I don't think that this ends anyone's dream. I think what it does is give us at least the possibility of moving it forward."
What other answer could he possibly have given? Not to be outdone in the wiles of fielding direct and uncomfortable questions, Bush said, "Let me say one quick thing about this. I haven't seen the context in which he said it, either. But I can tell you what he told me. He told me he supported a Palestinian state. He thinks it's in Israel's interest that there be a Palestinian state. Obviously there's a caveat. He wants a peaceful Palestinian state. And he wants somebody who will promote peace, not violence, somebody who's willing to join with a lot of us to fight off terror."
But the question was not whether or not Sharon denied that there should be a Palestinian state, which he did not. The question focussed specifically on Bush's pledges on dropping the Palestinian right to return, on an Israeli withdrawal to borders other than those of June 1967 and on keeping Jerusalem and most of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories under Israeli sovereignty.
When faced with a quote from Sharon gloating over the Palestinian fate because of the pledges he had secured from Bush, the US president denies all knowledge of the context, and when faced with a question about the impact of these pledges on the peace process he answers with an affirmation of the need to establish a Palestinian state. The fact is that because of these pledges any US-Israeli affirmation of a Palestinian state these days is an adamant negation of Jerusalem as a capital of that state and of the Palestinian right to return. Bush's non-answer, in other words, was an affirmation of the Sharon concept of a Palestinian state and of the Sharon stipulation that there had to be a Palestinian leadership he could trust -- which in his code means a leadership prepared to relinquish the fundamental principles of a just solution -- in order for there to be a state.
The Bush-Blair duo presented the need for Palestinian presidential elections as though this was an Arab demand, whereas in fact elections have long been a Palestinian demand, obstructed by Sharon until today because had these elections taken place while Arafat was still alive the Palestinian people would have renewed their confidence in his presidency. Bush-Blair conveniently omitted mention of the fact that presidential elections had been held before in the territories occupied in 1967 and that the Palestinian president who had been kept under siege for three years and who they were trying to strip of his powers happened to have been the overwhelming victor in those polls.
The acute reader may recall a similar press conference held by the Bush-Blair team following the outbreak of the invasion of Iraq. It was 27 March, 2003, Baghdad was under siege and the two leaders addressed the Palestinian problem, at Blair's insistence it was rumoured. It was the first time the roadmap was mentioned officially, and here is what Bush said about it: "History requires more of our coalition in the defeat of the terrible danger. I see an opportunity, as does Prime Minister Blair, to bring renewed hope and progress to the entire Middle East. Last 24 June I outlined a vision of two states -- Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security. Soon we will release the roadmap that is designed to help turn that vision into a reality, and both America and Great Britain are strongly committed to implementing that roadmap."
The pandemonium over that plan persisted from that day until Sharon was kind enough to set the pace of its implementation, formulate the authoritative interpretation of how it was to be implemented and draw the lines from which Bush was to resist any pressures emanating from Blair. But no amount of din can obscure the underlying principles of the roadmap and the spirit it has come to embody. The roadmap now means, firstly, that the establishment of a Palestinian authority committed to "fighting terrorism" is a prerequisite for any subsequent steps, that, secondly, it will not set borders for the Palestinian state or offer clear solutions to the problems of Jerusalem, the Palestinian refugees and Israeli settlements and, thirdly, that through his letters of guarantees Bush has virtually seconded Israeli perceptions of the permanent solution that lies at the end of the road.
Here now is what remains to be done on this roadmap:
1) implement Sharon's disengagement plan with international blessings and test how democratically spirited the Palestinians are in their response to this map.
2) proceed to negotiations, but only after the Palestinian leadership passes another test of their "commitment to democracy" which is to show its mettle in fighting terrorism, in accordance with article 1 of the roadmap.
3) bring into being a Palestinian authority, mercifully free of Arafat and ready to play its part in accepting -- indeed demanding -- the establishment of a Palestinian state in return for jettisoning all other "dreams".
When, at the end of the 1970s a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza became the accepted solution the liberation of Palestine became a dream. Today a capital in Jerusalem, the restitution of 1967 borders and the fulfilment of the right to return are, according to the American reading of the roadmap, unrealistic dreams, and the test of the democratic commitment and the realism of the Palestinian leadership resides in its ability to neutralise these dreams. Arafat had been the obstacle to the realisation of this reading from inside the PA, while the opposition was regarded as though it were not an obstacle because of the undying tenacity with which it set itself in opposition. Now Arafat has been transformed into a symbol by diverse and conflicting parties, regardless of the facts. A symbol is a two-edged sword. This one will be used by the advocates of concessions for the sake of a state on the grounds that Arafat took the lead in approving a realistic agenda and abandoning principles, stumbling only on the shoals of Jerusalem in Camp David. The opponents of this tack will hold that Arafat had clung to all fixed Palestinian principles in Camp David and afterwards. Both sides will cite conflicting quotes, anecdotes and reminiscences to justify their stances. And this contest will rage as long as the question of national unity and democracy within the framework of national unity is unresolved.
As Bush and Blair reaffirm their commitment to solving the Palestinian question, Azmi Bishara finds himself in a perfect piece of Becket
Democracy, as an idea and practice, has never been as thoroughly abused as it is these days by Britain and its colonial offshoots, the US and Australia, in their handling of Palestine and Iraq.
Against the backdrop of fire and smoke rising from Falluja and the tumultuous funeral ceremonies for Arafat in Palestine, Bush's and Blair's joint press conference on 12 November was quintessential Samuel Becket. It makes for an excellent introduction to the theatre of the absurd, if you can last it out all the way from Bush's opening remarks, "Thank you very much. Prime Minister Tony, as I like to call you, thanks for coming. It's great to see you. Me and Laura are delighted to welcome you back to the White House again," to his closing, "Good job, Mr Prime Minister!"
After such a conference any one of good will would have to admit that the Palestinian people are not to blame for their plight. True, they have made many mistakes, there has been chaos and in recent days we have almost drowned beneath a heap of lies. But this does not diminish the enormity of a plight that has become so inextricably entangled in the international situation, the Jewish question and the likes of Bush sitting in the Oval Office.
At their press conference Bush and Blair gave what they wanted to sound like firm and solid answers to questions over the schedule for democratic transition in Iraq, the type of people who will assume the reins of democratic government there and the type of forces that oppose them. How refreshing it was to hear "reactionary forces" as a term of contempt echoing in the White House. But then it could only have been inserted by a labour partisan of the likes of Blair at a time when leftist concepts pose a threat to no one.
But the last thing we had expected to hear in that press conference was that the Palestinian cause was the cause of democracy. They were not talking about democracy in the Arab world, however this might have appealed to radical Arab democrats (as distinct from neo-liberals the extent of whose commitment to democracy is suspect) who believe that the road to end the Palestinian plight leads through Arab capitals, just as Arab leftists before them held that the road to Palestinian liberation led through a socialist revolution that would transform Arab capitals into new Hanois. Needless to say this was the last thing on Bush's mind, a mind that could not contemplate coming anywhere near the left that even Blair ostensibly represents. Bush meant democracy in Palestine. But do not let your imagination run wild and think that Bush and Blair have suddenly joined that camp of crazies calling for a secular democratic state in Palestine. In Palestine at present there is only one state: Israel. Democratising Israel can only mean one thing, which is to extend suffrage throughout the entire land of Palestine in the framework of a democratic secular state for all its inhabitants. But this is not what they intended. What they meant was democracy in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, and freedom of expression, no less. Yes, freedom of expression in the West Bank and Gaza. Try to work your mind around that one. Apart from George and Tony, and perhaps Laura and Cherie, the devil only knows what they were getting at.
But let's take a closer look at what they said anyway: "Our commitment to freedom and peace in that region requires us to make every effort to help resolve the conflict between Israel and Palestine. On Wednesday the prime minister of Israel presented his plan to withdraw from Gaza and some parts of the West Bank. I support that plan. It's a good opportunity. It gives the Palestinians a chance to create a reformed, just and free government. Palestinian leadership must rise to the challenge. It gives all sides a chance to reinvigorate progress on the roadmap. I'm committed to the vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side, in peace and security."
The Palestinians will have a chance to get a hold of democracy with the Israeli unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. The challenge then is to accept the disengagement plan. The principles of democracy and freedom and even progress on the roadmap are subsidiary to a plan authored by Sharon and the extent to which the Palestinians comply with it. That is all that is left of the roadmap and the test of democracy will be in Gaza. "Where?" you ask. Yes, you heard me right. In Gaza. Gaza is where democracy is to be given its trial run.
At this stage of the press conference Bush concluded his introductory remarks with the following proclamation: "Yet this difficult work is also necessary work. In the Middle East, as elsewhere, the path to peace is the path of liberty. And all who choose that path will have the strong support of the United States and the United Kingdom. In all these efforts, the American people know that we have no more valuable friend than Prime Minister Tony Blair. As we like to say in Crawford, he's a stand-up kind of guy. He shows backbone and courage and strong leadership. I thank him and Cherie for coming. I thank the British people for their strength and their unyielding commitment to the cause of liberty."
The president then turned the podium over to Blair.
Before heading off to the US Blair had vowed that this time he would impress upon the US president the importance of the Palestinian cause. He returned with declarations about democracy in his hand. Three days after this momentous affair Ha'aretz (15 November) reported that the office of the Israeli prime minister had announced that it was pleased that Bush was fulfilling his promise to Sharon to block any attempt to pressure Israel or any international action outside the framework of the disengagement plan. Bush had kept his promise to Sharon while in a joint press conference with his foremost ally he had used words intended to assuage Blair, who by now must be convinced by Bush's actions that Sharon is a more important ally than he.
When he took his turn to speak Blair stressed his government's commitment to Iraq and its resolve to "take that country and turn it into a democracy". After an unsolicited repetition of new reasons for having gone to war there, which are now being drummed into us to justify the war now that the old reasons are so clearly past their sell-by date, Blair said, almost as an afterthought, that the goal now was to draw up an agenda that "will permit us to defeat the security threat and to tackle the problems that terrorists exploit towards their own ends, to remedy poverty, and religious and ethnic strife in the world.... In this regard, we reaffirm again the importance of a solution for the Middle East peace process. We welcome the Israeli proposal to disengage from the Gaza and parts of the West Bank. We want the Quartet to meet as soon as possible to discuss how it can support the Palestinian Authority in particular, economically, politically, and in respect of security, to respond to that offer. We reaffirm that this is part of a process to get us back into the roadmap, which we continue to believe offers the only realistic route to the two states, Israel and Palestinian, living side-by-side in peace." And so on...blah, blah, blah.
Representatives of the press could not pass up the opportunity to ask Bush how all this might be possible now that Sharon had Bush's letters of understanding in his pocket. One journalist cited Sharon's remark that Bush's guarantees to him had put an end to Palestinian dreams. Blair stepped up to respond, and with a practised politician's art of slickly sidestepping a direct answer said, "I don't -- I haven't come across those particular words, and I would like to see the context of that. But I don't think that this ends anyone's dream. I think what it does is give us at least the possibility of moving it forward."
What other answer could he possibly have given? Not to be outdone in the wiles of fielding direct and uncomfortable questions, Bush said, "Let me say one quick thing about this. I haven't seen the context in which he said it, either. But I can tell you what he told me. He told me he supported a Palestinian state. He thinks it's in Israel's interest that there be a Palestinian state. Obviously there's a caveat. He wants a peaceful Palestinian state. And he wants somebody who will promote peace, not violence, somebody who's willing to join with a lot of us to fight off terror."
But the question was not whether or not Sharon denied that there should be a Palestinian state, which he did not. The question focussed specifically on Bush's pledges on dropping the Palestinian right to return, on an Israeli withdrawal to borders other than those of June 1967 and on keeping Jerusalem and most of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories under Israeli sovereignty.
When faced with a quote from Sharon gloating over the Palestinian fate because of the pledges he had secured from Bush, the US president denies all knowledge of the context, and when faced with a question about the impact of these pledges on the peace process he answers with an affirmation of the need to establish a Palestinian state. The fact is that because of these pledges any US-Israeli affirmation of a Palestinian state these days is an adamant negation of Jerusalem as a capital of that state and of the Palestinian right to return. Bush's non-answer, in other words, was an affirmation of the Sharon concept of a Palestinian state and of the Sharon stipulation that there had to be a Palestinian leadership he could trust -- which in his code means a leadership prepared to relinquish the fundamental principles of a just solution -- in order for there to be a state.
The Bush-Blair duo presented the need for Palestinian presidential elections as though this was an Arab demand, whereas in fact elections have long been a Palestinian demand, obstructed by Sharon until today because had these elections taken place while Arafat was still alive the Palestinian people would have renewed their confidence in his presidency. Bush-Blair conveniently omitted mention of the fact that presidential elections had been held before in the territories occupied in 1967 and that the Palestinian president who had been kept under siege for three years and who they were trying to strip of his powers happened to have been the overwhelming victor in those polls.
The acute reader may recall a similar press conference held by the Bush-Blair team following the outbreak of the invasion of Iraq. It was 27 March, 2003, Baghdad was under siege and the two leaders addressed the Palestinian problem, at Blair's insistence it was rumoured. It was the first time the roadmap was mentioned officially, and here is what Bush said about it: "History requires more of our coalition in the defeat of the terrible danger. I see an opportunity, as does Prime Minister Blair, to bring renewed hope and progress to the entire Middle East. Last 24 June I outlined a vision of two states -- Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security. Soon we will release the roadmap that is designed to help turn that vision into a reality, and both America and Great Britain are strongly committed to implementing that roadmap."
The pandemonium over that plan persisted from that day until Sharon was kind enough to set the pace of its implementation, formulate the authoritative interpretation of how it was to be implemented and draw the lines from which Bush was to resist any pressures emanating from Blair. But no amount of din can obscure the underlying principles of the roadmap and the spirit it has come to embody. The roadmap now means, firstly, that the establishment of a Palestinian authority committed to "fighting terrorism" is a prerequisite for any subsequent steps, that, secondly, it will not set borders for the Palestinian state or offer clear solutions to the problems of Jerusalem, the Palestinian refugees and Israeli settlements and, thirdly, that through his letters of guarantees Bush has virtually seconded Israeli perceptions of the permanent solution that lies at the end of the road.
Here now is what remains to be done on this roadmap:
1) implement Sharon's disengagement plan with international blessings and test how democratically spirited the Palestinians are in their response to this map.
2) proceed to negotiations, but only after the Palestinian leadership passes another test of their "commitment to democracy" which is to show its mettle in fighting terrorism, in accordance with article 1 of the roadmap.
3) bring into being a Palestinian authority, mercifully free of Arafat and ready to play its part in accepting -- indeed demanding -- the establishment of a Palestinian state in return for jettisoning all other "dreams".
When, at the end of the 1970s a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza became the accepted solution the liberation of Palestine became a dream. Today a capital in Jerusalem, the restitution of 1967 borders and the fulfilment of the right to return are, according to the American reading of the roadmap, unrealistic dreams, and the test of the democratic commitment and the realism of the Palestinian leadership resides in its ability to neutralise these dreams. Arafat had been the obstacle to the realisation of this reading from inside the PA, while the opposition was regarded as though it were not an obstacle because of the undying tenacity with which it set itself in opposition. Now Arafat has been transformed into a symbol by diverse and conflicting parties, regardless of the facts. A symbol is a two-edged sword. This one will be used by the advocates of concessions for the sake of a state on the grounds that Arafat took the lead in approving a realistic agenda and abandoning principles, stumbling only on the shoals of Jerusalem in Camp David. The opponents of this tack will hold that Arafat had clung to all fixed Palestinian principles in Camp David and afterwards. Both sides will cite conflicting quotes, anecdotes and reminiscences to justify their stances. And this contest will rage as long as the question of national unity and democracy within the framework of national unity is unresolved.