Skip to main content

Gaza and Change

           
  The recent avalanche of studies, analysis, opinions, historic exploration, clarification missions and social media frenzy about the ever-so-popular and polemical topic of the Middle East all come against the backdrop of a brutal and senseless act of vengeance in the Gaza strip that is draped with a military façade of Israeli self-defence. The Arab world enunciated a Facebook war on the Israeli aggression and countless videos have been posted, shared and commented on by sympathizers. Newspapers, columnists, professors, journalists, scholars, bloggers and activists all had their share in the action. They all buttressed the same cause, that of saving innocent lives, but employed different angles to approach the issue. Some craftily penned their analysis of the situation only to reconfirm the status quo and the reasons behind this stalemate; others had better intentions at heart and tried to come up with explications to why things are the way they are. Interesting articles have been posted in prestigious publications, citing the example of The Economist, where a three-page-article explained why the Arab Spring failed and what has gone wrong in this region. This topic of course touched on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general, going back in time to colonial days and moving on to modern days of patriarchal rule, the political-Islam wave and socio-economic factors that hampered democracy building. The historic aspect is almost always present in any article of the same nature. Other interesting articles explained how Muslims should not be blamed for Jewish suffering, one even referring to Albanian charitable acts when protecting and hiding Jews in their household in the thirties and forties of the past century. Other op-eds and analytical articles tried to shed light on Israeli expansionist plans and every intention to Swiss-cheese the Palestinian territories and annihilate the entire Palestinian population slowly, and then defend/justify what is happening in Gaza. Islam, Al Qaeda, ISIS, terrorism, Arab nationalism, Fateh, Zionism, holy war, Nazis, Hamas, Egypt’s Al Sisi, Arab reactionary states and of course international oblivious attitude were amongst the most popular themes covered when addressing the Israeli attack. Young, indignant and heated Arabs’ calls for death to all Jews and fully fledge jihad against the Israeli state have been employed as a let -off-some-steam consoling and solidarity activity, which, as expected, was completely void and reaped zero results (and thank God for that).

   So now what? After all the posted videos, all the historical aspects of the conflict explained and all the injustices done to Palestinians portrayed, what is the end result? As useful as these studies and angles of explaining the conflict are, and as equally important the sporadic acts of support (via charities, NGOs, government initiatives, international intervention) are,  I think it is about time to admit what many (especially Arabs) hate to admit:

1: Israel won. Game-over. No re-matches. The state of Israel exists, it is democratic, it is blooming economically, its population is growing, it has been accepted by the international community as a partner, it hosts industrial plants for international mega brands, international player in the financial market, and it is flourishing in arts, music, sports and technology. It is also willing and working on expanding and annexing more lands, just like many countries across the universe, albeit indirectly and under other pretexts.
2: The myth of Arab nationalism and collective action must die. Let us all announce jihad on that please. Arab states never acted collectively for any cause, and will never do. Needless it is to mention that this is also applicable to Islamic states. Palestinians must act alone. Completely alone. PLO was recognized in 1974 as the sole legal representative of the Palestinians for a reason, the reason is crystal clear: Palestinians must assume the responsibility of their lands. Arab states did their share in creating this mess, so perhaps asking them to stay out of it would reverse some of the bad done.
3: Point two applicable to the international community as well. Leave Russians and Americans alone. If they want to get involved, fine, but do not cry out for their help or interference.
4: History is history. No need to go back to Salahil Deen’s wars and restoration of an all-encompassing Palestine. Nor is it necessary to demonize Germans and their European accomplices in the Jewish issue, and fret over how everyone was conspiring against Arabs in WWII. The damage is done. Deal with it.
5: Hamas, whether a militant organization, a militarized party, an off-shoot of Muslim Brotherhood or a puppet organization controlled by regional regimes is a failure. It failed on all levels. It has not brought any solutions on the ground. Gazans still suffer, no economic alleviation, no political advances, no democratic practices and not one fulfilled promise has been achieved. From a purely political perspective, no one should vote for Hamas in any election, and the organization must die-off slowly.

     So now that we established that Palestinians must act alone, no need for historic grievances, absolutely no need for Arab aid, Israel’s evil plans and plots can be ignored for a while and Hamas must go, something must happen. That thing is the secret to the solution of the problem once and for all. Political awareness and democratization. New parties with educated leaderships must start leading Gazans and Palestinians in general. Educated, informed, pragmatic and calculated visionary political actors are needed. Those will carry the much much needed task of raising public awareness, of telling people the truth, of galvanizing support to a political and arms-free solution and to make people believe that change is only possible when change is in fact initiated. Gazans cannot expect to employ the same failing techniques over and over again and expect change. Justice and injustice are not the issue here. Whether Hamas' cause is moral and its acts stem from all the wrong that has been done to the Palestinians is also irrelevant at the moment. Whether Israel if the devil itself is also irrelevant (noting that many Israelis oppose thier government's actions). What is relevant is a solution. A solution that is sustainable, that is achievable and that can save what can be saved.

     It pains me to defend surrender, but maybe surrendering a little bit is needed. Should we be living in a just world, Palestine would be free, and Jews and Arabs should be sharing the land and jointly and fairly administering it. They would be no apartheid states. There would be no injustices, there would be no more hundreds of thousands of orphans nor just as many grieving mothers. There would be no separation walls, no check points, no suicidal training camps, no human rights violations and no war seasons. But these do exist, and are tolerated by the entire world. The proof to that is that nothing and no one is stopping them. That is the reality of the issue. Should the popular belief that Israel would not stop before it chases away all Arabs from West Bank, Israel and Gaza, then maybe now is the time to change the strategy long followed and try a new approach. Just because Israelis successfully won their land in the 1940s by employing guerrillas attacks against Great Britain to gain independence does not mean that this strategy will work today. Change is needed, and it has to come from within.
So back to political parties. Some hope can be pinned on a system that nurtures democracy. Israelis will not suddenly lift all embargos from the Strip, allow free movement, free political prisoners and ease procedures to access Gaza and create businesses in it, but it will have to admit that Gazans are following demcoractic and peaceful means to solve the historic crisis. The rhetoric of killing all Jews and vengeance to every dead Palestinian would stop, and a more mature and reasonable political discourse would follow. Slowly, the population will catch on, and with correct management of funds and resources, education and awareness building will make Gazans more innovative and tenacious in their quest for independence and dignified lives. This can never be achieved without collective action, and that action needs to be addressed via activists with a political identity: parties. 

It is not too late. Change is possible. But it is not miraculous. That is why the first step is to get rid of the dominating political force that has failed to achieve any real goal, and create new leaderships that can create change. From there on, the tradition must carry on, just as a Portuguese proverb says: Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and all for the same reason. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Just as Orwell Said

         George Orwell said in his famous book 1984 that “first they steal the words, then they steal the meaning”, accurately foreseeing the political actions of world leaders and their manipulation of public opinion. His words are ever so precise once one examines the vocabulary applied by a number of world leaders when describing the policies and regimes of troubling countries: axis of evil, war on terror, terrorist killers, harbourers of fundamentalism etc. Ironic it is to see how those who were once described to have been allies with Satan himself seem to show good will in a matter of very few years. Iran is one very good example of this. The Persian nation has come out as a winner in the Geneva talks that were held in October, where not only did it get applauded for the concessions it offered, but it also ensured the west’s acceptance of its regional weight. Everyone seems to be more relaxed after the negotiations and ...

Kaftar

Muaawiya Bin Abi Sufyan was the first Umayyad Caliph, who ruled as a just and jovial leader until his death in 683 AD. Known for his sense of humour and his love for women, Abi Sufyan was famous for a story that took place in his own harem. While escorting a woman for the Khorasan region in modern day Iran, a beautiful woman entered the harem and mesmerised the Leader of All Believers. With his pride in his manhood and prowess in the bed arena, Abi Sufyan did not hesitate to engage in a brazen and manly sexual act in front of the Khorasani woman, who was patiently waiting for her turn. After he was done, he turned victoriously to his first concubine and asked her how to say ‘lion' in Persian - in a direct analogy to his sexual performance.  The Khorasani woman, unamused, told him slyly, that lion is kaftar in Persian. The Caliph went back to his Court ever so jubilant and told his subjects – repeatedly – that he was one lucky kaftar. His...

Pan-Arabism vs. Middle Easternism?

             A rab Nationalism, a romantic concept that moved poets to write ballads, intellectuals to preach volumes, activists to passionately organize and the masses to cheer freedom. A concept introduced by students at the American University of Beirut in the last phases of the ageing Ottoman Empire and studied in secret societies. This concept developed and led, under western planning, to the Great Arab Revolt in 1916. The slogans of Arab revival and freedom from Ottoman tyranny swept the Arab nations, where hopes of independence and self-rule were promised by the restoration of Arab control over the area. Then problems arose. Who are Arabs? What is an Aran nation? How does it extend geographically? Is it an area that encompasses people who speak the same language and share the same history? If so, why did the Lebanese Maronites reject the concept of Arab nationalism and insist on a Lebanese identity? Why did the Egyptians hesitate be...