Progressive Foreign Policy, the 2008 Elections, and the Palestinians
Ata Hindi
Rutgers University – Newark
Accountability has become a betrayed and forgotten concept. The current administration, the 2008 electoral process, and even human rights organizations have ignored the brutal Israeli military offensive on the Gaza Strip. This happens not too long after Palestinians bombarded the border with Egypt for much-needed living supplies.
According to B’Tselem figures, from February 27th to the afternoon of March 3rd , 106 Palestinians were killed in the Gaza Strip – at least fifty-four of the dead (twenty-five of them minors) did not take part in the hostilities. Other numbers rate higher. On February 29th, Human Rights Watch wrote a condemnation of rocket attacks on Israelis, while only briefly tackling Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights. A 16-page reports prepared by CARE International UK, CAFOD, Christian Aid, Medecins du Monde UK, Oxfam, Save the Children UK and Trocaire, slammed the humanitarian situation in Gaza. It wrote that the situation is at its worse since 1967 and that talks should be engaged with all political parties, including Hamas (see the PDF link to the entire report on bottom right).
According to Time Magazine, Hamas rocket attacks were a response to an Israeli targeted attack on five Hamas commanders. BBC reported that infuriated Israeli deputy defense minister Matan Vilnai warned of a “shoah” in the Gaza Strip. The term is generally used to imply “Holocaust”, but others have argued that he only meant to imply “big disaster” in Hebrew.
Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar was reported to have referred to the eventual Israeli army pullout as “great victory for the Palestinian resistance”. One can’t help but to recall the collateral devastation and eventual Israeli pullout from Lebanon in summer 2006. At the end of that, Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah declared Hezbollah’s “strategic and historic victory” over Israel after an atrocious end result.
On January 21st, 2008, John Dugard, Special Rapporteur for the United Nations Human Rights Council, spoke on the humanitarian situation in Palestine and other occupied territories; citing Palestinian attacks against Israeli targets as a reaction to Israeli military action. This isn’t a first.
On March 6th, 208, a Palestinian gunman opened fire and killed eight students at a Jerusalem Yeshiva. The UN Security Council rushed to condemn the attack, yet it was blocked by Libya and a couple other nations. Libya’s deputy ambassador, Ibrahim al-Dabbashi, sought to link the attack to what happened in Gaza and stopped the draft prepared by the US delegation.
Now, as we seek for a significant modification in US foreign policy, many of us are staunchly disappointed. Obama and Clinton have both mentioned the severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Obama has agreed with Bush in sidelining Hamas, although he made note of his concern towards civilian deaths. Hilary also stopped short of direct criticism of the overly aggressive Israel offensive while staunchly condemning Hamas. McCain’s reaction was also very bland and vague, calling for a ceasefire and condemning the Palestinian rocket attacks.
The International Crisis Group (ICG) has come up with a few ways to assist towards a complete Palestinian political configuration. Most importantly, we must understand for the dynamics of the problem. Finally, ICG put out a report which exposes cronyism and nepotism that plagued a decaying Palestinian Authority (especially after the death of President Arafat). The report looks at the families and clans which took positions in the government under the Fatah banner. This is important to acknowledge; where we may think a “civil war” exists, it has only been the corrupt politicians unwilling to give up power. Now, they are more or less removed from the luxuries of power. The top heads of government, President Abbas and Prime Minister Haniyeh, have never really clashed head-on. It makes us wonder: as long as corruption is being diminished and the welfare state is being tackled in Gaza, are they ok with the status quo?
Some think strengthening one party will ruin the other. Walter Isaacson presumes just this in his column in the Washington Post; and it only makes a weak argument for someone unknowing of Palestinian identity. In this month’s Vanity Fair, David Rose mentions the possible involvement of the US in aiding Fatah commanders against the Hamas parliamentary victories. The article claimed that the coup was actually a pre-emptive one by corrupt Fatah-affiliated politicians backed by the US. The article suggests the the Bush Admnistration looked to back Fatah strongman Mohammed Dahlan against the integration of Hamas into the Palestinian Authority. This should have been predicted to fail, as the corrupt politicians were only a small circle, and the larger militant Fatah wings such as Tanzim and Aqsa, would have avoided such a disaster. Palestinian rumors suggest that the “coup” of some of the buildings in Gaza were staged; even to the point where on of Dahlan’s men had posed as a Hamas militant and stepped on a photo of the late President Arafat.
At a small speaking event, I had asked President Abbas about his use of the word “coup” when referring to the Hamas politicians running Gaza in a small meeting before his October 2007 speech at the United Nations. More or less, he agreed that this was the easiest word for people to understand; and that Hamas was actually more capable of providing for the welfare of the Palestinian people, than those corrupt politicians before him.
After all this, the real question is… how long can the Palestinians wait? American foreign policy can only hold out for so long – promises will fade out and the Palestinians won’t believe it anymore.
The truth is there is only so much a populace can take. The benefits of isolating onseself from political violence (life, the slim prospect for employment and peace, etc…) are very small. The Palestinians, just like other nations throughout history, will find a way to centralize the populace and create a mass movement that gained the world’s sympathy in the first Intifada. Now, after an unsuccessful and extremely brutal Second Intifada, we may be on the verge of a Third.
Soci0-political movements cannot be removed unless you cut off the desperation of the forgotten peoples that harness them. The offensive in summer 2006 didn’t prevent this one, and discontent with Israel only strengthens Hamas as a distinct political party. They are not going away any time soon, so we must look towards its transition, rather than its annihilation. The truth is, they are not going anywhere anytime soon and neither are the millions of impatient Palestinians.
It may only be politics. Obama, Clinton, and McCain may be silent now as they towards their presidential victories. Obama grabbed the Israeli card from day one, but does visiting AIPAC define him? From what I remember, Obama had said “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” Though, there are many other peoples throughout the world suffering heavily, he at least acknowledged the Palestinian plight.
The candidates may be silent now, but the Palestinian issue is crucial for US foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. Whoever makes it out this one, better be prepared to put on their best diplomatic suit.
March 3, 2009 at 11:36 am
Hello webmaster
I would like to share with you a link to your site
write me here preonrelt@mail.ru