Palestinian Community

 

 

James D. Hardy, Jr., Ph.D.                                       Leonard J. Hochberg, Ph.D.

 

Professor, Department of History                                                     Associate Professor - Research

Louisiana State University                                                                 Honors College

Baton Rouge, LA 70803                                                                      Louisiana State University

and  Senior Fellow, NMIRI                                                                 Baton Rouge, LA 70803

                                                                                                                and Senior Fellow, NMIRI

 

 

 

There is a story that defines the virtues of extremism.  A question arose as to the proper time that should elapse between eating dairy and eating meat.  A distinguished rabbi from London said three hours.  An even more distinguished rabbi from Vilna, a gaon, said five hours was appropriate.  A rabbi no one had ever heard of, from a shtetl in the back-of-beyond, a hamlet so remote and obscure that even Kasrilovka viewed it with pity and disdain, that rabbi said eight hours.  Who was right?  Beyond doubt, it was the unknown rabbi, for his view alone of what was best practice could unite the entire community. 

 

I

 

So it is with the Palestinians.  Only the most extreme voices of endless enmity, of constant war, of hate, and of terror can unite the entire community.  All others are divisive because they are seen to weaken the movement and give comfort to the permanent enemies, Israel and the West.  The worst offenders, of course, are those who co-operate with the enemy in the so-called peace process, for they divide the Palestinian community, seduced by the illusion that there is a solution other than total victory, which is the expulsion of all Jews from the Near East.  Extremism unites.  In fact, extremism alone can unite, and unity alone can sustain the Palestinians in their time of trial. 

 

This sensibility applies to all Palestinians.  For those on the front lines, in Gaza and the West Bank, the only issue is which group is truly, permanently, and unreservedly extreme in thought, word, and deed, both in good times, during an intifadah, and in bad, during an alleged peace process.  For many the group is Hamas; for others, one or another radical branch of Fatah; for still others, it must be Hizbollah; for some, it could be only the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine; for a few--and perhaps not so few--it is affiliation with al Qaeda.  If the distinctions among the groups are technical and tactical and are also based on religion, family and clan, the unanimity of philosophy is assumed.

 

What is true for those within Palestine applies as well to those in “the near abroad,” to use the Russian term, but meaning in this instance the Palestinians living in countries located in close proximity to the West Bank or Israel.  The Palestinian citizens of Jordan have not abandoned their Palestinian national identity and many support extremism.  Those Palestinians shut up permanently in refugee camps by Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestine Authority seethe with rage at their situation (which is hideous) and support the most extreme policies (invariably confrontation) to gain their objectives (to return home) and to punish their enemies (Israel and America, never the Arabs who, functioning like Nazi kapos, keep the refugees and their descendants in the camps).  The Palestinians of the diaspora, in Asia, Europe, and America, much better off and with much more freedom, support extremist policies with money to charities and sympathy for terrorists, whom they perfunctorily condemn but deeply “understand.”[1]  Any other stance would be a betrayal of the movement. 

 

So what policy, what idea, what tactic, what stance could be sufficiently extreme as to unite their entire Palestinian community, both in Gaza and the West Bank and beyond, into a single movement with basically a single voice?  That policy and tactic, increasingly since 1967 and uniquely since 1987, is terrorism.[2]  It is sufficiently extreme that none can say its adherents have begun to waffle, so common a characteristic among democratic and Western politicians.  Moreover, terrorism has had explicitly religious approval from mullahs on every continent and in every nation.[3]  Furthermore, it is an effective weapon, husbanding scarce resources to inflict huge amounts of pain and much damage upon the enemy.  Further still, nothing functions like terrorism to fix and retain the attention of the world’s press and of politicians who deplore the tactic, occasionally declare war on it, but cannot end it.  No matter how many terrorists die or terrorists-to-be are caught, the supply is really endless.  Finally, terrorism has succeeded, at least in part.[4]  It has brought the tormented enemy to the bargaining table, offering concessions to the Palestinian movement that were never offered previously, all in an effort to find some formula that will end terrorism.  No Palestinian political tactic has worked nearly as well for nearly as long as the Intifadah.

 

Given the situation described above, we suggest that the primary purpose of organized public life in the Palestinian community, both in the Palestinian territories and abroad, is the prosecution of a continuing campaign of terrorism.  The charities, the schools and their lessons, the unrelenting terrorist-based propaganda, the elevation of death as the highest calling in life, the continuing ritual glorifications of “martyrs” (“terrorists” to all who are not Palestinian), the elaborate public funerals for those who die fighting Israel, the elevation to folk hero status of the suicide/homicide bombers and snipers, and the armed struggle; all form the primary, indeed the only, general community activity in the Palestinian world.  Ordinary civil government is neglected and economic development ignored while poverty is blamed on Israel or the West (the United States, primarily). [5]   Money donated by cynical European governments hoping to deflect terrorism elsewhere ends up, not surprisingly, in private overseas bank accounts or in the hands of those who support the Intifadah. [6]   The mundane tasks of local government everywhere--roads, garbage pickup, electricity, water, sewers, public order, jobs--are ignored here; judged by these standards, the Palestinian Authority appears to be some combination of a failed state, a kleptocracy, and a non-state.  By comparison, terrorism is well organized, effectively prosecuted, and well funded.

 

It is not a question of the Palestinians being unable to organize and sustain anything sophisticated or complex.  They are perfectly capable of that, as the geopolitical success of the Intifadah indicates.  It is, rather, a question of choice, a choice of terrorism over development and a choice of ephemeral advantage over long-term benefit. 

 

II

 

The reasons for choosing terrorism are disarmingly simple.  If the Palestinian Authority, or any regime that might succeed to its mandate to form and run a Palestinian administration, were to concentrate its considerable talents and efforts on developing the Palestinian territories and running effective municipal government there, such action could only be considered as treason to the movement.  It would imply at least a de facto acceptance of the status quo, and the Palestinian movement does not accept any aspect of the status quo.  Such action would mean no return, or any right to do so, no Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital; it would mean recognition of Israel and the continuing occupation by the Jews on what Palestinians regard as their (and Arab) land.  What Palestinian leader could even appear to accept that?  Per contra, Hamas spokesman Abd al-Aziz al-Rantisi on television recently said with fervid conviction: “I swear by God, we will not leave a single Jew in Palestine.”[7] 

 

If a Palestinian leader might be persuaded to abandon terrorism in deed as well as word, what impact would this have on the Palestinian community?  A domestic policy of national development and municipal reconstruction, while desperately needed in the Palestinian territories, would permanently divide the community, severing those in the territories, who would benefit, from those in the refugee camps in the near abroad who would continue to languish.  Communal unity and the dream of driving the Jews into the sea could only then be preserved by a foreign policy that, in the absence of terrorism, must be tantamount to a regional Arab war against a nuclear power.  Moreover, in the area of national self-image and psychology, abandoning terrorism would mean giving up the major tie that binds the community together; indeed, it is not too much to say that terrorism was the primal factor in creating a Palestinian national identity.  To rule without at least implied encouragement of terrorism is to stand apart from the people, their history, their heroes, their unity and their dream.  It would also require complete abandonment of those Palestinians still living in Israel.  To give up all of this is asking a lot from the new road-map Palestinian government.

 

Furthermore, the Palestinians do not appear to be convinced that they are losing.  Nor, after examining the convergence of forces leading to the current “cease fire” and “road map,” can anyone say that the Palestinian Intifadah has failed to gain advantage.  The normal consequence of losing four wars has been forgotten in the search for “peace,” as it is the victors who are now asked to make concessions.  The Palestinians are the ones in a position of strength, selling a formal public commitment (whatever the words could be worth) to a three-month truce in return for solid political and territorial concessions from Israel.  Does that sound like a Palestinian defeat?  Does it appear that terrorism is a failed policy, whatever its moral dimensions might be? 

 

III

 

There are those Palestinians who fervently believe that they have justice on their side; and they ask the question, in one fashion or another, “if the ends don’t justify the means, what does?”  There is justice in the Palestinian complaints, as there is in the Israeli complaints.  Whenever enemies present competing demands, each grounded in a claim to justice, the world witnesses, to use a properly descriptive term, a mess.  That is why all that can be hoped for in international affairs is neither an ideal nor even a good solution, but merely the least bad.  There are no “final solutions” in the diplomatic history of states and peoples, just temporary fixes that trigger new conflicts and complaints.

 

Nonetheless, the road map does offer a “solution” to Palestinian terrorism.  It does not call for a three-month truce, which would, the Israelis fear, give the terrorist organizations an opportunity to rearm, regroup, and redeploy.  Instead, it requires the Palestinian Authority to dismantle the terrorist factions, groups, and organizations and thereby establish its monopoly over the legitimate use of violence within the territory it currently controls--the Gaza and Bethlehem--and soon will control.  This demand is tantamount, as the Palestinians have correctly reminded the world, to the Palestinian Authority declaring a civil war not merely against Hamas and Islamic Jihad but more significantly against the very groups that are most closely aligned to Fatah, which provides the political muscle for the Palestinian Authority.  The Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigades, a Fatah-aligned group, recently called on “the honorable ministers in the new [Palestinian] cabinet, especially those who are members of the Fatah movement, to submit their resignations from this [i.e., Abu Mazen's] government” and for “the resistance and the Intifada [to] continue, until liberation and return." [8]

 

What about the right of return?  Will the refugees ever be able to return to Israel?  Will their return “solve” the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?  Clearly the Israelis will never allow more than a token number of refugees to return to Israel proper from the refugee camps in Lebanon, the Gaza, the West Bank, and elsewhere.  They rightly fear that those who return will become a fifth column, subversive of the Jewish state demographically and politically. 

 

What is even more important to recognize here is that Israeli society and polity already have absorbed hundreds of thousands of Sephardim, that is the non-European Jews who were forced to flee the Arabic and Persian lands stretching from Morocco to Iran, and Iraq to Yemen.  This resulted in a population transfer between those Palestinians who fled during the Israeli War of Independence to the “near abroad” and the Sephardic Jews who settled in Israel.  The Sephardim, whose meager wealth was confiscated by the countries that they left, were absorbed into Israeli society, whereas the Palestinian refugees, who languish in their camps, forlornly anticipating that their leaders will somehow terrorize the Israelis into conceding the right of return, continue to receive international relief (read welfare payments) from the United Nations.  Instead of integrating the refugees into mainstream Lebanese or Syrian society, these countries segregate the Palestinian population, thereby ensuring that there will be a ready supply of alienated young men to become terrorists.[9]

 

If the Palestinian Authority cannot dismantle the terrorist organizations, if the Israelis are unwilling to grant a right of return to the refugees, if the Lebanese, the Syrians, and even the Palestinian Authority prefer to segregate the refugees, then what “solution” remains?  There is one temporary fix, though few in the West will acknowledge it:  Since the Palestinians and the Israelis do not play well in the same sandbox, they should have two separate sandboxes.  Israeli Arabs who sympathize with the Palestinian cause should be required to remove themselves to the West Bank or the Gaza; Israeli settlers who cannot imagine living in an independent Palestinian state should be required to resettle in Israel from the West Bank and the Gaza. [10]   The greater the numbers involved in this population transfer the better.  Neither group should be permitted to tear down their domiciles, their schools, or their clinics.  That way, there will be housing and facilities to be distributed to the refugees on each side.  The Wall to separate the two communities should be built faster, and it should truly and completely separate the Palestinians on the one side and the Israelis on the other.  All opportunities for cultural contact should cease: commerce should cease, employment of Palestinians in Israel should cease, communication should cease, and tourism should cease.  Envy of democracy and the wealth it generates will diminish with growing cultural distance.  Both communities can protect and even encourage communal unity, each on its own side of the Wall.  With physical impediments to movement across the border, the opportunities for terrorist attacks will decline but, in all probability, not cease. [11]   Should they continue, however, the Israelis would know that there is a state on the other side of the Wall, a sovereign entity that would be militarily responsible for not curbing guerilla incursions and suicide bombings.  Although this may not be an ideal solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, nonetheless, the Israelis and maybe even the Palestinians will appreciate, to paraphrase the poet, what is being walled in or walled out before the Wall is built.

 

IV

 

So, in the end, we are brought back to the three rabbis.  Preserving one’s heritage and protecting communal unity against a hostile outside world are not insignificant goals or accomplishments.  They make the ordinary currency of road-map diplomacy, Jewish settlements, public order in the Palestinian territories, access to Israel, integration of Hamas into a Palestinian “state” and the like, while not altogether unimportant, profoundly beside the point. 

 

The Palestinians, as a people and a community, have had their national identity created by terrorism.  In the absence of the Palestinian Authority’s commitment to dismantle terrorist organizations, peace, the rabbinical story implies, is further away than one might suppose.  If there is ever to be true peace, something must be found to replace terrorism at the core of the Palestinian self-image.  Meanwhile, a local cold war, waged across a barrier separating the two communities, might possibly achieve a temporary fix, provided the directions given by the road map begin to take into account the Israeli Wall.  Perhaps that ought to be the overt aim of current diplomacy.[12]

 


Notes and References

 

[1]Paul R. Pillar, Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy (Washington, DC: Brookings Institute, 2001), 96 and 139; and for the geographic reach of terrorist groups like Hamas, Jeffrey Goldberg, “In the Party of God,” The New Yorker, October 28, 2002 or http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?021028fa_fact2. 

 

[2] According to Gilles Kepel, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002), p. 323, “The outbreak of the intifada in December 1987 had heralded a rapid growth in the influence of Hamas and, to a lesser extent, Islamic Jihad, both at the expense of the PLO, whose nationalist rhetoric had previously dominated the Palestinian discourse.”  For the impact of the Six Day war on the emergence of a politicized Islamic ideology and action see Michael B. Oren, Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

 

[3] The recent spread of Saudi-baked Whahabi religious thought and institutions deserves particular mention.  For an analysis of its worldwide impact, consult Stephen Schwartz, The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa’ud from Tradition to Terror (New York: Random House, 2002), p. 184.  For one of the earliest modern instances of Islamic-inspired revolts see Simon Winchester in Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded, August 27, 1883 (New York: Harper Collins, 2003), pp. 326-338.  Winchester traces the origins of the Banten uprising of 1888 to the conjuncture of the Krakatoa volcanic eruption with the “pronouncement” of Hajji Abdul Karim, a Sufi Mullah.  After returning to the Dutch-dominated island of Java from his travels to Mecca, Abdul Karim predicted the arrival of the Mahdi and the launching of a “holy war” against the Christian infidels.

 

[4] Obviously, the ultimate political goal – the unification of the Islamic world under a Caliph – of reactionary “salafists” (those seeking the imposition of traditional Muslim values and law), has not been realized.

 

[5] This point regarding the Palestinian Authority is not meant to contradict the fact that much of US foreign aid is directed toward Israel and Egypt, the signatories of the Camp David Accords in September 1978.

 

[6] Israel has charged repeatedly that the Palestinian Authority has supported terrorist organizations in their suicidal and other attacks.  Charles A. Radin, in “Arafat Said to Fund Truce Foes,” Boston Globe, July 23, 2003, quotes the former governor of Jenin, Haider Irsheid, and other officials: “Arafat knows of and supports the continuing payments to the militant groups despite their rejection of the cease-fire.” See the following: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/204/nation/Arafat_is_said_to_fund_truce_foes+.shtml.

 

[7] According to Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon in The Age of Sacred Terror (New York: Random House, 2002), p, 193, the Hamas charter states the following: “The Prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry, O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!”

 

[8] Quoted by Yael Yehoshua “Palestinian Reactions to Abu Mazen's Speech at the Aqaba Summit” MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute), Inquiry and Analysis Series #140, June 25, 2003.  Quote may be found at the following web site: http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA14003.

 

[9] Howard Schneider, “For Palestinian Refugees, Rhetoric Confronts Reality,” Washington Post Foreign Service, January 12, 2001; Page A01 or http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48833-2001Jan11?language=printer.

 

[10] Population transfers have repeatedly taken place in recent history, the most notable recent examples being post independence India and Pakistan and the transfer of Greek and Turkish populations on the island of Cypress.  For a brief history in Europe, see Stefan Wolff, Forced Population Transfers: “Institutionalised [sic] Ethnic Cleansing as the Road to New (In-) Stability? The European Experience,” at the following web site: http://www.mevic.org/papers/ethnic.html.

 

[11] George Friedman, “The Wall of Sharon,” The Stratfor Weekly, August 4, 2003 argues, “[The proposed Wall] is not a Maginot Line designed to protect against enemy main force; it is designed to achieve a very particular, very limited and very important paramilitary goal. It is designed to stop the infiltration of Palestinian paramilitaries into Israel without requiring either the direct occupation of Palestinian territory – something that has not worked anyway – nor precluding the creation of a Palestinian state. It is not the Maginot Line, it is an Iron Curtain.” For this analysis:  http://www.stratfor.biz/Story.neo?storyId=220765.

 

[12] For an opposed interpretation of the Wall and its consequences: http://www.gush-shalom.org/thewall/.  This web site shows a map of where the Wall has been built and where it is likely to be constructed.

 

 

 

© NMIRI 2003  All Rights Reserved
Permission to quote: Persons may quote from this article and use the material, but all quotations and references to the article must include that fact that this information came from the New Mexico Independence Research Institute, Inc. and the author's name should be clearly available in the reference or citation.