How to see the palestinian cause as a great moral struggle and assert the common humanity of Jews and Arabs

Wouldn't it be great if a new generation of palestinians would finally listen to the late Edward Said's words of wisdom? In this text he makes the case for rethinking and reviving the struggle of his people as a universal, non-violent and moral cause for human coexistence:

The only alternative
By Edward Said Al-Ahram Weekly On-line, 1 - 7 March 2001
I first visited South Africa in May 1991: a dark, wet, wintry period, when Apartheid still ruled, although the ANC and Nelson Mandela had been freed. Ten years later I returned, this time to summer, in a democratic country in which Apartheid has been defeated, the ANC is in power, and a vigorous, contentious civil society is engaged in trying to complete the task of bringing equality and social justice to this still divided and economically troubled country. But, the liberation struggle that ended Apartheid and instituted the first democratically elected government on 27 April 1994, remains one of the great human achievements in recorded history. Despite the problems of the present, South Africa is an inspiring place to visit and think about, partly because for Arabs, it has a lot to teach us about struggle, originality, and perseverance.

I came here this time as a participant in a conference on values in education, organised by the Ministry of Education. Qader Asmal, the minister of education, is an old and admired friend whom I met many years ago when he was in exile in Ireland. I shall say more about him in my next article. But, as a member of the cabinet, a longtime ANC activist, and a successful lawyer and academic, he was able to persuade Nelson Mandela (now 83, in frail health, and officially retired from public life) to address the conference on the first evening. What Mandela said then made a deep impression on me, as much because of Mandela's enormous stature and profoundly affecting charisma, as for the well-crafted words he uttered. Also a lawyer by training, Mandela is an especially eloquent man who, in spite of thousands of ritual occasions and speeches, always seems to have something gripping to say.

This time it was two phrases about the past that struck me in a fine speech about education, a speech which drew unflattering attention to the depressed present state of the country's majority, "languishing in abject conditions of material and social deprivation." Hence, he reminded the audience, "our struggle is not over," even though -- here was the first phrase -- the campaign against Apartheid "was one of the great moral struggles" that "captured the world's imagination." The second phrase was in his description of the anti-Apartheid campaign not simply as a movement to end racial discrimination, but as a means "for all of us to assert our common humanity." Implied in the words "all of us" is that all of the races of South Africa, including the pro-Apartheid whites, were envisaged as participating in a struggle whose goal finally was coexistence, tolerance and "the realisation of humane values."

The first phrase struck me cruelly: why did the Palestinian struggle not (yet) capture the world's imagination and why, even more to the point, does it not appear as a great moral struggle which, as Mandela said about the South African experience, received "almost universal support... from virtually all political persuasions and parties?"

True, we have received a great deal of general support, and yes, ours is a moral struggle of epic proportions. The conflict between Zionism and the Palestinian people is admittedly more complex than the battle against Apartheid, even if in both cases one people paid and the other is still paying a very heavy price in dispossession, ethnic cleansing, military occupation and massive social injustice. The Jews are a people with a tragic history of persecution and genocide. Bound by their ancient faith to the land of Palestine, their "return" to a homeland promised them by British imperialism was perceived by much of the world (but especially by a Christian West responsible for the worst excesses of anti-Semitism) as a heroic and justified restitution for what they suffered. Yet, for years and years, few paid attention to the conquest of Palestine by Jewish forces, or to the Arab people already there who endured its exorbitant cost in the destruction of their society, the expulsion of the majority, and the hideous system of laws -- a virtual Apartheid -- that still discriminates against them inside Israel and in the occupied territories. Palestinians were the silent victims of a gross injustice, quickly shuffled offstage by a triumphalist chorus of how amazing Israel was.

After the reemergence of a genuine Palestinian liberation movement in the late '60s, the formerly colonised people of Asia, Africa and Latin America adopted the Palestinian struggle, but in the main, the strategic balance was vastly in Israel's favour; it has been backed unconditionally by the US ($5 billion in annual aid), and in the West, the media, the liberal intelligentsia, and most governments have been on Israel's side. For reasons too well known to go into here, the official Arab environment was either overtly hostile or lukewarm in its mostly verbal and financial support.

Because, however, the shifting strategic goals of the PLO were always clouded by useless terrorist actions, were never addressed or articulated eloquently, and because the preponderance of cultural discourse in the West was either unknown to or misunderstood by Palestinian policymakers and intellectuals, we have never been able to claim the moral high ground effectively. Israeli information could always both appeal to (and exploit) the Holocaust as well as the unstudied and politically untimely acts of Palestinian terror, thereby neutralising or obscuring our message, such as it was. We never concentrated as a people on cultural struggle in the West (which the ANC early on had realised was the key to undermining Apartheid) and we simply did not highlight in a humane, consistent way the immense depredations and discriminations directed at us by Israel. Most television viewers today have no idea about Israel's racist land policies, or its spoliations, tortures, systematic deprivation of the Palestinians just because they are not Jews. As a black South African reporter wrote in one of the local newspapers here while on a visit to Gaza, Apartheid was never as vicious and as inhumane as Zionism: ethnic cleansing, daily humiliations, collective punishment on a vast scale, land appropriation, etc., etc.

But, even these facts, were they known better as a weapon in the battle over values between Zionism and the Palestinians, would not have been enough. What we never concentrated on enough was the fact that to counteract Zionist exclusivism, we would have to provide a solution to the conflict that, in Mandela's second phrase, would assert our common humanity as Jews and Arabs. Most of us still cannot accept the idea that Israeli Jews are here to stay, that they will not go away, any more than Palestinians will go away. This is understandably very hard for Palestinians to accept, since they are still in the process of losing their land and being persecuted on a daily basis. But, with our irresponsible and unreflective suggestion in what we have said that they will be forced to leave (like the Crusades), we did not focus enough on ending the military occupation as a moral imperative or on providing a form for their security and self-determinism that did not abrogate ours. This, and not the preposterous hope that a volatile American president would give us a state, ought to have been the basis of a mass campaign everywhere. Two people in one land. Or, equality for all. Or, one person one vote. Or, a common humanity asserted in a binational state.

I know we are the victims of a terrible conquest, a vicious military occupation, a Zionist lobby that has consistently lied in order to turn us either into non-people or into terrorists -- but what is the real alternative to what I've been suggesting? A military campaign? A dream. More Oslo negotiations? Clearly not. More loss of life by our valiant young people, whose leader gives them no help or direction? A pity, but no. Reliance on the Arab states who have reneged even on their promise to provide emergency assistance now? Come on, be serious.

Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs are locked in Sartre's vision of hell, that of "other people." There is no escape. Separation can't work in so tiny a land, any more than Apartheid did. Israeli military and economic power insulates them from having to face reality. This is the meaning of Sharon's election, an antediluvian war criminal summoned out of the mists of time to do what: put the Arabs in their place? Hopeless. Therefore, it is up to us to provide the answer that power and paranoia cannot. It isn't enough to speak generally of peace. One must provide the concrete grounds for it, and those can only come from moral vision, and neither from "pragmatism" nor "practicality." If we are all to live -- this is our imperative -- we must capture the imagination not just of our people, but that of our oppressors. And, we have to abide by humane democratic values.

Is the current Palestinian leadership listening? Can it suggest anything better than this, given its abysmal record in a "peace process" that has led to the present horrors?







P.S: Ovenstående tekst har jeg ikke kunnet finde i en dansk version. Men i følgende kommentar gentager Said sine vigtigste pointer om den palæstinensiske sag som et moralsk anliggende af almenmenneskelig karakter:

Destruktiv logik

Sharon vil gå i graven som en arabermorder og mislykket politiker, der kun formåede at give sit folk mere uro og mere usikkerhed, skriver den verdensberømte palæstinensiske litteraturprofessor Edward Said.

Af Edward Said, Politiken 13.4.2002


Enhver med bare den mindste forbindelse til Palæstina befinder sig i dag i en tilstand af lamslået vrede og chok. Selvom der nærmest er tale om en gentagelse af begivenhederne i 1992, er nutidens angreb på det palæstinensiske folk (med George W. Bushs ufatteligt uvidende og groteske støtte) meget værre end Sharons to tidligere massive angreb i 1971 og 1982 mod det palæstinensiske folk. Nutidens politiske og moralske klima er blevet en hel del mere unuanceret og forenklet. Pressens destruktive rolle favoriserer i højere grad israelske synspunkter. USA's magt er blevet endnu mere ubestridt, krigen mod terrorisme har fuldstændigt overtaget den globale dagsorden, og hvad angår den arabiske verden, er manglen på sammenhæng og splittelsen større end nogensinde.

Sharons morderiske tilbøjeligheder er blevet styrket af alt det ovenfor nævnte og hævet til skyerne. Det betyder i praksis, at han ganske uhindret kan gøre større skade end nogensinde før. På samme tid møder han også større modstand end før i sine handlinger, såvel som i hele sin karriere i kraft af det nederlag, der følger med enerådig fornægtelse og had, som i sidste ende hverken giver næring til politisk eller i det mindste militær medvind. Sammenstød befolkninger imellem, som dette, indeholder flere elementer, end man kan udslette med kampvogne og luftvåben, og en krig mod ubevæbnede civile kan aldrig tilvejebringe et virkelig holdbart politisk resultat af den slags, som hans drømme fortæller ham, at han kan opnå. I sidste ende er Sharon et problem, som Israel selv skal løse. For vores vedkommende består den vigtigste opgave for tiden i moralsk at gøre alt, hvad der står i vor magt for at sikre, at vi trods de umådelige lidelser og ødelæggelser, man har forvoldt os i en forbryderisk krig, ikke må give op. Når en anerkendt forhenværende politiker som Zbigniew Brzezinski udtrykkeligt siger på landsdækkende fjernsyn, at Israel har opført sig som det hvide overherredømme under apartheidstyret i Sydafrika, kan man forvisse sig om, at han ikke er alene om sit synspunkt, og at et stigende antal amerikanere og andre langsomt er ved at blive ikke alene skuffede, men direkte frastødt af Israel.

Spørgsmålet er, hvad vi i denne yderst vanskelige situation rationalt kan lære om den nuværende krise - viden, som vi må inddrage i vores planer for fremtiden. Det, jeg har at sige, er den beskedne frugt af mange års arbejde for den palæstinensiske sag som én, der står med et ben i både den arabiske og vestlige lejr. Jeg ved ikke alting og kan ikke sige alting, men her er nogle af de tanker, jeg kan bidrage med i den nuværende vanskelige situation. De fire følgende punkter hænger sammen: 1) Uanset hvad der videre sker, er Palæstina ikke kun en arabisk og muslimsk sag. Sagen er vigtig for mange forskellige, modstridende og alligevel sammenfaldende verdener. At arbejde for Palæstinas sag betyder, at man nødvendigvis må være opmærksom på alle disse dimensioner og konstant blive mere vidende om dem. Til det formål har vi brug for en højt uddannet, årvågen og højt udviklet ledelse og den demokratiske støtte af den. Vi må frem for alt, som Mandela aldrig blev træt af at sige om sin kamp, være klar over, at den palæstinensiske sag er én af vores tids store moralske sager. Vi må derfor behandle den som en sådan. 2) Der findes forskellige slags magt med den militære som den mest fremtrædende. At Israel har været i stand til at gøre, hvad det har gjort mod palæstinenserne de sidste 54 år, er et resultat af en omhyggeligt og videnskabeligt tilrettelagt kampagne, der har til formål at godkende israelske handlinger og samtidig devaluere og udviske de palæstinensiske handlinger. Dette er ikke bare et spørgsmål om at opretholde et magtfuldt militær, men også om at skabe en offentlig mening, især i USA og Vesteuropa. Det er en magt, der udspringer af et langsomt, metodisk arbejde, der fremstiller Israels position som den, man nemt kan identificere sig med, hvorimod palæstinenserne betragtes som Europas fjender - modbydelige, farlige, imod 'os'. Det, der har gjort Israel i stand til at slippe ustraffet fra sin behandling af os, er, at vi ikke nyder beskyttelse fra opinionsdannere, der kan afholde Sharon fra at begå krigsforbrydelser og derefter sige, at han blot bekæmper terrorisme. I fremtiden har vi brug for et mediebevidst panel af intellektuelle, som skal være klar til at gå på CNN, eller enhver anden tv-kanal, for at fortælle den palæstinensiske historie, sætte tingene ind i en sammenhæng og levere forståelse og moralsk og fortællende nærvær, der har positiv og ikke kun negativ gennemslagskraft. 3) Det giver simpelthen ingen mening at operere politisk ansvarligt i en verden, der er domineret af én supermagt uden at have en dybtgående føling med og viden om denne magt, altså om USA's historie, institutioner, dets strømme og modstrømme, dets politik og kultur. Og frem for alt: en perfekt beherskelse af dets sprog. At høre vores talsmænd og andre arabere sige de mest vanvittige ting om USA, overgive sig til landets nåde, forbande det ét øjeblik og bede om dets hjælp i det næste på et ulykkeligt utilstrækkeligt engelsk, afslører en så primitiv og inkompetent stat, at man føler trang til at græde. USA er ikke en fast enhed. Vi har venner og potentielle venner. Vi kan opøve, mobilisere og bruge vores lokalsamfund og de tilhørende samfund her som en integreret del af vores frihedspolitik - præcis som sydafrikanerne gjorde det, eller som algerierne gjorde i Frankrig under deres kamp for frihed. Planlægning, disciplin, koordinering.

Vi har slet ikke forstået den ikkevoldelige politik. Vi har heller ikke forstået den magt, der ligger i at forsøge at henvende sig direkte til israelerne, på samme måde som ANC henvendte sig til de hvide sydafrikanere - som led i en politik, der sætter samhørighed og gensidig respekt i højsædet. Sameksistens er vores svar på den israelske udelukkelse og aggressivitet. 4) Den vigtigste lektie vi må lære for at forstå os selv, viser sig i de forfærdelige tragedier under israelernes aktioner i de besatte områder. Det er en kendsgerning, at vi er et folk og et samfund, og på trods af Israels grusomme angreb på det palæstinensiske selvstyre fungerer vores samfund stadig. Vores største sejr over Israel er, at folk som Sharon og hans lige ikke evner at se det. Derfor er de fortabte på trods af deres store magt. Vi har overvundet fortidens tragedier og minder, Sharon har ikke. Han vil gå i graven som en arabermorder og mislykket politiker, der kun formåede at give sit folk mere uro og mere usikkerhed. Det må vel være arven fra enhver leder, at han efterlader noget, som de fremtidige generationer kan bygge videre på. Sharon efterlader intet andet end gravsten.