Rather than engaging in symbolic actions at the UN, the Palestinian leadership should listen to the Palestinian people, writes Mazin Qumsiyeh* Some of my friends in Fatah and others will not like some of what I have to say here. Others will respect and even appreciate it, including some members of the Fatah Central Committee. The situation is becoming intolerable, and some of us feel that we cannot remain silent. I personally owe it to the 50,000 people who read my e-mails, and the many who specifically e-mail to ask me questions, to raise the issue of the possible recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN in September. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back leading to this article was an e-mail from Saeb Ereikat that included a document claiming to contain details of the strategy of the Palestinian leadership in going to the UN in September for recognition. On the same day that I received the e-mail, the Israeli authorities initiated laws in the country's parliament, the Knesset, to make Israel more Jewish and approved the building of 930 new houses in the new Jewish settlement of Har Homa C, adjacent to Har Homa A and B and on Jabal Al-Deek, the land on which my own village of Beit Sahour stands. Words from unelected representatives can be lost amid the din of jack-hammers and bulldozers tearing up the ancient landscape. Declarations to the media about 122 countries recognising Palestine, about the same as was the case in 1989, mean little to villagers and refugees who are daily losing their struggle to get their concerns heard by those who drive SUVs and Mercedes cars through the streets of Ramallah and go unhindered through checkpoints using their VIP cards. I talk and work with activists on the ground daily. The message they all relay is that there is a widening rift between the Palestinian political parties and the people. They know it, and they admit it, with many leaders saying they can no longer mobilise people like they did before. But the answer to this problem is known: go back to the people and reignite the revolutionary spirit that exists within each one of us. This is the therapy to use against the metastatic growth of settlements on Palestinian land, the increase in racist Israeli laws and the plight of the refugees, and it does not involve documents written by Ereikat or a resort to a biased international forum that issues resolutions it is never willing to implement. Under the heading of "What we have to do," Ereikat's document starts by saying that we should "open a strategic dialogue with the US administration on the question of UN membership." However, it is evident that the use of the United States' veto in the Security Council would make it impossible for Palestine to become a UN member state. After 37 years of opening "strategic dialogue" with the US and 18 years of direct negotiations under the auspices of the US, under what logic can such dialogue lead to anything? Just think of the standing ovations given to the war-criminal Netanyahu in the US Congress in order to see that this is an illusion. If the Palestinian Authority (PA) has not been able to get US President Barack Obama to stick to his own words on simple matters, for example that Israeli settlement activity must be stopped, what makes Ereikat and company think that talking more will get Obama to help establish a Palestinian state? Our own representatives refuse even to boycott Israeli officials, and our UN representative attended a farewell party for the Israeli representative. Of course, everyone knows that we Palestinians are the ones being pressured and not the Israeli government. The trap of the Oslo Accords, which created a class of people dependent for their livelihoods on aid, ensured that independent Palestinian decision-making is now impossible. Under these circumstances, what makes anyone think that it is possible to change the status quo without removing the structures of dependency created by Oslo? In his second point, Ereikat states that "recognising a Palestinian State on the 1967 borders and becoming a UN member state will make it easy for the Palestinian leadership to make a decision on the final status negotiations immediately, on all issues without exception (Jerusalem, borders, settlements, refugees, water, security, and the release of prisoners and detainees)." This is both dangerous and misleading. Why is UN recognition linked to the unconditional return to fruitless negotiations? What makes anyone believe that the US will change if we do not first change and start applying real pressure? And since when was the Palestinian struggle reduced to a Palestinian "state" on part of the West Bank? (No Palestinian leader now believes that it is possible to get the whole of the West Bank). Many Palestinians point out that the leaked records of previous "negotiations" show that Qurei, Ereikat and Abu Mazen were willing to give up on refugee and other rights in return for an emasculated state of this sort. In a third point, Ereikat states that "in the light of president Obama's speech on 5/19/2011, in which he talked about our choice to go to the UN, saying 'for the Palestinians, their efforts to delegitimise Israel will ultimately fail, the symbolic actions to isolate Israel from the UN in September will not create an independent state,' it is clear that the Obama administration understands that we are going to the UN as an attempt to isolate and delegitimise Israel; that this is a symbolic act; and that this effort will not lead to the creation of an independent state." "This understanding is contrary to what we want to achieve from applying for membership for the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. We do not seek to delegitimise Israel or isolate it, nor is this a symbolic act." How many national liberation movements in the world do you know that refuse even to try to isolate a repressive apartheid regime? Just like in many other situations before, this Palestinian Authority wants to get Israel off the hook. The situation is just like when they shelved consideration of the Goldstone Report, or when they lobbied Israel against the release of Palestinian political prisoners (supposedly so that Hamas would not gain points). It is just like when many of them said publicly that they did not boycott Israeli products but only "settlement products," as if there were a difference. It is like when they issued instructions to their own security services to stop popular resistance activities, only allowing vigils in the middle of cities and no friction with Israeli occupation soldiers. The list goes on. As for the vote at the UN being a symbolic act, that is just what is being contemplated. The PA should go beyond such symbolism and instead carry out serious actions like demanding that the UN rescind Israel's membership, since it has failed to respect the UN Charter and violated its own promise to comply with that Charter's obligations. A real effort would entail asking UN member states to deal with Israel like they dealt with apartheid South Africa, as Israel fulfills all the requirements of an apartheid regime under the relevant international convention. A few years ago, Ereikat came on a tour of the US. When some leading Palestinian-Americans started questioning him about the failure of Oslo, he got angry and said that he had a PhD and asked, "who are you to question things." This is simply unacceptable. The cause of 11 million Palestinians cannot be left to a few individuals, no matter how well-meaning. FEARS OF CUTS IN AID: Current US aid to the PA is made in such a way as to implement US policy, which in turn, due to AIPAC and other lobbies, serves Israeli occupation policies. For example, most USAID dollars go on infrastructure, mostly roads, that create temporary jobs and relieve the responsibility of the occupier. Most of these roads are alternative routes that help solidify the apartheid system, in other words, roads around settlement blocks, etc. However, the bulk of the aid goes to support the salaries of Palestinians employed by the PA. Most of that budget goes toward the salaries of security employees. Under the Oslo Accords, that security is there to ensure that there is no friction with the Israelis -- in other words, to suppress any resistance, including nonviolent resistance. Because the salaries and political stability of the subservient PA has come to depend on this aid, it is very easy to use it as leverage to influence high-level officials. We saw this in the shelving of the report by the Goldstone Commission, for example, and we saw it in 2006 and 2007 as well, when aid was cut following the Palestinian elections, quickly causing the elites to undermine the government and go back to supporting the status quo. In short, aid from the US harms Palestinian national interests and serves to perpetuate the occupation because it entrenches the status quo, relieves Israel of the cost of being an occupier, and restricts political freedom among Palestinians themselves. I urge the Central Committee of Fatah, which acted boldly to remove Mohamed Dahlan from his position as its media spokesman, to act boldly and to go down the path of further and bolder changes. Setting limits on terms in office would be an appropriate first step for Fatah to take, and it could set the stage for setting limits for PA positions as well. My humble recommendation is for the Palestinian leadership to come back to the people and find new blood among them. With this new blood, mobilisation of the Palestinians in exile can be made, allowing real change to be brought about by building appropriate short, medium and long-term strategies, for example by lobbying, media work, and BDS (Boycotts, disinvestment, and sanctions). Internally, the Palestinian house needs to be put in order by implementing existing agreements to create a representative Palestinian National Council. That would create an atmosphere of real popular resistance that could quickly change the dynamics on the ground. There are hundreds of Palestinian lawyers, professors and other experts who could be consulted to build a real strategy and direction towards national liberation. Engaging in open dialogue about these things would be good for everyone. The status quo cannot be tolerated. It is better to do this now than to wait until later in September, when the people, having falsely raised their hopes of an end to the occupation, will see leaders who talked to them about September flounder and fall. It really makes no difference whether one is apathetic or one is colluding with the status quo if an occupation is profitable to the occupiers, thanks to the Oslo Accords. After all, silence is complicity. * The writer is a professor at Bethlehem University and author of Popular Resistance in Palestine: A History of Hope and Empowerment .
