Palestinians divided over 'armed Intifada'

[Macdonald Stainsby <mstainsby@xxxxxx>]

Palestinians divided over 'armed Intifada'


By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank

Sunday 19 October 2003, 17:43 Makka Time, 14:43 GMT

The Palestinian Intifada, or uprising for statehood, is now in its fourth
year, but Palestinians themselves remain divided over what form it should
take.


Unlike the previous Intifada (1987-1992), in which mass demonstrations and
stone throwing at the Israeli occupying military were the chief means of
protest, the ongoing al-Aqsa uprising looks more like an armed insurrection.

It has provoked a concerted and draconian Israeli response, resulting in the
killing and maiming of thousands of Palestinians, most of them civilians.

Eventually, the Israeli army reoccupied the West Bank and much of the Gaza
Strip, ravaging the Palestinian civilian infrastructure and reducing
Palestinian population centres to huge detention camps.

Furthermore, the "militarising" of the Intifada created a false impression in
much of the world of a certain symmetry between Israel and the Palestinians,
giving Israel a free hand to torment and gang up on the essentially unarmed
and unprotected Palestinian population.

'Grave blunder'

The severity of the Israeli response prompted many Palestinian intellectuals
and public leaders to question the wisdom of the use of firearms and other
violent actions, especially the  human bombings or "martyrdom operations",
against Israel. They also believe the situation has been made worse by the US
grouping the Palestinian national struggle within its definition of "global
terror".

Nabil Amr, minister of information in the previous Palestinian government, is
one of the main advocates of demilitarising the Intifada.

"I think it was a grave blunder. It set us back many years and gave Israel the
justification it wanted to decimate the Palestinian Authority and commit
untold crimes against our people."

Amr argues that the Palestinian people and their cause could have gained more
by employing non-violent means.


"Militarising the Intifada neither protected us from Israeli savagery nor
enhanced our image in the international arena. On the contrary, it gave Israel
additional ammunition to destroy us and vilify us as terrorists in the eyes of
the world."

He points out that it was imperative that the Palestinians stop acting like
(former Iraqi Minister of Information Muhammad Said) al-Sahaf who misled Arab
public opinion into thinking that the Saddam Hussein regime was capable of
effectively resisting the Anglo-American armies invading Iraq.

"We have to be realistic and refrain from indulging in futile rhetoric. I
believe that with a combination of non-violent resistance and an
internationally-acceptable political posture, we can gain more," he says.

Like most Palestinian leaders, Amr realises that unmitigated Israeli
aggression makes it very difficult for the Palestinians not to react to
Israeli violence in kind.

However, he argues that Israeli provocations should not make the Palestinians
swerve from their strategic goals.

"We must not allow Israel to decide our actions and agenda. We must pursue our
political goals irrespective of Israeli provocations. It is not enough to be
right; one has to be wise as well."

Hamas disagrees

While Amr calls for a violence-free Intifada, Hamas represents the antithesis
of his thinking.

Abd al-Aziz al-Rantisi, who escaped an Israeli attempt on his life in June,
says the Palestinians have no other choice but to keep up the armed struggle.

"There is no instance in the history of nations where a people under
occupation are asked to accommodate the whims and misgivings of the occupying
power," says al-Rantisi.

Al-Rantisi, one of the most hawkish figures within Hamas, argues that it would
be illogical for the Palestinians to stop resisting especially as long as
Israel shows no sign of stopping its aggression.

He cited the 45-day hudna or cease-fire, unilaterally declared by Palestinian
resistance groups in coordination with the Abbas government in summer.

"We meticulously observed the ceasefire, but Israel continued the
assassinations and killings. So, what are we supposed to do in this case:
allow them to slaughter us like sheep?"

Al-Rantisi disagrees with the notion that the Palestinians could recover their
rights through non-violent means.

"Tell me of one nation in modern history that gained its independence without
armed struggle. If Algerians had adopted this defeatist thinking, they would
have remained under French colonialist rule."

Non-conformist voices

Some Islamist leaders disagree with al-Rantisi, at least for tactical reasons.

Nizar Ramadan is a Palestinian writer and journalist from Hebron who was
recently released from an Israeli jail, having served more than 16 months of
imprisonment for "incitement" against the Israeli occupation.

He says the armed Intifada made the world think, "We are an army facing
another army."

"The use of firearms in the Intifada blurred and nearly obliterated a central
fact of our struggle, namely the fact that we are a defenceless people
languishing under a sinister military occupation and struggling to end it.

"So instead of viewing reality as it is, a strong army brutalising and ganging
up on a defenseless population, the world, or the bulk of it, came to view the
Intifada as a classical military confrontation between two armed forces,
which, of course, is not true."

Israel to blame

Most Palestinian intellectuals and pundits agree that Israel is primarily
responsible for pushing the Palestinians to resort to the use of firearms and
bomb attacks.

One of those is former Palestinian Minister of Labour, Ghassan al-Khatib.

In an interview with Aljazeera.net, al-Khatib made it clear that the
Palestinians had no choice, but to react to "excessive Israeli atrocities."

He attributes the militarising of the Intifada to two main reasons:

The excessive use of force by Israel against largely peaceful Palestinian
demonstrations, and the increasing availability of firearms to the
Palestinians.

Moreover, he affirms that the al-Aqsa Intifada began as essentially a popular
uprising, not an armed insurrection.

Al-Khatib points out that in the first ten days of the Intifada, Israel killed
a hundred Palestinian civilians, an average of 10 people per day, in addition
to 13 other Palestinians in Israel proper.

"Those people didn't carry arms, they were not on their way to carry out bomb
attacks, they were only taking part in largely peaceful demonstrations, and
only a few were throwing stones. Nonetheless, Israeli soldiers were ordered to
shoot and kill those people," he says.

Al-Khatib also says that the first bomb attack in the Intifada did not take
place until after six months from its outbreak in September 2000.

"All of this shows that Israel drove us to resort to the armed Intifada," he
says.

Al-Khatib concludes that demilitarising the Intifada could not possibly be
done without some cooperation from the other side, Israel.

"You just can't ask people to not use arms and violence when they are
constantly killed and their homes are destroyed. Every action has a reaction."

--
Macdonald Stainsby
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
In the contradiction lies the hope
                            --Bertolt Brecht



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.