|
|
|
|
 |
 |
  |
refresh Still living in
his doctrine issue Sceptic’s
Diary
refresh After a prolonged
spell of suppressed activity, social media websites in Pakistan suddenly
became alive on Dec 3, with endless posts and tweets about the reopening of
YouTube
in the country. To many, this was nothing unexpected as the
development had coincided with the tentative deadline given by Pakistan
Telecommunication Authority (PTA) Chairman for the removal of the ban. He had
told a private TV channel on November 15 that the Youtube ban may be lifted
within 15 to 20 days. Popular news channels also
broke the news, mostly via tickers, but the furore was short-lived. Soon
afterwards, the PTA sources denied issuing any such orders and held some
service providers responsible for this discrepancy. Like always, they had no
clue of when the ban was going to be lifted. The situation to date is
that there has not been any development since the imposition of a blanket ban
on YouTube in
Pakistan which came into effect on September 17. The PTA chairman once
expressed the hope the website will be registered in Pakistan, but sources
privy to its communication with Google — the owner of YouTube — say the
internet giant has not given an encouraging response. Having a local presence
in around 40 countries, with some small ones having an internet user base of
only 3 million or so, apparently Google is not desirous of
entertaining Pakistan’s request which has a base of 22 million
internet users. The question haunting many
is whether the authorities have succeeded or not in getting
the desired results with the help of this ban, and what will be the
future course of action if Google does not register itself here. Muhammad Nawaz, an IT geek,
technologist and academic, says the government of Pakistan should have signed
a contract with Google years ago as this was not the first time the website
had been blocked in Pakistan. Had it been registered inside Pakistan, it
would have been bound to abide by the local laws issued by the local
authorities. The ban, he says, is of no
use as people have found ways to circumvent it. “Those who want to access
YouTube are doing that with the help of certain softwares, proxy websites and
Internet Protocol (IP) blockers”. Nawaz says the
objectionable trailer of the blasphemous movie that triggered the ban was
blocked in India, Turkey etc. just because they had country versions of
YouTube. “In Turkey, anyone who types YouTube.com is diverted to
YouTube.com.tr but this is not the case here. There the website has had to
comply with the orders of Turkish courts and has often blocked content such
as that related to Kemal Ataturk.” On the other hand, a
well-discussed Multi-Lateral Assistance Treaty (MLAT) between Google and
Pakistan is pending for well above two years, mainly due to the lack of
interest shown by the PTA and other related authorities. “What can we
expect from the authority which cannot even block the websites like https://www.facebook.com/3Gcorruption
targetting its own sitting and outgoing bosses.” Nawaz points out that a
large number of people have been deprived of the opportunity to do
educational research online, access entertainment-related content, benefit
from religious content and health tips. To elaborate his point, he says,
there are between 70,000 to 80,000 students enrolled with the Virtual
University (VU) who access their lectures via YouTube. “Though there’s a
compulsion on cable operators to air VU channels on their networks but hardly
anyone does that. So YouTube is the only option left for them.” There is another angle to
the story which is apparently haunting the PTA. Fouad Bajwa, an internet
rights activist and policy advocate based in Lahore, observes that in
Pakistan the internet policy has always been based on public demand and
defined by norms of public morality. “The PTA fears that its policy
decision to open YouTube may affect public order as has happened in the form
of protests leading to loss of property and lives in Pakistan”. Based on his interactions
with different stakeholders, Bajwa feels the government has been under
pressure to open the website. “But the challenge on the other hand is that
the Google is not listening to the government demands to remove or block the
objectionable content. I’ve also heard that Badar Khushnood, the Google
representative in Pakistan, has also failed to convince the Google to do
something acceptable to the Pakistani authorities”. So right now, the PTA is
facing a challenge and has to decide whether it should open the website or
not and, if yes, on what conditions. It is strongly believed among the
internet community that the Google is sticking to its own vision of freedom
of expression, something its representative expressed at the Internet
Governance Forum in Baku recently. Google representative Badar
Khushnood was not willing to comment due to the sensitivity of the issue. It
was also learnt he is avoiding media interaction since the day the Interior
Minister Rahman Malik publicly warned of action against him if the Google
refused to cooperate with Pakistan on terrorism-related issues. Sources say the Google has
expressed fears that local registration of YouTube will compromise the
interests of the Pakistani public at the hands of the state. They add the PTA
has offered to follow all the requirements for local registration, but Google
is giving one excuse or the other every time. The internet giant believes the
restoration of judiciary in Pakistan, the Arab Spring in the Middle East and
the uprising in Iran became successful only because the site was not
subservient to local laws. So, the option the PTA is
working on is to set up a highly advanced content filtering system which will
block the unwanted material and may also detect use of proxy servers, the
sources say, adding “when will it be possible is a mystery.” This will be
a tough task as an estimated 72 hours of video content is uploaded on
Facebook every minute. TNS
forwarded a questionnaire to the PTA spokesperson Malahat Rab more
than a week ago, but she has still not responded. All we have received is a
statement forwarded on behalf of Sajjad Latif Awan, Director Enforcement, PTA
Headquarters, Islamabad. It says the PTA has not ordered anybody to open the
access of YouTube in Pakistan and there are reports that some service
providers and operators have facilitated that. “The PTA has initiated
inquiry to check which Service Providers and Operators have opened the access
to YouTube and afterwards stern actions will be taken against those
responsible,” it adds.
Still
living in his doctrine Inder Kumar Gujral,
former Indian Prime Minister and one of those rare politicians who was also
an intellectual, a thinker and a humanist, may be dead — but the doctrine
he developed, setting a framework for peace in South Asia, lives on. The five point theory is a
simple one. It states: - With the neighbours like
Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives and Sri Lanka, India does not ask for
reciprocity but gives all that it can in good faith and trust. - No South Asian country
will allow its territory to be used against the interest of another country
of the region. - None will interfere in
the internal affairs of another. - All South Asian countries
must respect each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. - And finally, they will
settle all their disputes through peaceful bilateral negotiations. Gujral believed these
principles, if strictly adhered to, could re-shape South Asia. The Gujral
doctrine, always despised by India’s hawks, took a beating following the
November 2008 siege of Mumbai, as anti-Pakistan hysteria grew. But today,
four years on, it is alive and under discussion again in India. There could
be no better tribute to a man who through his long and illustrious career,
which included two stints as External Affairs minister in the late 1980s and
1990s, tried his best to mend India’s tortured ties with Pakistan. Indeed,
it is for his efforts as a peace-maker that Gujral will be best remembered by
history. In part, his desire for
regional peace stemmed from his liberal, left-leaning beliefs and worldview
as an extremely well-read individual. The Gujral family’s ties with arts
are well-established. I.K. Gujral’s younger brother, Satish, is a prominent
painter. His late wife, Sheila, who died in 2011, was a poet. But beyond
intellect, Gujral also had deep ties with Pakistan, perhaps spurring a desire
to help India evolve a less acrimonious relationship with it. Born in Jhelum in 1919, he
kept up his family’s tradition of freedom fighting, becoming a fervent
student activist during his days at the Foreman Christian College in Lahore
and serving a term in jail in 1942 for his participation in the anti-British
‘Quit India’ movement. Displaced, like millions of others, across the
Radcliffe Line at the time of Partition in 1947, his nostalgia for the land
he left behind always remained. He retained too the melodious Punjabi dialect
of Jhelum, and was in fact honoured in India, among other things, for his
lingual abilities. After 1947, Gujral embarked
on what would be a long political career, and from a beginning at the
grassroots level in the Indian Punjab, rising through the ranks to become a
Union Minister under the late Indira Gandhi and then India’s Ambassador to
the then USSR in the 1970s. For such a gentleman, a quintessential old school
politician, his career was rather a stormy one, shaken every now and then by
controversy. The first arose when Emergency was declared in June, 1975 by
Gandhi. Gujral was the Information and Broadcasting Minister at the time.
Press censorship was briefly imposed but was soon removed. In the late 1980s, Gujral
parted ways with the Congress to join the Janata Dal. He became External
Affairs Minister in 1989 as part of the V.P. Singh led National Front
government. He was External Affairs Minister again in the United Front
government under H.D Deve Gowda, and then replaced him as Prime Minister in
1997 as a consensus candidate, after bitter in-fighting between leaders vying
for control shook India. His stint as head of the rocky coalition lasted
under a year, with a restive Congress Party toppling the government. Further
controversy entrapped his government when it recommended President’s rule
in Uttar Pradesh in 1997. President K.R. Narayanan refused to sign the order.
But despite the highs and
lows, perhaps an inevitable part of politics particularly in the
sub-continent, Inder Kumar Gujral was able to retain enormous respect and
standing. When his death, at the age
of 92, was announced in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha — where he had held
seats multiple times, there was a genuine sense of mourning. Tributes poured
in from around the country — from parties as ideologically diverse as the
right-wing Bharitya Janata Party to the Communist Party of India-Marxist.
This in itself demonstrates the respect for a quiet, but firm man who refused
to compromise on principle. Messages condoling the death also poured in from
states around the country from North to South, East to West signifying the
extent to which Gujral, himself a proud Punjabi, was also a unifying factor
in a country refusing to discriminate and respecting every individual and
statesperson in his or her own right. Gujral played a long
innings. His stay at the crease was also a meaningful one. He did not merely
block the balls hurled towards him in the hope of saving his own stumps, but
also made important contributions by striking out gracefully and with
elegance whenever the opportunity arose. His contribution to building better
ties between India and Pakistan will always be remembered; indeed he was
loved by his many friends in Lahore and Pakistan. There is a need of course
to take these efforts further and turn them into something substantial. This
is a task we must collectively undertake. In the political scenario
we encounter today, not only in India and Pakistan but across the world,
politicians of Gujral’s caliber are rare. Few bring with them the broad
vision he possessed, and used as a base on which to construct his pyramid of
ideas. These ideas will remain with us long after his death. Mr Gujral will
be missed not only in India, but in the region as a whole. He spoke for South
Asia. Today others must ensure that united voice continues to be heard. caption A unifying factor: Gujral
will be missed.
A survey conducted
last year found Pakistan to be one of the two dullest nations in the world
where only one third of shop assistants, bank clerks, public officials and
transporters crack smiles when dealing with clients. Last year was a time when
people — at least those with access to computer and internet — could
entertain themselves with YouTube. Imagine how depressingly dour we must be
today, more than three months into a ban on the media sharing website.
YouTube was the only means of inexpensive entertainment and the most
convenient tool for creativity available to us. Without it, this country
begins to feel like a Talib’s dream — a place where everyone enjoys equal
opportunities to make others unhappy and frustrated, a place where everyone
is as deprived of enjoyment as he is, a place so boring, ugly and stinking
that one living in it cannot but hate ‘this’ life and wish for death that
will open doors to the kingdom of happiness. YouTube came about as just
another digital idea that clicked and made its creators very rich. But it
meant the world for us, here in Pakistan — a country brimming with noise
and fury but ever suspicious of finer arts. Music, film, experimental and
instructional videos, sports, politics … everything was within our reach,
in sound and picture, at the click of a mouse, at the price of an internet
connection. Oh what pleasures were
buried in its bosom waiting to be searched with a couple of key words. Type
in ‘Tasawwar Khanum’ and it’ll start playing ‘wey sub taun sohnia’
with Rangeela as the unlikely recipient of this compliment. Type ‘Sharjah
and Miandad and six’ and it’ll take you to the last over of the
Australasia Cup final between Pakistan and India in 1986. In one of the most
dramatic situations in one day cricket Javed Miandad hit a last ball six to
win the match and the tournament. Having relived the thrill and excitement of
decades ago, you could choose to lighten your mood by watching Bushra
Ansari’s ‘Ik chakkey k Javed ko kayee lakh milen gey, Tauseef becharey ko
…’ When friends met, they
usually took turns to search for and play music that bound them together
years ago, or that defines them in the present. There is a phenomenal amount
of material that is not available on CD or even on websites dedicated to
Indian or Pakistani music, but is easily accessible on YouTube, thanks to the
generosity of strangers who have uploaded their personal collections. The
more enthusiastic groups held karaoke parties where amateur singers performed
to the music produced for the purpose and made available on the portal. I am a fan of Russell
Peters, the Canadian stand-up comedian of Indian descent. I have watched
dozens of his shows, many times over, and always at the same venue. My son
discovered him on YouTube and the whole family followed him on YouTube. For
us he could be a fictional character that only existed in the virtual world. YouTube empowered us in
ways that were previously unimaginable. There were children who learnt to
play musical instruments, women who learnt to wear saree the South Indian
style, and men who learnt to speak English. Singer songwriter Adil Omar and
Beghairat Brigade of ‘Aalu anday’ fame owe their early popularity to
YouTube, and not to a recording company, publicity firm or a TV channel. The real magic of the
portal was its inherent quality of sharing. We could get a wealth of audio
visual material easily because a large number of people, from all over the
world, spend time and effort to make that material available to us. Some do
it for popularity, some for commercial reasons, some to express themselves
... and many do it for love, for happiness that comes with sharing, for pride
in something or someone. We were part of a global sharing platform. We were
sharing interests, information, and our persons. We were all happier for
that. I have used past tense for
YouTube for a reason. For millions of users in Pakistan, the ban has meant
employing cumbersome alternatives or getting used to a life without YouTube.
It will be back sooner or later. But it won’t be the same. The innocence is
gone from the relationship, with the knowledge that we can’t take even this
universally shared service for granted. It can be taken away any time, for
any length of time, by governments that have done absolutely nothing to
facilitate the delivery of this or any other service of note for us, in the
virtual or real world. And there is nothing we can do about it. Or is there? masudalam@yahoo.com
issue The new controversy
over the Kalabagh Dam (KBD) proposal has all the characteristics of a typical
Pakistani debate on any serious issue, in which assumptions are treated as
facts and the point of view of the other party is first misinterpreted and
then dismissed as ridiculous or worse. The discussion is on four
issues. First, there is what is described as the Lahore High Court’s order
(interim) to the federal government to build the Kalabagh Dam. Secondly,
references are being made to the federal government’s obligation to
implement the “decisions” of the Council of Common Interests. Thirdly,
the validity or significance of the less populous federal units’ opposition
to the project is being challenged. And finally there are signs of lack of
unity or clarity in the parties concerned. Most of the political
parties have taken the view that work on the controversial dam cannot be
started as three provinces are opposed to it. While the rank and file of the
PML-N in Punjab can hardly conceal its joy at having received the blessings
of the Lahore High Court (LHC), their supreme leader says national consensus
is necessary for building the dam. The JUI-F chief has expressed a similar
view. ANP and Sindhi nationalist parties are, as expected, up in arms. The
Awami Workers Party has said the dam proposal is a disputed matter and the
high court should not have taken it up. The government’s line of
action, as usual, is not clear. The prime minister says the time is not
opportune for talking about the KBD but the counsel of the ministry concerned
(water and power) told the Lahore High Court that he welcomed its order, that
the KBD was feasible, and that the government was taking appropriate action.
There is no contradiction between the two positions (of the PM and the
water-power ministry). The government will go on deferring start of work on
the KBD till the elusive national accord is possible and it will at the same
time respect the court’s decision. The latter approach is confirmed by the
report that the Council of Common Interests (CCI) has already asked Sindh and
Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa governments to restate their positions on the subject. Interestingly, while
everybody is clamouring about the LHC’s order to the federation to build
the dam the court has not done that. Its interim order is a direction to the
federation to implement in letter and spirit the decisions/recommendations of
the CCI of 1991 and 1998. But did the CCI clearly give a signal to build the
KBD? An official of the CCI said the other day it didn’t. According to him,
the CCI decision of 1991 was vague and in the nature of a recommendation, and
while the decision of 1998 was more clearly worded it only asked the federal
government to develop consensus and create an enabling environment to
facilitate the building of the KBD. Thus by renewing inter-provincial
consultation on the project the government can claim to the rendering unto
both the LHC and the PML-N what is their due. One may pause at this point
and recall what the situation in 1991 and 1998 was. On both occasions Mian
Nawaz Sharif was the Prime Minister and his party controlled all the four
provinces. He had possibilities of persuading the CII to give the go ahead on
the KBD. True he had “more important” matters on his plate, such as the
Shariat Bill, and the desire to get rid of the president, the chief justice
and the chief of the army, but he chose to yield on the KBD because the
project had run into serious opposition, because building KBD had become
politically hazardous or impossible. If the holder of a heavy mandate could
not satisfy the parties that had fat contracts in their pockets, what can one
expect from a government whose weakness is being proclaimed from all the
pulpits in Lahore? Leaving the KBD issue aside
for a moment, the citizens have abundant reason to hail the LHC’s landmark
order. The court recognized the people’s right to electricity supply and
water and invoked Article 9 of the basic law which guarantees the right to
life. This is indeed a giant leap forward, perhaps comparable to the Indian
Supreme Court’s ruling on the right to life being meaningless if
subsistence is not guaranteed. It should now be possible for the jobless and
the homeless and the old and the infirm to force the state to look after them
by securing court orders under Article 9. All that is required is a lawyer
who can put all the rights-related articles of the constitution in his
arguments as was done by the petitioner in the instant case. A critical issue is whether
the KBD project has been held up on the basis of assumptions and surmises and
whether Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh had legitimate reasons to oppose it. The
fact is that the project was promoted most ineptly. Calculations for water
storage were made on the basis of maximum precipitation ever. The people of
Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa took alarm at reports that many of their towns, including
the large city of Nowshera, would go underwater. The people of Sindh voiced
fears of destruction of their deltaic region and mangroves. They produced
evidence of the adverse effects of dams on the Indus on the underground water
channels. These concerns were never adequately addressed, and these will have
to be addressed. Some over-zealous advocates
of the KBD are annoyed at the audacity of the ‘smaller provinces’ to
obstruct the project. For one thing there are no smaller provinces; they are
all equal units of the federation. Each one of them has as much right to
defend its interest as the Big Brother even if its voice does not carry as
much weight as the latter’s. No scheme that affects the material interests
of more than one province cannot be put into effect without the concurrence
of all stakeholders. In the new scheme of democratic dispensation in a
federation, the federal authority cannot make laws for the provinces without
their consent. After all the federation has been dragging its feet on the
issue of agricultural income tax under the pretext that it can move only if
all provinces ask for it. Those who argue that the
less populous provinces should withdraw their objections to the KBD plan and
accept Punjab’s plea for its implementation in national interest may ask
themselves whether they have ever equated Sindh’s or Balochistan’s
aspirations with national interest. It seems the Punjab’s ruling elite and
the institutions under its influence are yet to recognize the immutable
requisites of a voluntary federation. All human endeavours have
relevance within a given time. The establishment of a genuinely federal
Pakistan was not difficult in the first few years after independence. The
short-sighted rulers’ stubborn adherence to the model of a unitary state
made the task difficult with the passage of each year. Everybody knows how
unmanageable the transition to democratic governance and federalism has today
become. Likewise, there was a time
when a national accord on the KBD might not have been too difficult to
achieve. Instead of working towards national integration we have succeeded in
alienating the people of Balochistan, Sindh and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa to an
extent that a rational discourse on the KBD has become impossible. Now we
should wait till an environment conducive to the emergence of national unity
is created. Prudence demands that instead of trying to seek a consensus on
KBD alone all those who matter should concentrate on developing a wider
consensus on how the federation is to be managed and how the rights of all
peoples inhabiting the land can be guaranteed on the basis of equity and
justice.
Sceptic’s
Diary Whether you are
dead or alive, the bigotry driven ‘faithful’ will come after you in the
Islamic Republic. The constitutionally privileged ‘Muslim’ majority in
Pakistan first excluded non-Muslims and Ahmadis from the reach of
constitutional protections and guarantees of equal status. Now Shias are
being targeted too. It is almost a Naziesque agenda now. The martial race
isn’t even content with itself in this country and needs further
‘purification’ — exhibit A: systematically planned killings of the Shia
sect. Exhibit B, and it has been
there all along, is the persecution of Ahmadis. The ‘faithful’ feel empty
because they could not kill the ones already dead. So the logical target is
the graveyard and tombstones. Forget about Islam being treated as a universal
religion of peace. In the hands of the ‘faithful’, it is becoming an ever
narrowing circle in which there is room for nothing but uniformity of
beliefs, perspectives, historical narratives, ways of ablution and praying.
Depart from this rigid mold at your own peril because anyone and everyone is
now a target — since the judges in this case (militants) only deliver their
verdicts with the gun. Pakistan may be the only
country in the world which cannot promise security and peace even to its
dead. In the midst of all this,
the lads and lasses at Laal Masjid are holding another convention — terming
everything about this state, including its constitution, the creation of
pagans. They love their free speech, you see, and it seems that the state
machinery does so too. At one level, it is admirable that a country does not
prosecute those who say their aim is to overthrow the constitutional
machinery — if only things were that simple. They get their way because
they have the guns and they, true to the Pakistani tradition, have friends in
high places. An Ahmadi pleading fidelity
to the constitution does not have the same freedoms because, well, s/he just
happened to be born on the wrong side of the line dividing faiths. An
unforgivable sin in the Islamic Republic. No wonder, we call it the land of
the pure. Either you are pure according to the definition of those who get to
define this word or you simply don’t exist. The only thing that will exist
here, even if it is bigotry, is pure and unadulterated. This country, its
beasts and their children will dictate thoughts, actions, speech and faith.
Either follow or pay the price. It is a simple enough bargain I suppose.
Citadel of Islam and all that jazz. So how do you survive then?
Too late if you are dead, I suppose. Your tombstone if you were born on the
wrong side of the line dividing faiths isn’t safe either. If you are a Shia,
change your last name. Or have a “Sunni” tattoo on your forehead. Or
maybe that is un-Islamic too? But I doubt you will get killed for that.
Nothing worse than not being a Sunni right now. Your name, yes your last
name, can get you in trouble. Maybe a former teacher I met recently had the
right idea, “let’s just name everyone ‘something Wahab’. The freedom of religion has
only one qualification in this country; practice our religion and the way we
like it. As long as you do this, the state does not mind even if you declare
as your avowed aim the destruction of the state itself. As long as you were
affected by the Laal Masjid operation there will be a judicial inquiry — a
commission, grand works and more. But if you are a Shia, an Ahmadi, a
Christian, Hindu or anything else and have seen nothing but persecution and
prosecution, there will be no judicial inquiry. We had one in 1953 and that
didn’t bring a good name to the country. No one wants more footnotes in
human rights reports referring to embarrassing details that do not malign
India, Israel and America. So, ever so violently, this
country has gone from bad to worse. But you may not feel it yet if you are on
the right side of the divide. Over time, however, people have stopped being
people to us. No one alive in this country is an individual — you need to
latch onto a bandwagon to stay alive or live in peril. You are a faith, a last
name, an infidel walking around, corrupting the land of the pure. Or you are
the purest and most peaceful religion itself with your shalwar rolled up past
your ankles with a gun in your hand. The rest is mere detail. This daily
routine of going through the motions or even falling in love is really not
relevant as a part of this country’s story right now. You are either a
target, actual or potential or you are relatively safe till you step over a
line. For now, I hear the call to
prayer from my work-desk and can see from my office window that a large
number of people are rushing to different mosques. All I see are faiths, pure
and corrupt, answering God’s call. One thing is clear though. God has a lot
of patience with all that goes on in this country. The writer is a practicing
lawyer. He can be reached at wmir.rma@gmail.com or on Twitter @wordoflaw caption Lahore: the desecrated
graves.
The impotence
of international recognition The single most
important point to remember with regards to the UN vote on Palestine is the
fact of the Zionist occupation. The process of creating “facts on the
ground” and then defending them with military force and unflinching
American support has been key to Zionist strategy since 1948. The status of the Zionist
occupation remained unchanged even as Mahmoud Abbas celebrated his little
triumph in the West Bank. The Zionist occupation was illegal before, and
continues to be illegal now. It was maintained by brute force before, and it
continues to be maintained by brute force today. The UN General Assembly
resolution granting Palestine observer status did much to show the state of
global public opinion on the Palestinian struggle for national liberation.
Apart from the United States and a few islands in the Pacific Ocean, only
Canada and the Czech Republic seem willing to stand with the Zionist state
and its current government. Morally, Zionism has never been more isolated in
the world since the creation of Israel in 1948 and the expulsion of
Palestinian Arabs. Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu attacked Palestinian “unilateralism” in going directly
to the UN General Assembly. Apparently, the involvement of all member-states
of the UN is still not “multi-lateral” enough for Israel. Foreign
Minister Avigdor Lieberman, true to his hawkish credentials, referred to the
Palestinian bid in the UN as “diplomatic terrorism”. Zionist outrage over
the UN vote would have been amusing had it not been for the violent context
of the occupation of Palestine. It may well be that in the
future the only significant outcome of the UN vote will be that it yet again
laid to rest the undying corpse of the Oslo peace process. Both the
Palestinian bid for UN recognition and the voting process itself were done
without Israeli consent. This once again negates the Oslo myth that a viable
Palestinian state could be achieved through “security partnerships” and
compromise with Zionist occupation as it stood on the ground. Over the past few years,
the most problematic aspect of the Palestinian Authority’s efforts at
negotiation with Israel has been the exclusion of Hamas, which was elected to
govern the PA and currently controls the Gaza strip after Fatah’s failed
attempt to seize total power. The UN vote on Palestine
has raised the possibility of “unity” between Hamas and Fatah, but it is
unclear what this will actually amount to. Hamas leaders have invited Abbas
and the Fatah party to join a “programme of resistance”, which includes
armed struggle. To imagine Abbas and the Fatah leadership actually taking up
such a programme is, of course, fantasy. The PA and Fatah are
heavily dependent on Western goodwill and US-Israeli largesse for their most
fundamental operations in exercising authority over the West Bank. They are
unlikely to abandon this status quo in search of unfamiliar concepts such as
“resistance” and “liberation”. In any case, if Hamas
chooses to enter some sort of “unity government” with Fatah, it would
have to give up on its commitment to armed resistance. It would be drawn yet
more closely in the orbit of Turkey and the Gulf Arab states, particularly
Qatar. Were this to happen, there would remain little difference between the
two movements: both being heavily dependent on foreign sponsors to maintain
control over the little enclaves left to them by the Zionist state. Both
Hamas and Fatah are essentially pillars of the status quo in Palestine,
despite Fatah’s refusal and Hamas’ willingness to militarily confront
Israel. The UN vote provides the
Palestinian leadership with access to the International Court of Justice to
prosecute Israeli war criminals. Opening up this possibility is commendable,
but it remains a chimera in practical terms. Abbas and the Palestinian
Authority have rarely (if ever) shown a great deal of outrage over Israeli
war crimes in the past. They are unlikely to begin now, just because they
have the possibility to seek redress at The Hague. The ICJ itself has
historically showed little interest in prosecuting current allies of the
United States. It is unlikely that they will begin a new tradition by
indicting America’s biggest aircraft carrier in the Middle East. Netanyahu
and the Israeli political-military leadership can rest easy on that count. The core issue remains the
inability of Abbas, Fatah and the PA to uphold the basic demands of the
Palestinian national liberation movement. These demands are very simple: an
end to the Zionist occupation and the right to return for Palestinian Arabs
expelled by the Zionist since 1948. While Abbas paid lip
service to ending Zionist apartheid policies and racism in Palestine, his
administration’s record in upholding the right to return remains abysmal to
non-existent. Nor can the PA realistically uphold it, since their commitment
to the Oslo peace process meant recognising the “legitimacy” of the state
of Israel. The Zionist state is “legitimate” only if Palestinian Arabs
are denied the right to return to Palestine and live as citizens with full
democratic rights. In other words, the Zionist state’s claim to legitimacy
rests on a fundamental act of racism and violence. As if to highlight the
political impotence of the process of international recognition being pursued
by Mahmoud Abbas, the Zionist authorities announced a yet more brazen
expansion of Jewish settlements within the occupied West Bank: just one day
after the UN vote. This met with the usual token and polite remonstrations
from the US and Europe. And yet, grassroot level
movements for popular democracy and resistance exist within Palestine. The
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is gaining ground all over
the world, acting beneath the feet of governments to de-legitimise Israeli
apartheid and isolate it morally all over the world. The writers and
intellectuals of the Palestinian national liberation movement always
emphasised “Somoud” (steadfastness) in dealing with their people’s
torment at the hands of Israel since 1948. Apparently, they will need a lot
more of it in the years to come, until a truly popular alternative to the
Palestinian Authority, the zombie of Oslo and the narrow vision of Hamas
emerges in Palestine. caption Celebrating a small
triumph.
|
|
