******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
I think this is notable: But the traditional Palestinian political discourse of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s is largely gone. In South Africa, the national liberation movement remained active until the very last minute, but we have, unfortunately, lost much of what made up the Palestinian national liberation movement largely due to the Oslo agreements. The Palestinian leadership, with the explicit or implicit endorsement of most Palestinian political parties, has surrendered basic Palestinian rights and accepted dictates by the United States and European Union to adapt to most of Israel’s regime of colonial oppression. The Palestinian people is now in a state of loss and disarray. There is no longer a Palestinian “national consensus,” if ever there was one. Even the Palestinian political parties, right and left, Islamist and secular, with almost no exception,* talk of “independence” and not national liberation,* often forgetting the refugees and always omitting Palestinian citizens of Israel from the very definition of the Palestinian people. It is up to the entire Palestinian people to determine its future and the solution to this colonial conflict. In the meantime, every Palestinian individual, group or coalition must strive to weaken the Israeli regime of oppression, as a prerequisite to attain Palestinian rights under international law. We in the BDS movement have opted for developing one, time-honored form of Palestinian resistance and* the most effective form of grassroots international solidarity with it, based on rights, not political solutions*. BDS of course recognizes that there are other strategies and approaches; *we’re just saying that we chose to focus on the rights, not the solutions*, because for any political solution – determined by the majority of Palestinians everywhere – to be just, comprehensive and sustainable it must accommodate our rights under international law. Moreover, to be effective you need to have something close to a Palestinian consensus, and to achieve that we had to stick to the most principled and strategic lowest common denominator, to the most significant and least controversial goals of the Palestinian people that hardly anyone can object to: Ending the 1967 occupation, ending the system of apartheid, and fulfilling the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homes and properties from which they were ethnically cleansed during and since the Nakba. And we adhere to these rights strictly. ... We know the inherent flaws of international law as well as anyone. But we also know that it is *either that or the law of the jungle, and the latter does not work for us*, on principle and practically, *given that we are by far the physically weaker party*. Barghouti is absolutely correct about the situation -- there is no longer a functional national liberation movement, as the weaker party has been crushed. However, his proposed answer is really not an answer at all. It just returns you to square 1. His answer is to focus on "rights" rather than "solutions". Reminds me of Arendt's comments in Origins of Totalitarianism wherein the problem with "human rights" and the like was that historically, the Rights of Man had always been pinned to national emancipation. Without a polity to protect one's rights, the rhetoric about Rights of Man (or, with BDS, "human rights") exists only in a void: "Even worse was that all societies formed for the protection of the Rights of Man, all attempts to arrive at a new bill of human rights were sponsored by marginal figures by *a few international jurists without political experi- ence or professional philanthropists* supported by the uncertain sentiments of professional idealists. The groups they formed, the declarations they is- sued, showed an* uncanny similarity in language and composition to that of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals*" (Arendt, OOT 292) Ultimately, rights must be tied to some sort of collective polity, and here he appears to be tying it to the BDS movement; but the BDS movement is just a group of people outside of Palestine for the most part who separately advocate for international law, which in turn is largely deferential to existing states to enforce and uphold "human rights" (which is why human rights are never enforced anywhere, whether it is the international conventions used to protect refugees or the various frameworks for protecting "individual minority rights," etc). Indeed, the transition from "solutions" (AKA national liberation or at the very least, some sort of national framework) to "rights" is not really a transition at all. Even the national liberation movements that Barghouti references spoke of rights. The difference is, they knew that the only way to obtain those rights was through national liberation. Here, we have a discussion of "rights" but there is no answer as to what new framework could be adopted to uphold them. Rather, you have Barghouti and others promoting a single tactic (boycotts) in order to obtain those rights; but the tactics they have proposed are not tied to national liberation, they are simply tied to "rights," that is, expecting already existing institutions to uphold them under enough pressure. In short, this is a transition away from national liberation to traditional liberalism within Greater Israel. The older movements Barghouti references wanted to physically liberate all of Palestine; later, some factions settled for trying to physically liberate only some of it (Gaza and the West Bank). But the framework Barghouti offers is a third one: he wants to physically liberate NONE of it, and wants only for international NGOs and activist groups to pressure the existing regime to extend greater rights to its subjects (as opposed to overthrowing its rule in whole or in part). This also explains why much of the BDS movement eschews any discussions of Zionism. Discussions about Zionism inevitably lead to discussions about anti-Zionism and national liberation. That is no longer part of this framework. Likewise, it explains why a significant chunk of the BDS Movement -- not just the factions Barghouti references -- have also given short shrift to Palestinian refugees. Refugees, by definition, do not currently live under Israeli occupation and are least likely to be deferential to the existing state or a framework that is deferential to them, which is why refugees are consistently removed from divestment resolutions and activists see it as "too risky" -- rather than fairly basic -- to invite refugees to condemn Israel's right to exist as a regime. - Amith <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=oa-2322-a> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=oa-2322-a> <#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
