In the last two days, I attended two conferences, one in An-Najah National University in Nablus on American Studies in Palestine and one at AlQuds University on the future of Palestine. 

The first was an interesting conference that showed there are so many Palestinians in different universities here who were educated in the US and who understand perfectly well how the US system works (sometimes their ideas are deeper and more relevant to US future than American Professors) and what it takes to change US foreign policy.

The second conference was rather timely.  It had far more contentious subject matter exacerbated by the state of confusion created in the Palestinian body politic after the Oslo Accords and what transpired from dividing Palestinians: those inside 1948 areas, refugees, “West Bankers”, “Gazans”, the returnees (many who were with Arafat in Tunis etc.)  But we must all look in the mirror more and ask more questions.  Instead of trying to pontificate answers, perhaps we should set-up specialized committees of experts in those areas.

One of our biggest deficits is that many of us think they are experts in every possible field of study and especially when it gets to political issues.  Palestinian politicians (and dozens of aspiring politicians) hold rather opposite and contrasting points of view.  That is not unusual in politics (what is unusual is sometimes inability to express thought processes in coherent and civil manner).  We also have difficulty escaping the human failing of trying to fit all observations into preconceived boxes and paradigms.  Thinking outside of the box is hard work.  So arguments ensue between those who support resistance and those who support continued negotiations to arrive at something based on “International legitimacy” (as if these are really the only two options). 

During the conference, many heard the news that the Palestinian authority decided not to pursue war crimes charges based on the UN study of war crimes in Gaza (Goldstone Report).  Days earlier, Israeli papers reported that the government considers the report: a) biased, b) detrimental to the peace process (as if there is such a thing with Israeli colonial governments), and c) will ensure Israel decide negatively on allowing commercial ventures inside the West Bank (in particular, the permission of the wavelength for the second Palestinian mobile phone service Wataniya).  Of course all of us know these facts and can agree to them.  But the meaning/interpretation of these things politically can generate heated discussions.

When Britian occupied Palestine after WWI, their first official act was to appoint a Zionist leader as High Commissioner in charge of the country. Herbert Samuel represented the World Zionist Organization in the Paris “peace conference” in 1919.  In his autobiography he states that the British government did not appoint in spite of his Zionist affiliations but largely because of them.  He came to Palestine and asked to meet with Palestinian leaders at the time.  Debates ensued whether to attend or boycott him.  The result was not a vote one way or the other but a split between those majority of high officials who went and met him and those minority who did not.  But the average person on the street had a different answer: demonstrations and strikes etc. which became the first intifada under British rule.

The political leadership later in 1921 decided to join in the swelling demonstrations (and even deliver “speeches” to the demonstrators).  The pattern would repeat itself in the events of 1929, the events of 1936-1939, the demonstrations against Jordanian and Egyptian rules in the 1950s, the small uprising of the early 1970s, the larger uprising of 1987-1991… The people lead with actions, many politicians latch on to get some political benefit, bicker among themselves, try to undermine any action that they could not control, and use the usual tricks of political books to get their way (e.g. describing their political enemies as traitors to the cause).  But this is more than balanced by the abundance of honest, decent people who rationally address issues; with the love of Palestine far more than outweighing their love of themselves.  They are the ones who inspire, act and sacrifice (and that is the best definition of real leadership).  Without those over the past 130 years, Zionism would have long achieved its original target of a Zionist empire between the Nile and the Euphrates. 

I noted such inspiring people in abundance in reading our long history of struggle and I met many of them (e.g. among some speakers and even more audience members) at the conference at AlQuds.  When political leadership becomes ossified and or obsolete, the people do create new structures.  I recall how the Arab Higher Committee which accomplished so much in its early years of struggle in Palestine in the 1930s became obsolete by the 1940s and how the PLO came in to replace and inspire my generation. The credibility of any structure is totally dependent on the success in achieving goals and in sticking to basic rights. Man-made structures are certainly not permanent. The Palestinian people have shown, time and time again, that they are politically astute and that they will watch to see who will support their struggle more.

We saw this when Palestinians in the WB and Gaza voted for Hamas (not because of the Islamist agenda, which many voters did not support but because they saw it as a stronger guardian of the basic rights like the right of return and self determination). Many would say that was foolish but like in other countries, I think politicians underestimate the wisdom of the public and while willing to go to elections, do not put their trust in their people. Unfortunately, when Hamas came to power, they made the same mistakes (exacerbated by the fact that they were pressured and besieged).

I met a person on the street outside the conference who had more wisdom and knowledge (and certainly humility) than at least four leading invited speakers. Other speakers who spoke with humility and with facts and figures (and less rhetoric) showed a decency that is sure not to make them candidates for political office. These are the people I would like to spend more time with.

Yesterday, October 1st marked a successful strike by Palestinians inside the areas occupied in 1948. It was joined by many internationals and even European diplomats. It could herald the beginning of yet another stirring for freedom (Intifada). We need more of those. So my recommendation is that people join the March to Gaza January 1 (and similar events) as a practical step forward.

One positive practical development that came of the conference in AlQuds was that a few individuals interested in advancing the one-state agenda decided to hold a meeting in two weeks to develop the concept and the practical areas further on the ground (email me if you support the one state scenario and would like to be connected).

Interview about war crimes with Sara Baily (AlMezan in Gaza) and Mazin Qumsiyeh.

Reminder: I am sending a separate (with different content) weekly email in Arabic. Let me know if you would like to receive that. للتذكير: رسالة إسيوعية بالعربية بمضمون مختلف ترسل لمن يطلبها

Mazin Qumsiyeh, PhD,
A Bedouin in cyberspace, a villager at home
http://qumsiyeh.org

READ HIS BIO AND MORE LETTERS AND ESSAYS  BY
MAZIN QUMSIYEH ON AXIS OF LOGIC IN
"LETTERS FROM PALESTINE"