In My View

Recovering Palestinian legacy

At one level the Western strategy in post-Yasser Arafat Palestine made a certain diabolical sense.

Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) represented, in their mind, the radical Islamist fringe of the Palestinian movement. So it needed to be isolated. Its apparent unity with the post-Arafat Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) signalled a trend towards increasing radicalisation of the ‘mother of all disputes’ that could challenge the West’s monopoly as the power broker of the problem; hence, even that unity needed to be destroyed by pushing Fatah-led PLO towards greater distance with Hamas. Democratic franchise be damned!

In the last elections held in the Israeli-occupied territory of Palestine, Hamas had won more than 30 per cent of the votes. It had gained unstinted political control of the Gaza strip and had given Fatah a run for its money in the West Bank. The election was held under the auspices of the great ‘democracy’ drive of the George W Bush administration in Washington, only to be repudiated by the latter when the results became inconvenient.

Now they are being bombed. Of course, Palestinian civilian population is also becoming equal victims of this current Israeli aggression. But that could be pointedly ignored as ‘collateral damage.’ After all, hasn’t the South Korean champion of democracy, Ban ki Moon issued a statement condemning violence ‘from all sides’ as the secretary general of the United Nations! He has even given Nicholas Sarkozy a free run to waltz his way into the problem, much in the character of a French farce.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, needs a cleaner slate to work on once he takes office. He would seek a long term solution to the Palestinian problem with a two-state solution where Fatah can rule supreme. And Obama can be hailed as the great ‘peacemaker’ from the West who is desperate to reestablish Western hegemony in India’s West Asia. Israel can manage a bit of opprobrium as the force that ‘shaped the battlefield’ especially since it is also being given the badge of victimhood, what with Hamas’ Katyusha rockets taking the Palestinian struggle a bit to the Israeli doors.

This is also a great diversion for the world’s television channel’s, which were so full of the economic crises that it was causing bilious outrages in various capitals of Europe and the USA. Now atleast the world is looking familiar with blood, gore and death of those who could very easily be labelled ‘fundamentalists.’

Of course, Hamas is fundamentalist. They are raising ‘fundamental issues’ about the continued occupation by Israel of their homeland. If the Israeli forces are no longer ubiquitous in the West Bank and Gaza after the elections, they wait just outside the doors screening everyone and everything that crosses the security wall they have built a few years ago. Hamas wants the control of the Palestinian destiny back in their own hands.

But then Hamas is also a product of a Syrio-Iranian enterprise: the diplomatic red rags of the region. Hamas was born when a large section of the Palestinian youth had lost all hope on the Fatah’s ability to deliver an honourable Palestinian solution. They had the militancy of youth and eagerness of desire to reclaim their identity. At a tender age, they got sucked into high politics; they made mistakes, they still do.

Now their intransigence is being used in a manner that suits Israel and the West either way. On the one level they are being told that there cannot be any lasting solution to the Palestinian problem unless they unite with the Fatah. On another level, history tells us how the same international forces militate against such a unity when it occurs.

Having said that, we have been promised by the Brussels-based International Crisis group (ICG) that, “…a clear signal from the U.S.and European Union (EU) (might emanate) that, this time around, they would judge a Palestinian unity arrangement on its conduct rather than automatically torpedo it.” The whole matrix is based in Washington’s desire to engage with Syria and Iran seriously once Obama takes over the reins of power.

Sarkozy would bring in a ceasefire before 20 January once Isreali Defence Forces fulfill their tactical objectives. Though one cannot say whether the Hamas would be tamed.

But what would remain on record is India’s ludicrous reaction to the whole chain of events that began in late-December. Its exhortation about Israel using “disproportionate” force in Gaza is a slap on the face of those who have witnessed India’s past political record in the region since Jawaharlal Nehru’s time.

What would India, under the UPA government, have lost if it had threatened to discontinue the multi-billion dollar arms trade with Israel? What would India have failed to accomplish in terms of its security if the training programmes by the Israeli security agencies were stopped? What are they achieving anyway? Are they stopping a Mumbai from happening?

And what would India have gained had it done the two things that had immense value as international currencies of exchange? It would have gained a voice and respect of about 180 nations out of the 190 odd in the United Nations. It would have again become to be considered a beacon of Asian righteousness. Each of these attributes, of course, don’t have a dollar value attached to them. But they have immense importance in terms of global power.

Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhumi, Kerala. He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in