Suicidal Ignorance

The extraordinary turbulence of the present moment during the US militarycampaign against Afghanistan, now in the middle of its second month, hascrystallised a number of themes and counter themes that deserve someclarification here. I shall list them without too much discussion andqualification, as a way of broaching the current stage of development in thelong, and terribly unsatisfactory history of relationships between the US andPalestine.

We should start perhaps by re-stating the obvious, that every American I know(including myself, I must admit) firmly believes that the terrible events of 11September inaugurate a rather new stage in world history. Even though numerousAmericans know rationally that other atrocities and disasters have occurred inhistory, there is still something unique and unprecedented in the World TradeCenter and Pentagon bombings.

A new reality, therefore, seems to proceed fromthat day, most of it focused on the United States itself, its sorrow, its anger,its psychic stresses, its ideas about itself. I would go so far as saying thattoday almost the least likely argument to be listened to in the United States inthe public domain is one that suggests that there are historical reasons whyAmerica, as a major world actor, has drawn such animosity to itself by virtue ofwhat it has done; this is considered simply to be an attempt to justify theexistence and actions of Bin Laden, who has become a vast, over-determinedsymbol of everything America hates and fears: in any case, such talk is and willnot be tolerated in mainstream discourse for the time being, especially not onthe mainstream media or in what the government says.

The assumption seems to bethat American virtue or honour in some profoundly inviolate way has been woundedby an absolutely evil terrorism, and that any minimising or explanation of thatis an intolerable idea even to contemplate, much less to investigate rationally.That such a state of affairs is exactly what the pathologically crazedworld-vision of Bin Laden himself seems to have desired all along -- a divisionof the universe into his forces and those of the Christians and Jews -- seemsnot to matter.

As a result of that, therefore, the political image that the government andthe media -- which has mostly acted without independence from the government,although certain questions are being asked and criticism articulated about theconduct of the war itself, not its wisdom or efficacy -- wish to project isAmerican "unity." There really is a feeling being manufactured by themedia and the government that a collective "we" exists and that"we" all act and feel together, as witnessed by such perhapsunimportant surface phenomena as flag- flying and the use of the collective"we" by journalists in describing events all over the world in whichthe US is involved. We bombed, we said, we decided, we acted, we feel, webelieve, etc., etc. Of course this has only marginally to do with the reality,which is far more complicated and far less reassuring.

There is plenty ofunrecorded or unregistered scepticism, even outspoken dissent, but it seemshidden by overt patriotism. So, American unity is being projected with suchforce as to allow very little questioning of US policy, which in many ways isheading towards a series of unexpected events in Afghanistan and elsewhere, themeaning of which many people will not realise until too late. In the meantime,American unity needs to state to the world that what America does and has donecannot brook serious disagreement or discussion. Just like Bin Laden, Bush tellsthe world, you are either with us, or you are with terrorism, and hence againstus. So, on the one hand America is not at war with Islam but only withterrorism, and on the other hand (in complete contradiction with that, sinceonly America decides who or what Islam and terrorism are), "we" areagainst Muslim terrorism and Islamic rage as "we" define them. Thatthere has been so far an effective Lebanese and Palestinian demurral at theAmerican condemnation of Hizbullah and Hamas as terrorist organisations is noassurance that the campaign to brand Israel's enemies as "our" enemieswill stop.

In the meantime, both George Bush and Tony Blair have realised that indeedsomething needs to be done about Palestine, even though I believe there is noserious intention of changing US foreign policy to accommodate what is going tobe done. In order for that to happen, the US must look at its own history, justas its media flacks like the egregious Thomas Friedman and Fouad Ajami keeppreaching at Arab and Muslim societies that that is what they must do, but ofcourse never consider that that is something that everyone, including Americans, also needs to do. No, we are told over and over, American history is aboutfreedom and democracy, and only those: no mistakes can be admitted, or radicalreconsiderations announced. Everyone else must change their ways; Americaremains as it is. Then Bush declares that the US favours a Palestinian statewith recognised boundaries next to Israel and adds that this has to be doneaccording to UN resolutions, without specifying which ones, and while refusingto meet Yasser Arafat personally.

This may seem like a contradictory step also, but in fact it isn't. For thepast six weeks there has been an astonishingly unrelenting and minutelyorganised media campaign in the US more or less pressing the Israeli vision ofthe world on the American reading and watching public, with practically nothingto counter it. Its main themes are that Islam and the Arabs are the true causesof terrorism, Israel has been facing such terrorism all its life, Arafat and BinLaden are basically the same thing, most of the US's Arab allies (especiallyEgypt and Saudi Arabia) have played a clear negative role in sponsoringanti-Americanism, supporting terrorism, and maintaining corrupt, undemocraticsocieties. Underlying the campaign has been the (at best) dubious thesis thatanti-Semitism is on the rise.

All of this adds up to a near-promise thatanything to do with Palestinian (or Lebanese) resistance to Israeli practices --never more brutal, never more dehumanising and illegal than today -- has to bedestroyed after (or perhaps while) the Taliban and Bin Laden have beendestroyed. That this also happens to mean, as the Pentagon hawks and theirright-wing media machine keep reminding Americans relentlessly, that Iraq mustbe attacked next, and indeed that all the enemies of Israel in the region alongwith Iraq must totally be brought low, is lost on no one. So brazenly has theZionist propaganda apparatus performed in the weeks since 11 September that verylittle opposition to these views is encountered. Lost in this extraordinaryfarrago of lies, bloodthirsty hatred, and arrogant triumphalism is the simplereality that America is not Israel, and Bin Laden not the Arabs or Islam.

This concentrated pro-Israeli campaign, over which Bush and his people havelittle real political control, has kept the US administration from anything likea real re- assessment of US policies towards Israel and the Palestinians. Evenduring the opening rounds of the American counter-propaganda campaign directedto the Muslim and Arab world, there has been a remarkable unwillingness to treatthe Arabs as seriously as all other peoples have been treated.

Take as anexample an Al- Jazeera discussion programme a week ago, in which Bin Laden'slatest video was played in its entirety. A hodge-podge of accusations anddeclarations, it accused the US of using Israel to bludgeon the Palestinianswithout respite; Bin Laden of course crazily ascribed this to a Christian andJewish Crusade against Islam, but most people in the Arab world are convinced --because it is patently true -- that America has simply allowed Israel to killPalestinians at will with US weapons and unconditional political support in theUN and elsewhere. The Doha-based moderator of the programme then called on a USofficial, Christopher Ross, who was in Washington to respond, and then Ross, adecent but by no means remarkable or even fluent Arabic speaker, read a longstatement whose message was that the US, far from being against Islam and theArabs, was really their champion (e.g. in Bosnia and Kosovo), plus the USsupplied more food to Afghanistan than anyone else, upheld freedom anddemocracy, etc.

All in all, it was standard US-government issue. Then the moderator askedRoss to explain why, given everything that he said about US support for justiceand democracy, the US backed Israeli brutality in its military occupation ofPalestine. Instead of taking an honest position that respected his listeners andaffirmed that Israel is a US ally and "we" choose to support it forinternal political reasons, Ross chose instead to insult their basicintelligence and defended the US as the only power that has brought the twosides to the negotiating table. When the moderator persisted in his questioningabout US hostility to Arab aspirations, Ross persisted in his line too, more orless claiming that only the US had the Arabs' interests at heart. As an exercisein propaganda, Ross's performance was poor of course; but as an indication ofthe possibility of any serious change in US policy, Ross (inadvertently) atleast did Arabs the service of indicating that they would have to be fools tobelieve in any such change.

Whatever else it says, Bush's America remains a unilateralist power, in theworld, in Afghanistan, in the Middle East, everywhere. It shows no sign ofhaving understood what Palestinian resistance is all about, or why Arabs resentits horrendously unjust policies in turning a blind eye to Israel's maleficentsadism against the Palestinian people as a whole. It still refuses to sign theKyoto convention, or the War Crimes court agreement, or the anti-land-mineconventions, or to pay its UN dues. Bush can still stand up and lecture theworld as if he were a schoolmaster telling a bunch of unruly little vagrants whythey must behave according to American ideas.

In short, there is absolutely no reason at all why Yasser Arafat and hisever-present coterie should grovel at American feet. Our only hope as a peopleis for Palestinians to show the world that we have our principles, we occupy themoral high ground, and we must continue an intelligent and well-organisedresistance to a criminal Israeli occupation, which no one seems to mention anymore. My suggestion is that Arafat should stop his world tours and come back tohis people (who keep reminding him that they no longer really support him: only17 per cent say they back what he is doing) and respond to their needs as a realleader must. Israel has been destroying the Palestinian infrastructure,destroying towns and schools, killing innocents, invading at will, withoutArafat paying enough serious attention. He must lead the non-violent protestmarches on a daily, if not hourly basis, and not let a group of foreignvolunteers do our work for us.

It is the absence of a self-sacrificing spirit of human and moral solidaritywith his people that Arafat's leadership so fatally lacks. I am afraid that thisterrible absence has now marginalised him and his ill-fated and ineffective PAalmost completely. Certainly Sharon's brutality has played a major role indestroying it too, but we must remember that before the Intifada began, mostPalestinians had already lost their faith, and for good reason. What Arafatnever seems to have understood is that we are and have always been a movementstanding for, symbolising, and getting support as the embodiment of principlesof justice and liberation. This alone will enable us to free ourselves fromIsraeli occupation -- not the covert manoeuvring in the halls of Western power,where until today Arafat and his people are treated with contempt. Whenever, asin Jordan, Lebanon and during the Oslo process, he has behaved as if he and hismovement were just like another Arab state, he has always been defeated; onlywhen he finally understands that the Palestinian people demand liberation andjustice, not a police force and a corrupt bureaucracy, will he begin to lead hispeople. Otherwise he will flounder disgracefully and will bring disaster andmisfortune on us.

On the other hand, and I shall conclude with this now, leaving the subjectfor my next article to develop in detail, we must not as Palestinians or Arabsfall into an easy rhetorical anti-Americanism. It is not acceptable to sit inBeirut or Cairo meeting halls and denounce American imperialism (or Zionistcolonialism for that matter) without a whit of understanding that these arecomplex societies not always truly represented by their governments' stupid orcruel policies. We have never addressed the currents in Israel and America whichit is possible, and indeed vital, for us to address, and in the end to come toan agreement with. In this respect, we need to make our resistance respected andunderstood, not hated and feared as it is now by virtue of suicidal ignoranceand indiscriminate belligerence.

One more thing. It is also far too easy for a small group of unexceptionalexpatriate Arab academics in America to keep appearing on the media here inorder to denounce Islam and the Arabs, without having the courage or the decencyto say these things in Arabic to the Arab societies and peoples they so easilyrail against in Washington and New York. Nor is it acceptable for Arab andMuslim governments to pretend to be defending their people's interests at the UNand in the West generally, while doing very little for their people at home.Most Arab countries now wallow in corruption, the terror of undemocratic rule,and a fatally flawed educational system that still has not faced up to therealities of a secular world.

But I shall leave that all until my next article.

(This originally appeared on 18th. November in Counterpunch)