< < <
Date Index > > > |
The Middle East Tragedy Through The Prism of Anarchism by Seyed Javad 16 April 2002 23:16 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
The Question of Middle East Through The Prism of an Anarchist. Ronald Creagh is an anarchist. In this brief article he tries to look at the Muslim Question in the occupied territory. Hope you enjoy it.
Kind
Seyed
University of Bristol
_____________________________________________________________________
The Middle East Tragedy
The Middle-East tragedy is more present than ever, including in the media. Many wonder if part of the solution is not to grant a Palestinian state. But this may be part of the problem, rather than the answer, and other forms of action should be worked out. The ruling classes set up the range of acceptable political debates in the media (as well as in electoral periods). Their interclass areas of dissent and conflicts generally appear in the spectrum of opinion, following an American tradition that dates back to the nineteenth century and is now spreading in other countries. Tycoons and powerful organizations wish to enlist the media in their conflicts with their rivals. Thus, dissent about the Vietnam war only appeared in the major news media when opposition to warfare developed within the establishment. This could well be one of the reasons why the Middle East is presently in the news, whereas there is hardly any mention about other tragedies, such as the endemic wars in some parts of the world, the situation in Africa or South America, the millions of Chinese now suffering from AIDS and so on. The United States government and Israel share the same views about the existence and nature of a Palestinian state, which is to maintain the Palestinians in the situation of a colonized population, but they presently disagree about the ways Israel should protect itself and both endeavor to influence public opinion. No doubt, the situation is tragic. On the one hand, terrorists blow themselves up in Israel, some out of despair, but others probably manipulated by the Hamas and the Hezbolah, which in turn are controlled by Arab countries who also intend to vassalize the Palestinians. On the other, a country and an army whose commander in chief, Sharon, is a war criminal in office (remember Sabra and Chatilah?), behaving like a conqueror in other people’s lands and inviting millions of Jews to come to Israel as if the area was his. The present situation is getting more and more similar to an apartheid, where the Palestinians would live in a number of refugee camps scattered through the territory and a specific passport, which would make them tributary of “a state”, named “Palestine”. Many activists, on both sides, are now calling for a Palestinian state, in order to stop the massacre. They claim it in the name of democracy: if one people is entitled to a state, so do other people. But when does international law give a group the right to choose its sovereignty? The answer is never found in democratic procedures but in the history of power relations. The right of self-determination, proclaimed during World War II, was meant by Roosevelt to decolonize the British Empire. Churchill thought it applied to others and told it to Stalin, who concluded that this would not be meant for the Soviet Union either. Since then, the beautiful proclamation of the United Nations has meant nothing. Who has ever bothered about the right to self-determination of the people in Hong Kong, for instance? In the Middle East, the choice could have been a democratic state where Muslims, Jews, Christians and others would live together. Instead, Israel became a state on its own right, and a religious state at that, one in which those devoted to religion could preach intolerance and send other people to fight wars, while they were dispensed from military service. And now, activists call for a full-fledged Palestinian state, which would be directed by the very people who have received millions of dollars from the European Union and kept the rich pickings to themselves. How can an anarchist call for autonomy, self-management and in the same sentence plead for a state, which has always been exactly the opposite and today is the driving belt of the new world order ? Whether we like it or not, there will be a Palestinian state, because Bush needs to stop the massacres there in order to start new ones in other areas of his own choice. We have better things to do: help all war resisters, in both sides.
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |