The Middle East Tragedy Through The Prism of Anarchism

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.