An unlegitimate revolution?

In a world where the nation state has come to represent the most repressive form of cohesive authority, most left-libertarian and anarchist groups have taken a firm stance against statism and the establishment of states, most noticeably their criticism of national liberation movements. The main argument is that, far from strengthening the position of the working class in an independent nation, power is shifted from the imperialist warmongers to local elites who in turn exploit their own population and exercise a monopoly over the country’s wealth. This is certainly true to a certain degree. One only needs to look to the examples of Algeria and Vietnam who both led a vicious struggle against imperialism only to fall under the tyranny of a repressive state. Despite this, one has to ask himself under what conditions can and should anarchists support the self-determination of an oppressed people. Although the end result should be no borders, no states, the path to freedom is a long one and under the right circumstances, people may have to endure several changes within their country’s before a legitimate form of governance can exist.
Let’s consider the Palestinian case as an example. Most anarchists would oppose the efforts of national liberation movements such as Hamas or the popular front due to the corruption which ordinary Palestinians put up with under these groups. Hamas has been accused on forcibly shutting down trade unions as well as brutally silencing political opposition and same can be said about Fatah. Most would look to the solidarity between underclass Israelis and Palestinians and a long struggle to remove the state of Israel and a possible Palestinian state. While this is certainly a favourable solution, the problem is that is simply doesn’t consider the reality of the situation. The first problem is that while there is a growing Israeli underclass, only minority show sympathy with the Palestinians and even a smaller amount take part in any serious solidarity work. Israeli peace groups, often described as part of a “lunatic fringe” by mainstream Israeli media mainly campaign for a two-state solution. The Palestinian Liberation organisation rejected the possibility of a federalist solution, instead blinded the western myth that statehood is the only path to justice. There simply isn’t any motivation among ordinary Palestinians and Israelis for the favourable solution. More so, the situation in Palestine is that of apartheid and military occupation. Uri Gordon, an Israeli anarchist and activist presents two possible solutions in this situation. To oppose the possibility of an independent Palestinian state and work instead of overthrowing the Israeli state which would inevitably delay the end of the occupation until such a goal is achieved. Alternatively, anarchists could support a temporary state which would relieve Palestinians from the ruthless occupation while activists in both countries advocate the possibility of a fairer society.
Indeed, I was completely opposed to the idea of an independent Palestinian state, not only in opposition to the concept of statism but also considering the fact that Palestinian refugees would be denied any claim to their original homes in modern day Israel as well acknowledging the existence of a state based exclusively on religion. However, in a recent lecture by renowned political scientist and linguist, Noam Chomsky, entitled “Palestine and the region in the Obama era”, Chomsky provides an alternative to a push for a one state solution. While acknowledging that a Palestinian state would temporarily allow the Palestinians to recover from decades of brutal occupation, he highlighted that the process wouldn’t end two states living side by side. In fact, because the West bank, Gaza and Modern day Israel and so interconnected, geographically, economically and culturally, it will be virtually impossible to separate them. Over the years, cultural and economic ties will prompt both parties to move to federalism with the west bank and Gaza existing as autonomous areas as opposed to independent states. Whether this would then evolve to a one-state solution or even better, a no state solution is irrelevant at this point. The point is that national liberation for an oppressed people can sometimes be justified.
Another prominent example could include the efforts of the PKK (Kurdistan’s Workers Party) in the liberation of Kurdish people from the oppressive nature of the Turkish government. Indeed, Kurdish people in Turkey suffer widespread poverty due to neglect from both the nationalists and AKP. Until recently, the use of the Kurdish language was banned and even to identify as a Kurd was a form of treason. The Turkish military routinely carries out attacks on Kurdish areas, ethnically cleansing Kurdish villages, arresting hundreds of youths and detaining them without trial and brutally crushing any resistance to the racist policies of Turkish government. Similar policies in neighbouring countries mean that Kurds have formed the bulk on the underclass and even the wealthiest area of Kurdistan is the poorest of Iran. Imperial Britain, as always, had a hand in the repression of the Kurds, first offering the prospect of an independent Kurdistan in order to fight the Ottomans, then carrying out bombing campaigns in Kurdish villages to prevent a revolution that could threaten Britain’s monopoly of power in the region. For this reason, the PKK was formed to carry out an insurgency in Kurdistan, mainly against Turkish forces. The PKK is a grassroots, working class organisation fiercely opposed to the liberal independence movements in Iraq, led by tribal leaders and other elites seeking their share of power. A no state solution would simply be unrealistic at this time since it would require the overthrow of the Turkish, Syrian, Iraqi and Iranian governments. Could this neigh-impossible task ever be accomplished before another atrocity is committed against the Kurdish people?
The problem I see with most anarchists is they look upon the world from a euro-centric perspective, analysing political situations in the Middle East through the lens of western politics. This is a very dangerous way of approaching the world since anarchists will consistently fail to have an impact on the Middle East, and other cultures since they make little effort to understand the differences that exist. What is needed is a rethinking of common anarchist polices towards these issues and a serious effort to strive to understand different cultures and apply this knowledge to our political views.

The Future of Resistance

On the 5th of November, a day famous in Britain for the failed attempt to destroy parliament by gunpowder, the Palestinians officially recognise the futility of their parliament and national authority in dealing with the occupation and begin to consider the only option available. Resistance. On a televised interview, Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas formally announces his decision not to run again in the next election. The president reiterated, almost half-heartedly, that peace was still possible but explicitly blamed Israel on the stagnation of the current peace process. According to Haaretz, Abbas reminded Israelis that he has always been offering the peace branch to a reluctant adversary:
“If [Israeli and U.S.] intentions are sincere, then I am still here and have been here for years - they could have reached a deal with me already,"
Indeed, it seems Abbas has finally lost faith in the possibility of peace with the current right-wing, Netanyahu led government. Since Netanyahu’s success in the Israeli elections in 2008, he has come to the negotiation tables with his counterpart on several occasions, with Obama as a mediator. The process has, however, been something of a joke, with Israel’s refusal to halt construction, never mind removing its illegal settlements which till this day expand deep into Palestinian land. Netanyahu simply outmanoeuvred both Obama and Abbas by avoiding preconditions and whipping up international support by presenting original plans of the death camps in order to shame the west into accepting the legitimacy of Israeli settlements. In order to appear as a “fair” mediator, Obama has instead turned to Abbas, demanding Palestinians put an end to violent resistance and do all they can to convince Israel to stop the construction of settlements. This is a humiliating a ridiculous proposal as both the Palestinian authority, and Hamas (which Abbas has no influence over whatsoever) haven’t retaliated in violence since Israel’s savage attack on Gaza in January. Israel, on the other hand, continues its crippling siege of Gaza which is effectively starving the population and making reparations practically impossible. It continues to decimate Palestinian shipping on the shores, partly due to the newly discovered fresh gas reserves as well as expanding it’s illegal settlements on the west bank and slowly ethnically cleansing Palestinian residents from Jerusalem.
The accumulation of these humiliating political defeats seems to have pushed the leader (often criticised as a “sell out”) over the edge. Indeed, many blame Abbas for his willingness to betray Palestinian interests for the sake of Israeli and American approval. In 2005, he accepted 50 million dollars from the then U.S president, George W. Bush in order to “crack down on terrorists” . These funds have largely been diverted to the accounts of leading Fatah officials who are becoming increasingly wealthy while the rest of the population suffers. The west bank under the P.A has also been turned into a virtual police state with opposition being monitored and placed under tight control while unauthorised protests are often broken up violently. Abbas also repeatedly breached his constitutional powers by calling for elections in times of political upheaval in order to undermine his main rivals, Hamas. Under pressure from the U.S, Abbas declared a state of emergency in 2007 and dissolved the unity government replacing the Prime minister to his advantage. In fact, he isn’t legally the president anymore, the official term ended on the 9th January 2009. Perhaps the biggest controversy surrounding Abbas was his decision to go along with the U.S and delay the draft endorsing the recommendations made from the Goldstone report which founded that Israel was guilty of serious war crimes during the Gaza war.
Despite these numerous betrayals, I’m glad everything happened the way it did. Abbas proved, just like Arafat (to a lesser extent) before him that no matter how many concessions Palestinians make, Israel simply won’t accept peace. All those who temporarily placed their faith in the process have become disillusioned and finally realise the only road to liberation is by a mass, grass roots resistance.
Fatah has told Hadith Ana, a Nazareth based newspaper that the P.A is seriously considering a third Intifada. What is strange is that the P.A seems to recognise it will have little influence in the direction this rebellion will take. It acknowledges that it will be a grass-roots movement and largely peaceful, making comparisons with the first intifada. The decision will probably be mentioned during the 6th convention of the P.A . The Palestinian people, however, must break from their dependency of their leaders in both the west bank and Gaza. If this movement is to be successful at all, it must force Israel to make concessions, which it nearly did during the second intifada until Arafat agreed to the disastrous road map to peace. The Palestinian people have already taken positive steps towards a non-violent resistance by issuing a boycott on all Israeli goods. Many supermarkets within the west bank sell products produced in the illegal settlements which are now being targeted, not only in Palestine, but worldwide. Academic boycotts have been proposed in several universities in the UK, but have largely been rejected due to Zionist propaganda carefully intertwining any criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.
The Palestinian people are yet again opposing the brutality of the occupation using peaceful and non violent methods. If the world chooses to ignore this effort and look for any twisted reason to blame the Palestinians, then there will inevitably be a violent uprising. Either way, the Palestinian people have acknowledged that resistance is the only path to peace and justice.