Socialist Outlook November 1994
During his recent visit to Israel, Bill Clinton reaffirmed eternal US support for Israel. He also promised to maintain current levels of US aid military and economic aid, which has now reached $3000 million a year. This provides clear evidence, for any who doubted it, that Israel remains the USA’s prime strategic asset in the Middle East.
It seems likely that Clinton’s visit to Damascus - the first by a US president for 20 years - will succeed in its aim of bringing Syria, too, to the negotiating table, thus scoring a much needed foreign policy triumph on the eve of critical congressional and senate elections. Following the agreements with Egypt, Jordan and the PLO, this would fulfil Israel’s long-standing goal of signing ’peace’ treaties on its own terms with the other Middle East regimes.
Israel’s agreement with the PLO, and the signing of the Declaration of Principles, have effectively co-opted the PLO to a supportive role in the policing of the occupied territories. This reflects the bankruptcy of the PLO’s strategy, developed since the early 1970’s, of attempting to integrate itself into the existing Middle East framework, and renouncing any revolutionary ideas or proposals which might threaten this framework.
The Palestinian secular left - the Communist Party, the Democratic Front and the Popular Front - have failed to develop an alternative strategy, and continue to make pragmatic compromises with Arafat’s Fatah, the dominant force in the PLO. This has ensured that the only consistent, militant opposition to the PLO’s compromise with Zionism and occupation has been that of the Islamic fundamentalists, notably Hamas.
The continuing Hamas attacks in southern Lebanon, in the occupied territories, and in the heart of Israel itself, show that agreements which explicitly ignore the central issue of the conflict - the dispossession of the Palestinian people and the carve-up of their land in 1948 - have no chance of success. They merely serve to tie the various regimes together, against the masses of the region, in the service of imperialist control of its resources.
The growth of Hamas resembles that of the PLO itself during the 1960’s and 70’s. At that time, Israel was trying to reinforce the traditional, tribal leaders, and the PLO represented a radical break with these conservative forces. Through a combination of confrontations with the Israeli army in the occupied territories, attacks on civilians inside Israel, and dramatic ’terrorist’ acts around the world, the PLO established itself as the authentic voice of the Palestinian people, and proclaimed a Palestinian revolution.
Ironically, when the supremacy of the PLO in the occupied territories had become clear, Israel abandoned its original allies and began to sponsor Islamic groups, with which it hoped to reach agreement, against the PLO. These groups were the forerunners of Hamas, which was not banned by Israel until long after the outbreak of the Intifada.
Hamas continues to grow with the realisation that the agreement is worsening the already appalling conditions of the Palestinian masses. Gaza is, in effect, the world’s largest concentration camp. Close to one million people are crowded into a small area, devoid of natural resources, with no industry, little agriculture, and virtually no source of income. Most of the population are refugees, ethnically cleansed from their homes to make way for the establishment of Israel in 1948. They live in sprawling refugee camps, dependent on international charity for their continued existence.
Until April 1993, about 100,000 Gazans - breadwinners for some three quarters of the entire population - were employed in Israel. Latest figures indicate that only about 9000 are now permitted to work in Israel. Over 90% of the population is totally destitute. With the PLO’s betrayal, and the failure of the secular left, it is no surprise that Islamic groups are thriving. Even these, however, show signs of willingness to compromise with the Israeli authorities in order to achieve some measure of social control. The main victims of such an agreement would be Palestinians themselves - women, non-Muslims, secularists and the left.