• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
O
PEN
F
ORUM
S
 TRATEGIZING 
P 
 ALESTINE
The idea for an open forum section in the
Journal of Palestine Studies
on thetopic of strategy arose independently from two sources. Israeli activist and analyst Jeff Halper suggested the need for a forward-looking examination of  Palestinian options for the future. Simultaneously, the two of us, both mem- bers of 
JPS
’s Editorial Committee, and Institute for Palestine Studies senior  fellow Nadia Hijab, had organized a series of discussions among a group of academics and activists, primarily in the United States, about strategies for achieving Palestinian rights. We were insistent that the discussions take intoaccount all three major segments of the Palestinian people: refugees of thediaspora, those in the occupied territories, and the Palestinian citizens of  Israel. We believed that 
JPS
was an appropriate forum in which to continueand develop this discussion. Accordingly, we were invited to guest edit thisopen forum.Our strategy discussions began in the aftermath of the virtually unani- mous advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 9 July 2004, that Israel’s “separation wall” (the term used by the ICJ) was illegal and must be dismantled. The decision was a stunning victory for the Pales- tinians and was one of their most significant achievements in international diplomacy for decades. At the same time, it was all too apparent that the leadership of the Pales- tinianAuthority(PA)wasnotcapableoftakingadvantageofthisimportant milestone, and that conditions for Palestinians on the ground were moving rapidly from bad to worse. After five years of the al-Aqsa intifada, the Pales- tinian people were as far as ever from achieving their fundamental rights.Given political alignments prevailing in both the United States and Israel,thereappearedtobenoreasonablepossibilityofnegotiationsthatcouldlead to a just, and therefore durable, peace in the Middle East. Israel, with explicit U.S. backing, had retreated considerably even from the far-from-satisfactory(for the Palestinians) positions it had taken at Camp David and Taba and was charting a path of unilateral actions that threatened to entrench de facto Israeli control over much, if not all, of the West Bank. Nor was thereany realistic prospect of meaningful political change on the horizon in theUnited States or Israel to alter these trends. In the face of all this, the secular nationalistleadershipthathadledthestruggleforPalestinianrightsforover thirty years appeared bereft of a strategic vision that could account for thesebitter realities. Its sole response to Israel’s relentless colonization of the West  Bank was repeated and impotent calls to return to the “road map to peace.” Some of us believed that these circumstances demanded a fundamen- tal reevaluation of long-term strategies to realize Palestinian rights. Should 
 Journal of Palestine Studies
Vol. XXXV, No. 3 (Spring 2006), pp. 37–82 ISSN: 0377-919X; electronic ISSN: 1533-8614.
C
2006 by the Institute for Palestine Studies. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permissionto photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’sRights and Permissions website, at http://www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.
 
38
J
OURNAL OF
P 
 ALESTINE
S
 TUDIES
the Palestinian leadership decline to participate in negotiations brokered by Israel’s friend and ally, the United States? If not, were there techniques, positions, or other means that Palestinians could employ within the frame- work of negotiations that could yield better results? Had the moment for a two-state solution passed and, if so, what stance should be taken toward  possible political frameworks for the realization of Palestinian rights? Wasthereanymoralorpoliticaljustificationforcompromisingthefundamental rights of Palestinian refugees, forced into exile in 1948 and 1967? What role should the Palestinian citizens of Israel play in the struggle for our rightsas one people? How should the Palestinian movement interact with other  struggles, inside and outside historic Palestine—including with progressive,non-Zionist elements within Israel? These were some of the important ques- tions it seemed necessary to ask, debate, and—ultimately—resolve.Various members of this group met on two occasions: in March 2005 inWashington, DC, and in the San Francisco Bay Area in June 2005. (A report  from the first of these meetings was published as a special document in theautumn 2005 issue of 
JPS.
 ) Some of the contributing authors to this issuewere participants in one or the other of these meetings.The essays that follow engage some of the questions enumerated aboveand some additional ones. We present them as steps in the direction of what will hopefully develop as an ongoing discussion concerning the future of the Palestinian struggle. The primary purpose of this issue is to contribute to arethinking of Palestinian political culture and strategies by evaluating the promise and limitations of mobilizing initiatives that lie largely outside the formal political sphere.WebeginwithanassessmentbyOmarDajaniofthePA’snegotiationstrat- egy(orlackthereof)andwhatchangesneedtotakeplaceifandwhenseriousnegotiations resume in the future. Dajani also considers how negotiationsneed to interface with Palestinian political and civil society institutions. Jeff Halper contrasts the articulated strategic vision of Israel’s leadershipwith the Palestinians’ mostly implicit strategy of 
sumud
 /resistance, negoti- ations, and attrition. Palestinians, he argues, must add to this repertory acampaign of proactive advocacy based on a firm linkage between local civil  society and international solidarity movements.Omar Barghouti advocates a program of boycotts, divestment, and sanc- tions led by a growing international network of civil society organizationsandspecificallylinkedwithaunitarystatesolutiontothePalestinian-Israeli conflict. Marwan Dalal examines the opportunities and limitations of litigationwithin the Israeli legal system. Jamil Dakwar surveys future arenas of activism for the Palestinian com- munitiesinIsraelandconnectionstobroaderstruggleforPalestinianrights.Ghada Talhami details the status of Palestinian refugees, primarily in the Arab countries closest to Palestine, and suggests the creation of an organiza- tion to advocate for refugee rights, possibly under the auspices of the Arab League.
 
O
PEN
F
ORUM
: S
 TRATEGIZING 
P 
 ALESTINE
39
 Jaleh Bisharat discusses the necessary elements for a successful public relations campaign in support of Palestinian rights in the United States—anundertakingthePalestinianleadershiphasneverprioritized,tothegreat detriment of Palestinian interests.SareeMakdisireviewsthesignificanceofnarrativeandadvocatesmining the rich legacy of the late Edward Said.These contributions grapple explicitly or implicitly with one of the most  fundamental questions of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: Who speaks for the Palestinians? The virtual demise of the PLO following the signing of the Osloaccords, the absence of a body that effectively represents all three segmentsof the Palestinian population and, not least, the stunning victory of Hamasin the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) elections of January 2006, giveadded urgency to this question. Most of the contributions were conceived in advance of Hamas’s victory. Although revised, they cannot fully grapplewith the new Palestinianpoliticallandscape. Many new questions loom, but among the most salient are: How is it that the only effective challenge to thenepotism, corruption, and ineptitude of the old guard Fatah leadership hascome from Hamas? Has secularism been permanently eclipsed within the Palestinian movement? If so, what does this imply for Palestinians or their  supporterswhohaveembracedsecularism,eitherinnationalistorhumanist variants? We hope these essays will be followed, in the pages of this journal and elsewhere, with probing, honest, and mutually respectful debate of theseimportant issues.
 George Bisharat Beshara Doumani
P 
REPARING FOR THE
I
NEVITABLE
N
EGOTIATION
O
MAR 
M. D
 AJANI
 Omar M. Dajani
was legal adviser to the Palestinian negotiating teamin talks with Israel from 1999 to 2001, and then political adviser to theUN Special Coordinator in the occupied territories. He is currently assistant  professor of law at the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law
.In his 1991 letter of assurances to the Palestinians prior to the Madrid PeaceConference,then–secretaryofstateJamesBakerIIIexplained,“Ithaslongbeen[the United States’s] position that only direct negotiations based on UN Secu-rity Council Resolutions 242 and 338 can produce a real peace.”
1
Fifteen yearsafter Madrid, however, the process of negotiations itself is being increasingly challenged as an efficacious means of achieving Palestinians’ national goals. A 
1
“United States Secretary of State James Baker’s Letter of Assurance to the Palestinians(18 October 1991),” in M. Cherif Bassiouni, ed.,
Documents on the Arab-Israeli Con-  flict: The Palestinians and the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process
, vol. 2 (Ardsley, NY:Transnational Publishers, 2005), p. 881.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...