May 26, 2000

Liberation or Redeployment?

Ali Abunimah

The entire Arab world and many beyond it are celebrating and marveling at
the Lebanese resistance victory over the mightiest army in the Middle
East. For me, the most moving images were of people returning home, to
where they belong, of the end of unnatural separations, and the
replacement of the death and sterility of occupation with the fertility of
life and humanity. The flood of people back to the south, after the
invaders were chased out, was like the first rains coursing through a
parched desert river bed after decades of drought. Soon new growth will
sprout all over the thirsty land.

Palestinians in particular will be taking note of a few stark contrasts
between the situation in Lebanon, and that in their own homeland. The joy
of seeing Lebanese people return to their homes and loved ones is perhaps
tinged with foreboding and sadness that what is natural and
right--return--maybe be denied them, not least by the efforts of Israel,
the United States and their own "leaders." 

Whereas Lebanon has always insisted that an end to occupation must precede
any final settlement with Israel, the PLO agreed to establish an authority
and government under occupation, and under the near total control of the
occupier. The Lebanese government will not even send its troops to the
newly liberated south, in order to ensure that they do not become a
security force for Israel. Arafat's police by contrast have often opened
fire on, and killed Palestinian demonstrators confronting Israeli
occupation forces in their own land.

While the Lebanese have liberated all of their land (save for the small
Chabaa farms area), they insist the state of war cannot be over until
every Lebanese prisoner and hostage returns home. Arafat meanwhile,
continues to make servile statements of "partnership" with Barak even
while more than 1,600 Palestinian prisoners are still held in Israeli
prisons, some of them dangerously ill because of a hunger strike and the
poor conditions of their detention. His "negotiators" continue to meet
with their Israeli counterparts even while Barak seizes land, demolishes
houses and expands Jewish-only settlements.

The stark contrast between the dignity of Lebanon's liberation, and the
ignominy of Palestinian occupation-with-consent was symbollically
illustrated yesterday when Yasser Arafat attended a "star-studded" charity
football match in Rome, with former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres.
On the very day that Lebanon was celebrating its liberation, and
remembering its dead, Arafat was exchanging pleasantries at a
celebrity-filled publicity stunt with the very man who ordered the April
1996 "Grapes of Wrath" operation, and who is responsible for the massacre
at Qana. The fielding of a joint Israeli-Palestinian soccer team, against
a side of Italian celebrities was supposed to convey an image of
partnership and equality that is nowhere to be found on the ground, or in
the true relationship between Israel and the Palestinians.

Nearly a decade of "peace process," has succeeded at least in the official
and media-defined "reality" to completely obscure and sideline the basic
issues--the necessity of full Israeli military withdrawal, return of
refugees, removal of settlements, and an end a total end violence and
occupation. These real, basic issues have been transformed into mere
symbols, and replaced with stand-ins and aliases. The basic issues have
been lost in a complex maze of "agreements" whose true purpose is to delay
the day of reckoning and maintain the status quo. 

Take for example the word "redeployment" which is used to describe what
Israel is supposed to do with its military forces in the occupied West
Bank and Gaza Strip under the Oslo accords. "Redeployment," an
American-Israeli invention, has surreptiously replaced "withdrawal" both
in official agreements and in the media. ("Withdrawal" is the term used in
all international law, and UN resolutions.) But what does this mean?
According to the Israeli foreign ministry website, "redeployment" and
"withdrawal are emphatically not the same thing:

"Unlike "withdrawal", which required the removal of the majority of forces
from the areas in question, "redeployment" relates only to the location of
the forces; it places no restriction on the number of forces and military
equipment or the possibility of introducing further forces and equipment
if necessary." (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/)

And indeed, under the "Wye River" accord, Arafat acquiesced to US
financing of Israeli constuction of new settler "bypass" roads in the
occupied West Bank in order to facilitate "redeployment." It is only when
one understands the nature of the concept and what it is that Arafat so
obligingly signs on to that it all starts to make sense in its own
perverse logic. And thus every basic issue of justice has been replaced
with an alias: self-determination has been replaced with a bantustan;
Jerusalem with Abu-Dis; return with "resettlement;" freedom of movement
with "safe passages," and an israeli-controlled airport; sovereignty with
"autonomy." And on and on.

Perhaps we almost came to believe that the withdrawal of Israeli military
forces is an impossibly complicated task that can only be done over a
period of years. Perhaps some people came to believe that "redeployment"
is the same thing as withdrawal. But Lebanon showed us that when Israel
wants to leave--and is forced to leave--it can be done in a few hours
almost without a shot being fired. Perhaps some even came to believe that
decades of alienation and separation from the homeland could never be
reversed or that people would simple melt away and forget their rights.
Lebanon showed us that people who love their homes and know their rights
will not wait even a full day before flooding back to them, and once the
return begins, nothing can stop it. And it is only after it happens that
the entire world can see how unnatural and perverse exile was to begin
with. May the refugees from Chatila to Gaza take heart.

Ali Abunimah
ali@abunimah.org
http://www.abunimah.org