It was 10 years ago that the Palestinian people rebelled against their dispossession and occupation. As painful as it may be to acknowledge what has actually happened in this decade of struggle, the tragic reality is that the Palestinian people are far more restricted and "occupied" today than when they began their long-overdue rebellion, the latest chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has dominated the Middle East region throughout this century.
            Though a great deal of smoke screen and subterfuge has been constantly presented by the Americans, the Israelis, and the Arab "client regimes", the actual realities for the Palestinians living in the occupied territories -- as well as for those still living in refugee camps and in exile -- are considerable worse today in nearly every way than a decade ago.
            It was 3 years after the beginning of the Intifada that the "Madrid Peace Conference" took place; and 2 years after that the "Oslo Peace Process" began.  Each step of the way has actually worsened conditions for the Palestinian people.  At each step of the way the Americans have attempted to present themselves as something other than Israel's accomplice.  At each step of the way the Arab "client regimes", now including the Arafat "Authority" regime, have submitted themselves to and become ever-more-dependent on the dictates of the United States.
            Meanwhile, in Washington, never before has an American government been so controlled and manipulated by the Israeli/Jewish lobby as is the Clinton Administration.
        Indeed, never before have leading former officials of that lobby and its associated organizations been appointed to leading positions within the American government, including that of Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East, Middle East negotiator, and National Security Adviser.
           And furthermore, throughout the region, from the ongoing genocidal war against Iraq to the descent of Algeria into a horrible civil conflict, there is a sense of growing alienation and disassociation with results sure to further impact on the world in the years ahead.
           Recently the following exceptionally perceptive article was published in the magazine Challenge that is published in Jerusalem.  Sometimes an anniversary is a time for reflection and reevaluation, rather than celebration.
           This is a very important article well worth very serious consideration by everyone concerned not only with what has happened during this decade, but with what it is all leading to.

        The post-Oslo reality is full of ambiguities and smashed taboos. We hear that Rabin was a martyr for peace, we see Netanyahu withdrawing from occupied lands.  Israelis can legally talk with members of the PLO. They are even allowed to say the words, "Palestinian State."  What a rosy scene!  Yet at the same time, closure continues: that is, the Palestinians are closed out of their once-upon-a-time jobs in Israel... They get steadily poorer.  Arafat, the symbol of their national liberation, orders his police to shoot, arrest, and torture hundreds from among his own people.  Meanwhile, around the corner, the Jewish settlements are suddenly considered legal.  New ones go up.  There is massive Israeli building in the Territories.  How do all these things fit together?
        I shall try here to show the logic behind the apparent contradictions.
        The Oslo principles are full of pitfalls for the Palestinians. The international community has known that all along.  So have peace-workers in Israel. So, indeed, have the Palestinians themselves.  But almost everyone said at first that this was the best the Palestinians could realistically hope for.  Oslo was the only game in town.  It would be a beginning toward eventual statehood.  One must start somewhere. Start small, as the Jews did, and build it up, enterprise by enterprise, a patch of land here, a patch there.  Lessons were drawn from the past. By always insisting on all or nothing, the Palestinians had consistently missed opportunities, and decade after decade their options got smaller.  Now at last they have faced reality and compromised.  Better this than nothing.
        Thus people spoke at first.  But now we have Oslo 2.  We also have the outlines of Israel's position for Oslo 3, the final status. At last the full depth of the pitfalls is clear for all to see.  There are two major pitfalls, and they are related. First,  by recognizing the Jewish state in accordance with the principles of Oslo, Arafat lifted the great taboo which had impeded relations between Israel and the Arab countries. Thus he cashed in his single great bargaining chip, the one thing the Palestinians had to give. On the other hand, Oslo postponed decisions on the issues most important to the Palestinians -- namely, the Jewish settlements in their midst, their land and water resources, the status of East Jerusalem, and the fate of the four million refugees in diaspora. In negotiations on these issues, the Palestinians have no chips left, while Israel continues to hold its own.
          The result of this imbalance has been a change in the structure of Occupation, and here we come to the second pitfall. For 26 years, from 1967 till 1993, Israel had to dominate the Palestinians by force.  But having nothing more to give, the post-Oslo Arafat must do what Israel commands if he wants any crumbs from the table.  Thus the Occupation has become more subtle. The one-time symbol of national liberation has become Israel's subcontractor. Israel need no longer dominate by force. It dominates by Arafat.
        Yet why did Arafat accept such a bad deal? Was he merely outwitted?   He may have been outwitted, but that is not of the essence. By the end of the Gulf War the PLO and Arafat were in a very weak position.  They were not able to run even their own apparatus in Tunis. For the US and a certain part of Israel, this was the best possible time to start the process.  Israel's ruling Likud Party, however, was too bound by ideology to see the opportunity here.  Not so Labor. It came to power in 1992, after fifteen years of opposition, with a fresh, creative vision.  Israel was beginning to emerge as a regional economic giant, especially in hi tech.  It was ready for a breakthrough to the Arab and through them to the International markets.  Rabin and Peres understood that they would need the Palestinians as a bridge to the Arab world, and that the situation was ripe for turning.  In a masterstroke of de-demonization, without precedent in this part of the world, they offered to turn Arafat from ugly frog into prince of peace. In effect their message to him went something like this: We shall make you our partner, in ruling your people, but you'll have to pay a price. You must drop the title of  Palestinian national hero and join us in a new mode of governance. You will take what we never wanted in the first place -- the people. The centers of Palestinian population will come under your control.  In return you will have to preserve OUR security. Thus Israel, seizing the moment, got Arafat to agree to what he had always resisted.
 

                "THE OCCUPATION HAS BECOME MORE SUBTLE.
                THE ONE-TIME SYMBOL OF NATIONAL
                LIBERATION HAS BECOME ISRAEL'S
                SUBCONTRATOR.  ISRAEL NEED NO LONGER
                DOMINATE BY FORCE.  IT DOMINATES BY ARAFAT."

                "THE STRUGGLE TODAY IS AGAINST ARAFAT'S
                PUPPET REGIME AS MUCH AS IT IS AGAINST
                ISRAELI DOMINANCE.  IF YOU GO TO THE
                STREETS OF BEIRUT, OR AMMAN, OR DAMASCUS,
                YOU WILL FIND THIS BITTER TRUTH TO BE
                COMMON KNOWLEDGE."

Challenge is a bi-monthly English language magazine
about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict Published in
Jerusalem that focuses on issues of human rights and
advocates a two-state solution to the conflict.
Challenge Magazine; POB 41199; Jaffa 61411; Israel.