Fighting for Turf,
Palestinian Americans view for dominance
Aref Assaf
Palestinian Americans must overcome their differences if they truly wish to
serve their homeland.
10-19-2007
View readers comments here:
http://arabisto.com/p_blogEntry.cfm?blogID=43&blogEntryID=865
First, Fatah vs. Hamas and the winner is Israel. Now it is the ATFP vs. Al-Awda et al.,
and the loser is the Palestinian cause. Much has been said about the seemingly
unbridgeable divide between the tactical and strategic objectives of Fatah, the
largest Palestinian politic group and Hamas, the Islamic organization with its
power dominating the Gaza Strip landscape. But here in the US, a potentially
explosive confrontation is pitting not only two dominant Palestinian American
organizations, but and more importantly two irreconcilable political platforms.
The perceived relationship between Hamas and Fatah and their respective supporters in the
U.S. warrants some commentary especially in light of recent charges from both
camps that the other side is not fit to represent Palestinian interests and
aspirations.
Arguably, the Palestinian- American community, estimated to be around 450,000, is
at a perpetual crossroad. Increased divisiveness amongst the community
and the many
organizations which claim to represent their interests is no longer discussed behind
doors. It has sadly spilled over into the public domain and if not well managed,
such infighting could only further delegitimize the community as it seeks
to leverage U.S. Middle East policy.
The
Palestinian American community never reached political maturity until after the
1967 War which culminated in the defeat of the Arab states and Israel occupying
all of Palestine plus other Arab territories. The first instances of a unified
and vocal voice speaking on behalf of the Palestinian people’s plight was
through the Arab American Graduates (AAUG), headed mostly by scholars and
educators chief among them were the late Edward Said and Hesham Sharabi. Concurrently, a more
grassroots effort was taking shape under the umbrella of the Palestinian
American Congress (PAC) and several student groups, which relied for its legitimacy on grassroots support
and later on funding and political recognition from the PLO. Over time, both the AAUG and the PAC lost their mandate due primarily to internal factionalism.
Attempts to salvage PAC, while sincere, have eluded most enthusiastic and
committed Palestinian American patriots.
Several
organizations have sprung up to fill the void. Their mandate can largely be defined along
their political agendas relating to a final solution to the Israel-Palestinian
conflict. One group advocates for the two-state solution with some agreed
upon resolution to the refugee problem. The other, calls for the one-state solution and
adamantly advocate for the return of all Palestinians expelled by Israel in 1948. The philosophical skirmishes between the two
approach are significant and have serious political and practical implications.
Prominent among these organizations are the American Task Force on
Palestine (ATFP) and Al-Awda organization. Although skirmishes were taking
place over the last four years, two article,
published by ATFP and Electronic Intifada (EI) respectively, pushed the matter
to the surface. It may be a simplification to surmise their arguments as
desiring to debase the other entity and, if successful, to claim
unilateral representation of the Palestinian American voice. But this approach
is needed as a staring point from which further commentaries can be deduced.
Undoubtedly, one gets the impression that the two organizations are now
engaged in public accusations campaign of the other's 'betrayal' of the aspirations of the Palestinian people and
that each wishes us to believe that they have a
hold on what is in the best interests of the Palestinian people. Each side
forcefully denies the other of having the right to speak for the Palestinian
people. Character assassinations, farfetched allegations and name calling
permeates the entirety of the conflicting claims. I have provided
links to the two articles instead of recounting the accusations or counter
accusations levied.
Our
hope is for a serious reconciliation to prevail between the different
organizations. Experience, sadly, portends a more dismal
alternative. Perhaps a third entity is needed not to replace
the ATFP and Al-Awda but to mediate between them. We need to build on the
great strides achieved by both organizations and their many supporters. Al-Awda,
as a grassroots organization has achieved important milestones in mobilizing
students, and building alliances with other anti-war- pro-peace groups, and the
important vocal support of scholars such as Noam Chomsky and Finkelstein, among
others. The ATFP, to its credit, has in a short period, attained unmatched
access to government officials and the support of many influential Palestinian
Americans. While both groups may continue to separately promote both their
substantive and subjective agendas, the litmus test will be fashioned not on
either entity attaining access to government officials' ears but and most
pivotally, on their ability to shape public policy to help define the frame of
reference and ultimately the official polices of our government. Their success
will also be measured by each organization's ability to marshal popular support
amongst the Palestinian American community.
We pray
for a new consensus to be developed which will embody the political and national narrative
of the Palestinian people-
mindful of the truism that we as American Palestinians do not represent the
entirety of the Palestinian landscape. The complexity of the Palestinian
struggle deserves the serious intellectual and committed leadership of the diverse
Palestinian backgrounds and viewpoints. Arguably there has to be enough room on
the table for a multiplicity of views and interpretations. But general
agreements on both tactics and long range objectives must be continually
nurtured. It is not sufficient, however, that we agree on how to resolve the
Palestine issue. It is equally imperative to mainstream our struggle by
rendering its success a tangible benefit to the American people. America's
foreign policy is rarely about promoting morality; it is about promoting and
protecting perceived interests. Our insurmountable task then is to convince the
American people, and those who represent us in Congress, that there is a direct
and a tangible link between our nation's security, economic and political,
and a just resolution to the Palestine Israel conflict. I believe we have both
the human and logistical resources plus a morally just cause to attain
this goal.
Meanwhile, we must continue to shoulder the
unenviable responsibility of guiding our American government to pursue a
peaceful and just settlement- and from this burden we cannot escape. While
infighting is an inherent human quality as the results may yield better
offspring, our cause cannot afford more blood letting or name calling.
You be the
judge.
|
