[antiwar-van] The No-Partner Myth

[hanna]

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1685/

In These Times
November 12, 2004

The No-Partner Myth

Will Israel take steps to address Palestinian grievances or continue
myth-making?

By Neve Gordon

The leader and symbol of the Palestinian people is dead. His departure from
the political scene has far-reaching implications, particularly for
Israeli-Palestinian relations.

The official Israeli line for the past four years has been that there is no
Palestinian partner and that Yasser Arafat is persona non grata. Arafat has
been blamed for being personally involved in planning and encouraging terror
attacks. He has been accused of using funds donated by the European Union to
finance terrorist activity and of establishing close links with those
“forces of evil”—Iran and Iraq. There has also been criticism over the
mismanagement and embezzlement of public resources and the use of
authoritarian methods to control the Palestinian administration and security
apparatus.

While some of these allegations are no doubt true, they have been
disseminated again and again by the Israeli government and media in order to
create a “no-partner” myth—a myth designed to convince the world that Arafat
was an obstacle to peace, the major reason why the Oslo process collapsed.

Had it not been for Arafat, it was asserted, negotiations could have been
resumed, the cycle of violence broken and ultimately peace attained. World
leaders like Bush and Blair and many other shapers of public opinion all
sang from the same hymn sheet, helping to promote the notion that Arafat was
the primary hindrance to a just settlement.

Like every political myth, the “no-partner” one has been used to conceal
rather than to reveal. It aimed to obscure the fundamental grievances
fueling the conflict, namely that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land
for 37 years and that the number of Jewish settlers actually doubled during
the Oslo process—the years Israel was ostensibly preparing to withdraw from
the territories.

The “no-partner” myth was also used to undercut basic Palestinian demands,
which Arafat represented: Israel’s full withdrawal to the 1967 borders, the
establishment of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, and the
recognition of the rights of Palestinian refugees.

Finally, it sought to destroy Arafat’s persona, for he had become an
international symbol of resistance, a symbol of the Palestinian struggle for
self-determination. And as the embodiment of this struggle, he had managed
to unify Palestinian society—both exiled and occupied—and thus strengthen
his people’s national identity.

This potent myth accordingly suggested that the escalating conflict was due
to the absence of a partner, rather than to Israel’s unwillingness to
address Palestinian grievances and demands.

Israel’s problem is that Arafat’s death will not resolve anything. The
reasons for the conflict will persist. Prime Minister Sharon must therefore
choose between two radically different courses of action. He can decide to
address Palestinian claims, which undoubtedly would entail painful
compromises by Israel but could eventually lead to peace in the region.
Alternatively, he can fashion a new myth, one that would again divert the
public’s gaze from the real issues, and enable Israel to continue
expropriating Palestinian land and destroying the population’s
infrastructure of existence. This latter option is the one Sharon will most
likely embrace. The question then becomes: What new myth will be created?


Author Bio
Neve Gordon teaches politics at Ben-Gurion University and is a contributor
to The Other Israel: Voices of Refusal and Dissent (New Press).