Margaret
Thatcher once proclaimed “there is no alternative!” She made
this pronouncement during the miner’s strike that almost shut
down England during the 1980s. A closer examination of the
subtext of her speech and this declaration reveals that, from a
position of state based, capitalist supported and ideologically
endorsed power, there can be no alternative to the will of the
rulers being imposed on those they rule.
When we turn to
examine the so called “problems” in the Israeli occupied
territories, the same principle is being espoused by those who
hold the power. Even more so is this view held by those who pull
the strings of power from a distance.
Over the last
couple of weeks there has been some media coverage of the 60th
anniversary of the declaration of the state of Israel and at the
same time the remembrance of what the Palestinians call Al-Nakba.
The few reports that I saw or read were ‘balanced’ but only in
the fact that they didn’t examine the root issue. In fact the
most enlightening comment came from an Israeli who said ‘if they
want peace so much, they should come and live here’. This man
was not referring to Palestinians but to the wealthy sponsors of
Israel who live outside the country they profess to love so
much.
In our papers,
over the last couple of weeks, there were commentaries and
letters by Israeli apologists and their supporters and responses
by supporters of justice and peace pointing out their narrow and
biased perspectives of those who control power in the current
“conflict”.
Perhaps the most
shocking comments were made by Mark Baker who wrote in an Age
article that, “visionary leadership on all sides [is needed] to
transcend past grievances for the sake of the future”. This
comment was aptly summed up in the title of the article, Let
past grievances lie: the state of Israel is here to stay.
Words and concepts that can only be uttered from a position of
power. In other words, according to Mr. Baker, ‘Palestinians and
your supporters, get over it!’ We only every hear this type of
comment from victors.
Perhaps as
shocking but just as expected, were the comments by Mark Leibler
in response to Malcolm Fraser’s considered perspective. As
usual, Leibler begins by attacking Fraser’s grasp of the
“facts”. He then proceeds on the usual disinformation
dissemination that is common among leading, non resident Jews in
places like Australia, Britain, the US and elsewhere. Towards
the end of his propaganda piece he engages with the
“appeasement” rhetoric and urges Fraser to consider that Hamas
must meet the “sensible conditions set by the international
community”. What he fails to point out is his beloved nation’s
failure to abide by similar “sensible conditions set by the
international community” that require Israel to abide by
international laws.
According to
Baker and Leibler, therefore, there can be no alternative to the
killing and “war” simply because Israel’s “will” is correct and
absolute. Leibler declares, “Israel only targets those waging
war on Israeli civilians and soldiers” while Baker says, “Israel
… can only be erased by committing a second genocide against
Jews”. Both men engage in hyperbole and invoke the language of
the victor. They claim absolute sovereignty and right over the
lives of those they have no knowledge of. I ask them, “if you
love Israel so much, why don’t you go and live there?”
Live there where
your stubborn refusal to admit the mistakes you have allowed to
continue create the conditions in which the people you
supposedly love are exposed to the imagined and real ‘dangers’
of Palestinian resistance. Why is it that from a distance, these
men and their peers pontificate on what is right and wrong in a
place they may have visited but never lived in. Live in like
those they are trying to ‘protect’ live in. Those that cannot
afford to relocate elsewhere because the Israeli government only
pays for Jews to relocate into Israel.
There is an
alternative but it will take far more determination, good will
and guts than Leibler and Baker are prepared to accept and
embrace. The alternative is for Israel to accept the will of the
international community, as expressed in numerous UN resolutions
and to be blunt, grow up.
The alternative
is that supporters of the state of Israel realise and embrace
the fact that they need to broaden their view of the so called
“two state solution” and give back all the land that has been
stolen in the last 60 years; pay compensation to the land
holders dispossessed during this time; repatriate Palestinian
refugees to the lands of their ancestors and abide by the
international community’s will that peace prevail and
reconciliation be achieved.
Am I being too
optimistic? Perhaps. However, to quote the founder of Zionism,
Theodore Herzl, “if you will, it is no legend” (which Baker, in
his article, removes from its real context and distorts). My
optimism is lies in the fact that all power is transitory. As I
have noted elsewhere, while I do not believe in the Zionist
cause in its contemporary guise, I can relate to Herzl’s dream
for a homeland. He and his powerful benefactors and their
descendants have created the current situation only because the
balance of power shifted. This means it can shift again and I
remain optimistic that when it does, the Palestinian people and
those, like me, who support their cause, will prevail.
However, I
believe that when this balance of power does shift it will not
be like the previous shift which ushered in violence and death
on a scale that is not seen elsewhere. I believe the new
prevailing power that does bring peace will usher in an age of
reconciliation, justice, reparation and peace. The only ones who
will stand in the way of this optimistic outcome are those who
refuse to believe there really is an alternative and continue to
use the blunt weapon of brute power.