PALESTINE AND THE ARAB SPRING

I have interviewed activists, intellecuals, students and middle class professionals about their assessment of the Arab Spring, and its effects on Palesine. Among them is Mazin Qumsiyeh - a university professor and activist who spent 29 years in the U.S., Mohammed, also a professor and community leader, and Amal, who once was a member of the leadership of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization), became disillusioned, and is now an outspoken critic of Palestinian politicians and promoter of Palestinian self determination.
In Mazin's words, Israel is in a hole and doesn't know what to do. The Palestinian Authority (PA) doesn't know either.
But the Arab Spring inspired Tahir Square-type encampments last March in both Ramallah (for 3 weeks) and Nablus (for two weeks). Their demands were for reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah (Gaza and the West Bank), and an end to corruption in the PA. Their effectiveness could be measured by the fact that Fatah and Hamas signed a unification agreement the following May in a fairly obvious move to defuse the protests. Indeed, the encampers packed up and left the city centers. And the agreement went on a shelf.
The reconciliation agreement was not implemented, because in fact both parties like things the way they are. B oth have total power in their respective areas, Fatah in the West Bank, and Hamas in Gaza, and are pocketing many thousands of dollars sent by foreign governments in various aid packages. Reconciliation would mean sharing power, or-- more threatening-- submitting to elections that either or both parties might lose.
Meanwhile, the unaffiliated youth are not well enough organized to carry out a significant rebellion against the entrenched PA, and are also wary of seeming to agree with Israeli criticism. Their priority now is to overthrow the Israeli occupation.
Along with questions about the Arab Spring, I ask everyone their opinion about Palestine's bid for statehood at the U.N. It turns out that these are related issues. First, the U.N. bid probably wouldn't have happened if not for the Arab Spring. Abbas needed to do something to assert his authority and divert attentiion from his critics. However, while everyone would like a state, the conditions do not exist on the ground, and the PA has done nothing to prepare for a real state.
To begin with, there was no public discussion or plebicite to ask the people if they were in favor of such a bid. Abbas is not a popular figure, so his initiative did not have popular support until it was clear that it rattled Israel and the U.S. The PA spent alot of money advertizing for statehood, but should have instead, accordng to Mohammed, put its energy into speaking out and strategizing against settlements, the apartheid wall, home demolitions, and evictions, and for freeing political prisoners and, returning refugees to their homes. But they did none of that. They failed to speak for the Palestinian people; they have failed to lead the fight against the occupation.
In addition, Fatah and Hamas had not reconciled, which was bad for Palestine's image on the world stage. And, most surprising to me, the PA had no plan for what to do when the U.S. vetoed statehood in the Security Council.
Firas, the 26 year old son of my friend Nadia, added another note to this discussion. While change is good and needed, the U.S. is in there somewhere, trying to turn events to its advantage. I think we Americans need to pay heed to this observation when we try to understand what is happening in the Middle East. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood is presented in Western media as a sort of boogey man, but is in fact supported by the US as a destabilizing presence. It is a right wing, self-aggrandizing, pro-imperialist movement. That it won the majority in the Tunisian elections is probably an indication of Western intervention.
Amal has co-founded the Arab Cultural Center in Ramallah in order to gather unaffiliated leftists for discussion, cultural heritage preservation and to support young activists. I attended one of their weekly meetings when the agenda was the Arab Spring, although they didn't use that term. They don't consider the uprisings to be true revolutions. They are mass mobilizations that have been infiltrated and undermined by foreign intervention. An example is Egypt the protesters have only managed to cut off the head of the oppressive system.
Libya was an instance of recolonization by Europe. "NATO does not liberate countries." Instead, it destroyed the infrastructure in order to reassert dominance. Syria is being targeted in a similar manner, in an effort to make it pro-West and pro-America. Currently Syria is allied with Iran, and supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza - two "anti-West" groups which the U.S. has labeled as terrorist. Syria represents secular pan- Arab nationalism, which is anathema to the U.S. because it reaches across borders to unite all Arabs .For example, Iraq, under U.S. control, now has 146 political parties, but not one is a nationalist party.
The U.S. has changed its tactics when it comes to Syria because it cannot afford another military intervention such as in Libya. The Arab League is doing the dirty work of cooperating with the U.S., and the media, including Al Jazeera, is lying about the number of protesters and casualties in the streets. There are legitimate grievances against the regime, and there are people protesting in the steets, but this group fears that the U.S. may be fomenting civil war.
One member of the Center said that he has seen democracy in the U.S. where he lived from 2006-2009), and he doesn't want to see that democcracy in the Arab world. In U.S occupied Iraq there are now 146 political parties, not one of them a nationalist party. He said, "I don't buy the story of democracy. It's a nice story. That's all."
The mobilizaations in the Arab world could push Hamas (also Muslim Brotherhood) more toward the Right, towards cooperating with Israel like the PA does. Their main concern is in maintaining power. As one proof of the Muslim Brotherhood's self-serving alliances, the Center members state that the Brotherhood was more actively protesting in the streets during Nasser's popular regime than it was under Mubarak's oppressive regime. I have heard from several sectors of independent thinkers in Palestine that Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood is anti-democratic and anti-populist with a narrow focus on conservative religious authoritarian ideology. They are useful to the U.S. as a pawn in the strategy of divide and conquer.
The changes occuring in the Middle East are complex, exciting and confusing, and here in Palestine they are both embraced and observed with caution.