Diarmuid Breatnach
(Reading time: 4 mins.)
If we truly want to help the Palestinians, we need to stop calling for a “ceasefire” and also stop calling for implementation of the “two state” option.
A ceasefire is a temporary measure agreed between or imposed on all the belligerents in an armed conflict and indeed the Irish word for it, sos comhraic, conveys that perfectly: “a break/ rest during conflict”.
The Israeli attack on Gaza is nothing like an armed conflict between two sides that are in any kind of balance: the Palestinians have no air force, no navy and only a guerrilla resistance. And overwhelmingly, in their thousands, it is Palestinian civilians who are being targeted.
Nor is there any question about the justice of competing claims: the Palestinians are the indigenous people on the land for centuries1 whilst the Israeli state is a European colonial occupation of Palestinian land, practicing genocide upon the indigenous people and backed by imperialism.
If what we want is to save lives, in particular civilian lives, we want the Israeli State to stop bombing the Palestinians by bombs and missiles, right? So surely the most accurate and least mixed messages demand would be “Stop the bombing! Now!”?
No ambivalence there at all.
But if we only want a temporary ceasefire so some food and medicine can be delivered to people who will be killed in the following days, well then “Ceasefire now!” is the one for us.
Or if we think the two sides are evenly balanced militarily, or we’re confused about whose cause is just and don’t necessarily think the Palestinians have the right to wage armed struggle against an armed occupier, well then “Ceasefire now!” by all means.
And if we think the Palestinians don’t have the right to resist invasion and occupation, then we can demand the contradictory “permanent ceasefire now” which is a binding on both the occupied and the occupier.2
So, as an endgame, what about the “two state option”? The rulers of most of the Middle Eastern Arab states support it, as do the leaders of the USA, China, UK and all the EU States.3 And so does the Al Fatah organisation, which runs the Palestinian Government.4
Well yes, but most Palestinians don’t! And at least a sizeable chunk of Israelis don’t either.5 It is the only “solution” being proposed by most commentators and is in complete contradiction to the only real solution, which is a unitary democratic state with right to return of Palestinian refugees.
“Well, that’s a non-starter!” we might be told. “The rulers of Israel will never agree to that. Nor will the rulers of the USA, UK and EU states.” The implication there is that they, rather than the Palestinians, are the ones who can set the red lines.
And if we outside Palestine promote this option, we are saying that colonial occupation and genocide is OK. Presumably the next step would be to condemn the “dissidents” who are “rejecting peace”, even though those “dissidents”, political and military, represent the majority view.
And we’d be saying that the Palestinians should be glad to accept less than 40% of their land, the worst of it with the least water and under Zionist guns forever.
It also happens to be unworkable, with the thousands of Zionist settlers who have “illegally” occupied the territory. But making much of that factor is a mistake since firstly it is not the point and secondly can give rise to pointless and unprincipled discussion about how to make it viable.6
But of course, this discussion is about slogans, which are important in pointing out direction. But they are also, as the Irish language origin of the word7 suggests, a call to action. And if we want to help Palestine, we must act – and continue in effective actions.
STOP THE BOMBING – NOW! END THE OCCUPATION – NOW!
FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA – PALESTINE WILL BE FREE!
End.
FOOTNOTES
1The Palestinian population before the founding of the Zionist state, even with Zionist-organised immigration, was less that 10% Jewish, with smaller percentages of Christian etc, the vast majority Muslim. They were mostly Arab with smaller groups of Berber.
2Although as we have seen, no power currently on Earth is capable – or in cases of capability, such as the EU and USA, willing – to force the Israeli Zionists to stick to any agreement.
3And Varadkar, the Prime Minister of the Irish state, has been flogging that hard of late: https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/very-clear-majority-but-not-unanimity-in-eu-for-gaza-ceasefire-varadkar-1565330.html
4The most popular resistance organisations in Palestine were the secular ones, Al Fatah first and PFLP second. Al Fatah jumped at the ‘two state’ proposal which gave them, through the Palestine National Authority, their own government to run, funded by the EU and USA with greater opportunities for corruption. Their corruption and collusion with Israel was so pronounced that in the 2006 elections, Hamas got most votes and seats, ruling Gaza as a result but not the West Bank, despite their majority. There have been no elections since but funds are still flowing in to the PNA and Al Fatah.
5Most Israelis perhaps for different reasons than those of the Palestinians who reject it.
6Hence complicit politicians raising the issue of the “illegal settlers” in the West Bank (as though the other settlers are entitled), both to look like they are doing something, at least but also fundamentally to seem to make the two-state proposal viable.https://www.irishnews.com/news/ireland/martin-urges-tough-sanctions-on-extremist-west-bank-settlers-if-violence-goes-on-HUHM4I33YNOV5DPGX3V6VJIDOU/ and https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/spotlight/arid-41294251.html
7The word “slogan” is derived from slua-ghairm in the Irish language, i.e “call to the multitude/ crowd/ troop”.
SOURCES
Two-State proposal from Ireland: https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/very-clear-majority-but-not-unanimity-in-eu-for-gaza-ceasefire-varadkar-1565330.html
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/spotlight/arid-41294251.html
Two-State proposal from Palestinians & Israelis: https://news.gallup.com/poll/512828/palestinians-lack-faith-biden-two-state-solution.aspx
rebelbreeze 
Pingback: IF WE WANT TO HELP THE PALESTINIANS – The Free
You are perfectly correct but at the present moment a Palestine state ‘from the river the sea’ is unattainable. It’s like calling for an end to capitalism & world peace.
What is urgent is an end to the slaughter in Gaza.
And calling for “Stop the bombing – stop it now!” doesn’t call for an end to the slaughter? I did that say we should call for that.
And if we don’t call for a Palestinian state ‘from the river to the sea’ we are not supporting what the Palestinians need and the only thing that can at some point bring peace.
When peace talks start what will not be up for discussion are the settlers on the West Bank. It will be a precondition of talks that they withdraw..
After that AS PART OF THE TALKS all options may well come up but clearly we start on the basis of the UN resolution return to the pre 67 border.
We can say what we like but it is for the Palestinians to decide during these talks.
It seems to be often forgotten that 20% of the people in Israel are Palestian and they are the third largest political party they of course will be involved.
Our job is to support the Palestinians not decide the solution. We are not a left wing version of colonialism ( see Edward Said)
Yes we can indeed say what we like but revolutionaries should set out revolutionary slogans as guidelines, hopefully based on historical analysis, current experience and analysis of present conditions. The Palestinians of course will make their own decisions but in the meantime do we call for imperialist and neo-colonial solutions, like Fatah and Sinn Féin? Clearly I think not because that would be some kind of left (or right) wing version of colonialism.