Azmi Bishara - The Subversion of Liberation

[Fakhri Dweik]

Azmi Bishara - The Subversion of Liberation

By Mary Rizzo

May 21st, 2009


When leaders in struggle confuse themselves with recognition of the rights of the people they claim to defend, everyone suffers, including the national cause, writes Azmi Bishara


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Scottish philosophers of the Enlightenment, from Ferguson through Adam Smith, taught us that such emotions as the yearning for recognition and affection from others, as well as envy and cupidity, are natural human desires and play a critical role in the construction of societies and social relations. As proud and high-spirited philosophy students, we scoffed at such simplistic explanations for the roots of ideologies and class struggle. However, experience has taught us that such motives, however mundane and petty, are prime movers in the worlds of politics, culture and science, let alone economics, especially with the passage of human evolution into the age of individualism. The power of the ordinary is unrivalled by any other social force. Society and history cannot be explained solely in terms of the major classes, competing ideologies, modes of production and the like. As important as these are, many other factors must be taken into account: the question of recognition is one example; the production of social identity is another.

But even the greenest psychologist would agree that such emotions as the desire for recognition, the desire to impress, and the yearning for affection, when taken beyond the "normal" and developed into obsessions are strongly indicative of an inferiority complex. They would further acknowledge that such obsessions could express themselves in excessive sycophancy or, if repressed, give rise to behavioural abnormalities that might vent themselves in violence.

But whereas the foregoing may be correct as pertains to individuals, implanting the same motivations — the yearning for recognition and the desire to impress others — in human groups is unnatural from the word go. The endeavour is based on the presumption that the group is an individual with a mind, feelings and motivations, and that it desires to impress and acquire recognition from other groups. But to treat an entire people or civilisation as though it were some sort of super-being permits a gross distortion of the self and others and generates total confusion. The relationship between cultures is either a relationship between prevailing perceptions and images of these cultures (the production of images is an industry like any other with its own motivating factors and tools of production) or a relationship between diverse individuals from within those cultures. An individual from a culture that is regarded as being "backward" may, in fact, be intellectually or otherwise superior to an individual from a culture commonly perceived as "advanced".

Unfortunately, however, this fact is easily forgotten or obscured. The tendency is for persons from a "superior" culture to look down on representatives of an "inferior" culture aspiring for recognition and to regard themselves as inherently gifted by virtue of their ethnicity, in spite of the fact that others they are dealing with may be more gifted than themselves. Conversely, the artificial implantation of an inferiority complex among a people by brainwashing them into thinking that they are somehow crippled when compared to other "sound" and "healthy" peoples is calculated to generate obsequious behaviour towards those others. Consequently, every banality performed by, and every platitude uttered by, members of that supposedly superior culture is a stroke of genius until proven otherwise, whereas every member of the supposedly inferior culture is presumed an idiot until proven otherwise.

In politics, this dynamic can give rise to some ridiculous situations. For example, it is not uncommon for Westerners, regardless of their degree or level of political involvement, to be taken as an embodiment of global public opinion (in itself an artificial construct) whose approval needs to be won. Consequently, the unsuspecting Westerner finds him or her self the object of some artless fawning or, perhaps, artful verbal gymnastics intended to curry his or her favour. These may take the form of emulation or flattery or of self-deprecation, shows of submissiveness or pleas of helplessness. Whatever the means brought to bear, the ultimate result is blind imitation of the object of the ingratiation, inflation of their egos, and the reinforcement of their imaginary status as superior beings. Meanwhile, the sense of inferiority among those doing the ingratiating becomes an impediment to the evolution of their own culture and an obstacle to the course of its own creative development.

Such are the types of situations that are bred from an inverse Orientalism in which the "West" in its entirety is perceived as a single monolithic entity that has locked horns with such presumably closed, homogeneous and similarly monolithic entities as Arab, or Oriental, or Islamic culture. In the context of this "conflict", Arab behaviour has demonstrated several phenomena related to the desire to win the favour of the West. I have chosen to elaborate three.

The first is an Arab order that in courting the approval of US and European decision-makers almost invariably accomplishes the reverse. The very styles of approach stir contempt and derision. For example, we find Arab officials affecting the airs of the British aristocracy. In an era when the dialect, affectations and rituals of the British upper crust have become fodder for parody among the British themselves, the sons of Arab tribal chiefs and generals seem, at best, like those who arrive at the party as all the guests are leaving. Then there are those who deride their own peoples in front of European or American interlocutors, contemptuously dismissing them as backwards, only capable of understanding the language of force, and the like. In dramatic counterpoint, we also find the occasional official who strives to impress by donning ostensibly authentic Arab garb. This entails dozens of yards of colourful fabric assembled into billowing costumes taken straight from the imagination of a 19th century Orientalist painter. Of course the same methods have also been used as a gesture of "challenge". I have often wondered why every Arab leader that comes beneath the Western crosshairs needs to break into a version of the dabka, or shoot a gun into the air in front of the masses, or change costumes with every region he visits, or other such buffoonery.

The second phenomenon is Arab officialdom's fondness for making the Arab people believe that the West is hostile to them because they have a bad image in the West. They make it seem as though this bad image somehow manifested itself out of thin air rather than being shaped out of the interplay of interests and political positions. As a result, the Arabs' problem is their media image. Look at how Israel's favourable image helps it, they say, adding that this is why we must do our utmost to improve our own image. It is true that the mass media and culture in the West does perpetuate an image of the Arab enemy that has quite an impact on public opinion in those countries. However, the correct response is not to improve the image of the Arabs through efforts to win approval such as those mentioned above, but to expose the underlying racism in that culture and the mechanisms of distortion and misinformation that are used to disseminate that negative image of the Arab and Muslim. Ultimately, the only way to make others produce a more favourable image of us is to change their attitudes, which does not mean kowtowing or bending backwards to prove that "we're just like them." No amount of pretending to be like them will make the Arabs just like them; on the contrary, it only serves to aggravate the inferiority complex and its attendant behaviour while conceding to the other side of the power to judge us according to their terms. If there is anything to this business of image improvement, then the party that should be improving its image is the one that colonised, persecuted and fragmented the lands of others.

The third phenomenon is a tendency to confuse the demand for the recognition of rights with the demand for the recognition of identity, or the demand for justice with the demand for the recognition of "us" or "our representatives". I will devote the remainder of this article to this last point.

In any fight for justice and rights involving freedoms and equality there is the potential for confusing the recognition of rights with the recognition of identity and, at a later stage, the recognition of the identity group with the recognition of the representatives of this group. This is because an organised struggle is led by an educated and politicised leadership capable of advocating the demands of its people, organising and engaging in the fight to fulfil these demands, the members of which may or may not originate from the downtrodden groups they represent. What matters is that they are vulnerable to confusing the recognition of the rights that they have been charged to defend with the recognition of themselves as leaders and as a legitimate party in the domestic political arena, or as a legitimate party in a negotiating process involving, say, liberation movements.

Naturally, the leadership needs to be recognised in the event of negotiations. However, the recognition of the leadership must proceed from the recognition of the rights it represents rather than the reverse. In the event a liberation movement emerges victorious from battle, the recognition of the leadership must proceed from the need to put into effect the rights acquired by means of this accomplishment. However, if the battle drags on without achieving the desired result, or if the leadership weakens, that leadership may be vulnerable to a peculiar bartering process whereby recognition of the leadership supersedes the rights the leadership is meant to defend. Recognition of the leadership thus comes at the expense of the very cause that is that leadership's raison d'être.

How can we tell that we are faced with such a leadership? Quite easily. Such a leadership does things as the following:

- It wages armed resistance operations not with the aim of bringing victory into sight but in order to remain enough of a pest that the opposing side is forced to recognise that the source of the trouble is also the party capable of stopping it. In this context, sustaining a long-term grassroots-based underground movement is not important; in fact the very concept is marginalised. What counts is merely the ability to mount attacks, with no eye to strategy or cumulative affect, but with the sole purpose of driving home the message to the enemy: "If you want calm restored, you have to talk to our leadership."

- It is forever trying to persuade the international community that the key to solving the problem resides in the recognition of this leadership, and its stress on this point far exceeds its stress on the need to recognise the national rights of the people, to lift the occupation, to recognise the refugees' right to return, and to acknowledge such values as equality and the rejection of racism and Zionism. In fact, it becomes palpably clear that to this leadership the rights in question are not aims but rather bargaining chips to be played with the purpose of securing recognition.

- It constantly strives to prove that it can maintain order. But its actions in this regard are such that the people under its authority soon discover that the leadership which their sons had defended with their lives in the hope that it would eventually procure them their rights is now imposing security measures that are stricter and more violent than those meted out by the occupying power.

- The very leadership that attacks the enemy (in ways that sometimes incite racist hatreds against the enemy) bows and scrapes in order to win the admiration and approval of any foreign delegation, even when that delegation is not there to negotiate but to fire questions at the said leaders as though they were on trial.

It is not my purpose here to point a finger at any particular Palestinian or Arab leadership. All leaderships are prone to such lapses if they do not keep themselves in check or if the people whose interests they are meant to promote do not do so. It is dumfounding and dismaying to one who has experienced first hand life under a culture of persecution, and who has condemned and rejected that culture in solidarity with the targets of that persecution, to watch many of the representatives of the persecuted people scramble for the approval of the persecutors.

source:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/947/op2.htm



Mary Rizzo is an art restorer, translator and writer living in Italy. Editor and co-founder of Palestine Think Tank, co-founder of Tlaxcala translations collective. Her personal blog is Peacepalestine.

Email this author
[e-mail]

Palestine Think Tank


.

[mary rizzo]

It's not by me (but when it is up in that position, Mary's Choice) the computer will not publish it unless it has mary as author... But I think this is clear as soon as someone reads it that it's by the great and irreplaceable Bishara.

I think this article is outstanding, and to me, Bishara is the one of the greatest analytical thinkers of society and politics that the world has. No wonder Israel wants him dead.

I was sorting through some pdf's yesterday to find some material and I found the one by the US Congressional Committee on the Middle East (promoting the Gaza war just 2 weeks before it started.. yes,this is true, check the details in comments under Sami's post on the ROR for the quotes) but one of the segments in there was: if the Palestinians had a leader that actually proposed the idea of the single state (one person one vote) for Israel-Palestine, the consensus would rise from 24 % to 80% immediately. Think about it, Bishara's party supported that, and they sent him into exile and will kill him if he ever returns.

I know his ideas are so fearful to Israel because he is a reasonable man who endorses justice and rights for all, precisely what Israel (and Fatah, and perhaps at some level now, since they are winners but total underdogs, the Hamas) do not want.

I know we have many other campaigns we are working on, so starting a new one is not helpful, but my view is that we need to promote Bishara and his ideas as much as we can. He is a great hope for all of us.

[jerry gates]

This is a great man with great vision and his ideas and ideals should be trust forward so that all parties are heard and understood clearly.

Amzi Bishara pens an outstanding thesis on leadership and it's relations to it's subjects or citizens.

Without rehashing a very clear and concise work, The crux of this wisdom lies in the assumption ,by leaders, that their behavior, mores and doctrines must meet the approval of those who dominate or threaten their people, tribe or nation. The axium surrounding this idea could be "what others think about you is their problem".

This pandering to the powerful British Oxford paradigms of civilized behavior is a ridiculous place for and Arab leader to be, but many are born into this Oxfordshire hamlet where the diction is crisp kings english and showing oneself to be a part of the elites an imperitive that hampers a leaders connections to his peoples needs.

A simple example of this is found when the US leadership visits Israel. A wreath is laid, Yarmulke donned and wailing wall attended as if the US president or envoy were a Rabbi visiting to check on orphans and widows of the Holocaust. While kissing the ring of Israel the US leader forgets that Israel sank the Liberty, spied on the US , attacked Gaza during Obama's campaign and leveled homes of Palestinians in East Jerusalem after promising, in writing, not to do so. The US kisses the fancy ring of Israeli holocaust industry and make no progress towards US goals whatsoever for the reason of pleasing Israel.

This is not good diplomatic relations, this is selling ones people out to be recognized as a nice person to Israel.

It works similarly in diverse cultures but with certain variations which deserve a look....

Arab leaders who strive for a freed Palestine, see a few obstacles in this path; They see a united Israeli US war machine which seems invincible. They see an Israel who panders gracefully to this US power wielding it as if it were there own. They see an affront to their efforts to consolidate Palestine as a unit, when the US and Israel have successfully divided this people into four groups.

One group is those West Bank individuals who seek reconciliation with Hamas, another is the West Bank Fatah, who does not want reconciliation. In Gaza, we see a similar division, one side of this peoples heart seeks reconciliation with Fatah and the PA but desires this to be a conditional reconciliation until Islamic values are included in the Fatah Charter. The last group is the alienated Hamas inner core group who stands it's grounds ferociously calling sternly for right of return for all of the People of Palestine, calls for Israel to recognize the fairly elected government of Hamas as the representatives for all of Palestine and calls for the dismantling of all settlments outside of the law. leaders

However, what is interesting about Bishara's assertions are the reasoning for each groups stances. Those in Fatah who seek to be a state and can envision giving up rights and lands for this privilage, see Israel as their master(partner?) and feel that to concede this is to regain dignity as a people, but what price that dignity, the death of Gaza? This is a weak position due to the fact that it represents the hopes of Israel more so than those of the whole of Palestine.

Those in the West Bank who are gathering with Hamas to find common cause and common ways forward to peace are including the concept that reconciliation of these two Palestinian groups is against Israelis hopes and hence a stronger position for the general welfare of Palestine than to capitulate to the Israeli domination that allows for a meager state with little freedoms.

The true center of the Palestinian people is difficult to discern and therefore with this unclear popular sentiment comes an unclear way to promote peace for all of these people.

If a central theme exists in it's pure form, it is that of Hamas save for their insistence of having an Islamic ruler with no separation of church and state, but this division is a misperception, as Khalid Meshal has deliberately said ;that his Hamas would yeild to the will of the people, which if discerned to be the request for the right of return as their basic demand from Israel for peace, this should be a non negotiable platform in talks and no other alternatives should be allowed to eclipse this demand.

Recognition of Israel as a Jews only state when this state has prevented Arabs from enjoying rights that Jews enjoy is ridiculous, and this demand should be met with such a reaction, as Hamas has done, clearly stating that they concede that Israel exists but not as a Jews only state( there are obviously millions of Palestinians living in Israel and East Jerusalem) , so this assertion is absurd and should be decried as such by any leader representing the true position of Arab Palestinians in occupied territories.

When it has been established by ones detractors that Palestinians are inferior to Jews or that Palestine in incapable of governing itself, the correct position is not to concede this point and play the cards dealt in this weak hand, but to cry foul, discard this assertion out of hand and demand to be recognized as the government that Palestine chose, which is Hamas. Just because Hamas has been sidelined as a terrorist organization cannot preclude them as rulers and the best representation of the Palestinian nation in the eyes of their people, this is suicide for Palestine to dump the very organization whose platforms created this opportunity for peace with Israel by standing firm in negotiations, not behaving like a western look alike and not conceding to the accusations of barbarism when it is widly accepted that Israel and the United States have perpetrated countless barbarous crimes and exonerated themselves, which is fascism and should be decried as such by Palestinian leaders if they seek to be respected in dialog with aversaries of Palestine.

Abbas has been the moderate friend of Israel and the darling of the USA and during his "negotiations, the West Bank has seen little if any real peace or freedom, all is yet controlled by Israel and this noose is designed to be permanent, once the leadership is resigned to be a pawn of their occupayers, rights are forsaken immediately as Israel is yet calling every shot.

Bishara is wise to teach this principle and we must take courage to be as he sees us, individuals but representatives of Palestinians always, not seeking aproval from our detractors but seeking to represent the will of Palestinians, all of them.

One important piece of advice going into a leadership position......

It is not selling out to listen to and understand the position of ones negotiating adversary. This is of paramount importance. You listen and concede as you feel appropriate to understanding the position of the other side of any issue, then , speaking to the assertions of the oher side of the negotiating table, YOUR position must be laid out beside the other and comparisons of viability applied to each. IF your position is not accepted you have two routes to travel, one you concede a minor point to move onto more pressing issues or you hold fast and concede nothing and move on to the next issue, no single issue is worth deciding in favor of quitting talks out of frustration, A stiff resistance to intimidation and strong backbone for confronting ones opponent is very important as a leader.

The issues confronting the Palestinians and Israelis seem to defy resolution. The reason is that Israel's position in negotiations is that it can agree to end certain practices, but in the end it has the option of resorting to force of arms to do whatever they see fit, which they have done to date, so what is Arab leadership to do in speaking to this issue?????

Israel threatens war when it is challenged in it's occupation, and kills people when things don't go their way, Israel disrupts Gaza, contricts the West Bank, separates mothers from their children and fathers from sons, brothers from sisters and this is the way they have spoken when their word has fallen and they resort to trickery. They kill people.

If Palestine wants good leadership it must keep this leadership alive for Israel has killed every leader Palestine ever had and in the end it will continue to do so.

So to those who accuse Hamas of terrorism , I ask, what kind of leaders are YOU ? You who accuse others of terrorism when the world knows surly that it is the US and Israel who terrorize Arabs, not the other way around, It is Irsael's contempt that legitimises it;s tortures of Palestine, this is an evil heart doing evil to those who stand in it;s way.

There is no earthly defense against such criminality. If leaders emerge, Israel kills them.If uprisings occur, Israel kills them, If people write letters to Israeli agencies they are not read or answered, If the world asks the US to intervene on the behalf of Palestine and ask Egypt to open the Rafah Gates and trust that the gesture will be one of peace and compassion and not seen as weakness, we have a good leader doing what he should, representing the wishes of his people, and not the wishes of a foreign power that is an apartheid purveyor in and occupier of others lands.

What did the American Indians do when confronted with this? they accepted defeat after being demoralised in battle and cleansed from their lands onto reservations, which is exactly what Israel and the US envision for Palestine, Perish the thought, the American Indians learned a valuable lesson in trusting the white mans word, Palestinian leadership in unlikly to capitulate as these Original inhabitants of the land did in the Americas. The reason is that they have learned to fight the good fight, not to sacrifice their own for naught in usless battle fro pride and they have designed a dissent that grows love, feeds souls and binds woulds of oppression with kind hearted mothers, Palestinian mothers who have decreed, we capitulate not to these people from other lands to drive us out, we can wait forever, playing any game they wish, winning some losing others but always and forever resisting which is good bottom upo leadership that cannot be shot in the head. The masses are the leaders and they forget not whom they serve, not what they seek, the right of return and nothing less, because it was promised and once promised it will be delivered or we wait, which is a decision that is made to serve the interests of the Palestinian people until they say different.

Calling for an end of unfruitful negotiations due to the inability of Israel or the US to understand the Palestinian position concerning the right of return, is a statement that the two state solution, if not viable yields to one state by default and equal rights are the best platform to achieve the right of return for those who seek this and the right to freedom in an Israel which is not a Jews only nation, but a nation of it's people.

The possibility that the two state solution will be lost is not very distant if talks are stalled in this front. This is to Israel's advantage to engage these talks to no clear end, and to Palestines advantage to discontinue talks as their right of return is not met. amd concessions for peace cannot achieve this so negotiations are mute, leaving Palestine and Israel at impasse, which benefit Israel in the short term but could benifit Palestine if future concession come from a moderating Israeli populace and translates into moderate non zionist leadership,( not likely, but possible).

Their is one entity which is worthy of our respect and that is Allah ,save for this devotion, leaders need to stay focused on their people, not on recognition by the enemy. If a Hamas leadership sees PEOPLE asking for less harsh treatment, less bellicose rhetoric and more kindness, gentleness and compassion, it is incumbent on leaders to represent this request, if the people call for war, it is the leaders place to declare it and assemble forces and fight their enemies even to certain defeat if this is the will of the people. If war has failed and the people want to make concessions for peace, it must be discerned by leaders what concessions can be made and what is off limits. If the people can't make up their minds, the leaders are empty vessels unable to represent a cohesive constituency and this people is incapable of governing themselves as is the leadership out of their failure to discern the will of the people by education, truth, honesty and representational governing.

Failure IS an option for Palestine and to date, although this statement will not be popular, it is evident that this option is still on the table as talks convene between Hamas and Fatah.

Make us believe ,dammit, where is the voice we await for our work? What will it be ? Leaders would have shown some progress in the press by now,and spoken to theor people , asking for solidarity! All I hear is silence!

[mary rizzo]

That was a fantastic analysis, Jerry! I think the crux of the matter is what the leaders present as their "mandate", whether they are representing an idea of pragmatic thinking (get any old thing, but now) or whether they are flexible on the form but not on the content (for instance, that Haniyeh has said that they would do whatever kind of government the people would call for, and I believe this is true) and are willing to not compromise on some things such as rights.

In an ordinary world, all of this would be so simple! Israelis claim "we don't want the occupation", but if that were even remotely true, it would have happened a long time ago or they could do it overnight. They want the PA to be their policemen, though, to not have to foot the costs of this and that is the kind of freedom the PA prospects for them. In this way, the only difference I would add to your (and Dr Bishara's) analysis is the factor of time (neither of you mention it, so maybe there's no disagreement, but just the thing that sticks out to me). It seems that the time is running out, it has felt that way for ages, but now.. you know who I think the time is running out on? On the Zionists. They are having to face the fact that they can't win a war even against a poorly armed and starved enemy. Israel has great support by their public and especially abroad, but the army morale is low and there are more and more who don't feel the need for the "security" obsession, and not the least, the Palestinian population will not stop increasing, no matter how many low level genocides that we can call massacres Israel decides to do.

The handkerchief on the tug of war rope is now firmly over the Palestinian side of the line, and it can only get easier to pull the Israeli side to the ground. They don't have a handle on things any more. And I'll add one more thing; the stupidity of the Israeli supporters beginning with the US Administrations. I have been studying in the past week the various policy documents that have been made public. I wonder if they are complete, or if there are omissis there that are important. What to me jumps to the eye is that Israel admits that Hamas did not break the ceasefire (it was others shooting the rockets ie, pretext) and the US was aware of this, but in spite of it, it was all about weakening Hamas, which, contrary to the desired result, they are still popular, and in some cases more than they were before. How is it that the US isn't even afraid to point out that it's all a game so that Israel gets its "Iron Dome" and "David's Sling"??? It's all to give more armaments to Israel while at the same time signing the Memorandum of Agreement on "Smuggling"... it is there in black on white.

Sometime soon, people are going to catch on to all of this, but it can't be me or you saying this, but someone like Dr Bishara or Chomsky or someone who has policy makers listen to them and try to figure out how to spin. They get caught in their own spin.