The majority of Palestinian voices are still being ignored
A quick search for ‘Palestine’ on Amazon.com (the world’s biggest book retailer) reveals over 15,000 available entries. There is clearly no shortage of literature on the subject, much as there is no shortage of discussion or opinion around the world. Many of the books written pre-Nakba were structured within two main catagories. Some were traditional ‘adventurer’ type travel journals almost exclusively penned by authors from the ‘privileged minority’ of the colonialist states, whilst others looked through religious and political perspectives including the reams of early Zionist literature. Post-1948, Palestine-related literature was dominated by accounts lauding the establishment of the Zionist dream. Again, these works were almost exclusively written by ‘Westerners’, which is unsurprising when acknowledging the fact that the creation of ‘Israel’, and the ethnic cleansing that formed an intrinsic part of that process, was a European-style colonialist project.
Since the release of previously restricted government archives
in the mid-1980's, a huge amount of Israeli 'revisionist' history
has been published which has shed light on the ethnic cleansing of
Palestinians in 1948. Whilst Israel’s so-called ‘New Historians’
have received much attention for their ‘uncovering’ of Palestinian
expulsions during al-Nakba, and whilst their works do indeed
provide valuable insights into the how the Zionist movement
achieved its aim of transferring Palestinians, earlier works by
Palestinian scholars such as Walid Khalidi and others had made
almost identical claims without receiving the same level of
recognition.
Where the work of Khalidi differed from that of many of the New
Historians, putting aside the fact that he began researching and
publishing nearly 30 years before the Israeli academics, was in his
references. Khalidi largely referenced Palestinians who had first
hand experience of al-Nakba, whilst the New Historians such as
Benny Morris almost exclusively sourced information from
de-classified Israeli documents. Khalidi’s work was dismissed by
many as one-sided and biased, whilst the work of the New Historians
was considered radical and groundbreaking. Ilan Pappe’s widely
acclaimed book ‘The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’ (2006, One World
– London) detailed Plan Dalet from de-classified sources amongst
its proof that al-Nakba was a planned process of ethnic cleansing,
yet some 45 years earlier Walid Khalidi published his comparatively
unknown paper ‘Plan Dalet: The Zionist Masterplan for the Conquest
of Palestine’ (Middle East Forum, November 1961). In reality, the
literature of the New Historians was unique not in its convictions,
but simply in the fact that these ideas were at last being written
about by Israelis which gave it much greater credence in the
Western world.
Since the outbreak of the Second Intifada, several ‘internationals’
have published books attempting to convey the realities of life for
Palestinians as they have witnessed it whilst supporting
‘non-violent resistance’ projects, or working for international
NGO’s in the remnants of Palestine. So many people have opinions
they want to express, often with good intentions, yet invariably
these fall into categories that are intentionally palatable to a
Western audience. These practices drag the international
‘understanding’ of Palestine into mainstream Western ideals where
they can be safely pigeon-holed inside a framework that is
acceptable to both Western publishers and their readerships. There
are of course some very valuable exceptions to these norms,
although these books make up a tiny minority with the support of
generally alternative presses.
The international ‘solidarity’ movements and segments of the left
often fall into exactly the same trap. Their eagerness to support
‘non-violent Palestinian resistance’ at the expense of the all
encompassing Palestinian concept of ‘mucawameh’ (resistance) is one
such example. I have lost count of the number of times I have
listened to ‘peace activists’ promoting non-violence projects as
opposed to Palestinian resistance in general, or trade unionists
who claim to ‘support Palestine’ whilst keeping open avenues of
communication with the Zionist Histradut believing that doing so
follows their interpretation of a Marxist agenda. In a similar
vein, many ‘solidarity activists’ eagerly campaign for bans of
Settlements' produce without fully endorsing the 2005 Palestinian
civil-society call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS).
Similarly, in the vast halls of academia around the western world,
non-Palestinian academics discuss the intellectual polemics of the
one-state versus two-state debate from the safety of their well
stocked libraries and comfortable armchairs without actually asking
Palestinians what shape their own future should take. The notion in
certain circles seems to be that ‘we will support Palestine but
only on our terms’.
Through such practices, people are incorporating personal agendas
into a struggle that is not their own, whether intentionally or
otherwise, although few of them have ever actually ‘lived’ that
struggle. This does not deny or refute the fact that everyone is
entitled to have and express an opinion, but the problems arise
when the opinions of Western ‘experts’ are considered of greater
value than those who by definition truly understand what it means
to be Palestinian – the Palestinians themselves. This ‘intellectual
imperialism’ can be extremely damaging to Palestine and the global
understanding of it. The voices of the people who have truly
lived the struggle, and who have suffered its
consequences are all too often neglected, yet there can be no
better opportunity to understand Palestine than by listening to its
people.
Through Behind the Wall: Life, Love, and Struggle in Palestine I
attempted to create this kind of platform; a solid base from which
uncensored and un-sanitized Palestinian voices could be heard in
their own words. Palestinian stories should be told by
Palestinians, they should be listened to, and, if one is intending
to stand in solidarity with Palestine, they should be acted upon
according to a manner promoted by, and in full support of, those
same people. When wanting to profess solidarity with a people who
have struggled with intense dignity and inspirational sumoud
(steadfastness) for over six decades, people should not attempt to
pigeon-hole the Palestinian struggle into a box that is acceptable
by the states that continue in their historic role of dictating the
global political climate through warfare and their control of
natural resources and commodities.
At the heart of Palestine’s struggle is the refugee case, which
remains almost a taboo subject in many forum including in the
seemingly endless and fruitless ‘Peace Process’, which seems on the
verge of what one can only hope is a final collapse. Time and
again, in speeches and in op-eds around the world,
'pro-Palestinian' commentators speak of ‘over 40 years of
Occupation’ as if the unjust colonial appropriation of 78% of
Palestinian land pre-1967 were somehow morally different from the
occupation of the remainder of Palestine. Similarly, the estimated
three quarters of a million Palestinians who were ethnically
cleansed from their homes during al-Nakba and the 7 million or so
Palestinians who were born as refugees following these events are
treated as political lepers whose insistence upon their rights,
including the Right of Return, is regarded as quixotic and even
malicious.
It is not too late to go back to the beginning and look at all this
again, but this time through Palestinian eyes. Look at how this
began, how it developed, how it is sustained, and how it progresses
today through the ongoing Nakba. Without hearing the voices of
Palestine’s refugees, and listening to their stories with a clear
eye on the historical and contemporary context, the voices of the
vast majority of all Palestinians alive in the world today will
continue to be ignored.