Activist talks Israeli-Palestinian conflict

After Student Government Board granted the Students for Justice in Palestine funding to bring a… After Student Government Board granted the Students for Justice in Palestine funding to bring a controversial speaker to Pitt, students protested the decision. Palestinian rights activist Ali Abunimah plans to speak in David Lawrence Hall Tuesday at 7 p.m. He is the author of ‘One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse,’ co-founder of the Electronic Intifada ‘mdash; an online publication that covers the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ‘mdash; and has a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in political science from Princeton University and the University of Chicago, respectively. In his book, released in 2007, Abunimah proposes a democratic one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that, he argues, can be achieved through a process of reconciliation and an acceptance by both parties (with the help of the international community) of each other’s civil rights. David Streeter, president of the Union for Progressive Zionists, said that he understands why some people might believe that Abunimah’s visit would be controversial, considering his history with the Electronic Intifada, which he considers to be pro-Palestinian. Streeter draws a distinction between criticism of the Israeli government and anti-Semitism, but he is curious to hear why Abunimah believes a two-state solution is doomed. The Pitt News talked to Abunimah and discussed his views on Hamas, Zionism and the possibility of peace. The Pitt News: Are you a practicing Muslim? Ali Abunimah: I usually don’t answer questions about my personal religious beliefs. I don’t think they’re really relevant to what I’m coming to discuss, if that’s OK. I’m a Palestinian-American that’s really all I would identify myself as. TPN: How would you describe Hamas? Is it a terrorist organization that seeks the destruction of Israel? Or is it a political organization with a militant wing that is recognized as a terrorist organization by the United States, E.U. and Israel? AA: Clearly it depends who you ask. Hamas is undeniably a major political organization that represents a large segment of Palestinian society under occupation … I’m aware, of course, that other people attach their own labels to it, particularly the U.S. and Israel, which classify it solely as what they call a terrorist organization. I don’t find those labels very descriptive because if you look at exactly the same kind of activities carried out by other people, they don’t describe it as terrorism. Those aren’t descriptive labels, they’re political labels. TPN: What criticisms do you have of Zionism as an ideology? AA: It’s clear that the idea of Zionism was to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. The problem with that is that the majority of the population was not Jewish. So inevitably it required the use of force to implement the Zionist vision on Palestine. If Zionism truly wanted to populate an empty land, fine. I have no problem with it. But the land wasn’t empty and already had an established society living there. And the response to that over the years has been to deny that the Palestinians were living there or were forcibly removed. TPN: Is Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian National Authority, working for or against the Palestinians? AA: He has no democratic mandate, his party lost elections decisively in 2006. He stayed in power through the direct military and economic support of the U.S. and the indirect military support of Israel. He has been very clear in opposing any form of Palestinian resistance. It’s very sad that the first democratic election in the Arab world was overturned in large part by the efforts of the U.S. I think it sends the wrong signal to people about the rhetoric of democracy and the reality of it. TPN: Just to be clear, you’re referring to the United States promoting the 2006 elections and then expressing disgust that Hamas was elected? AA: Yes, the elections went ahead partly at U.S. insistence and Hamas won fair and square. Hamas didn’t win them on a platform of destroying Israel; they won them of a platform of change and reform ‘mdash; familiar words. This ought to have been an opportunity to begin again for everyone. For years, Hamas had been criticized for staying out of the political process and only engaging in violence. TPN: In the beginning of your book, you write with fondness about very peaceful and cordial Palestinian-Jewish relations when your parents were living there in the ’20s and ’30s. Do you think that would be possible again? Will it be possible in your lifetime? AA: I think it’s both desirable and possible. People never thought that peace was possible in Northern Ireland or in South Africa, and yet peace is proven to be possible. People always said the hatred is too deep, the hostility is too deep. Sometimes people like to comfort themselves and think that hatred and enmity are somehow natural. That allows them to justify the positions they take. It saves them the trouble of having to do hard mental and political work to find out what might divide them. There’s nothing really special about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It shares many features with other conflicts and I think can be resolved in a similar way.