News » November 12, 2004

The No-Partner Myth

Will Israel take steps to address Palestinian grievances or continue myth-making?

By Neve Gordon

The leader and symbol of the Palestinian people is dead. His departure from the political scene has far-reaching implications, particularly for Israeli-Palestinian relations.

The official Israeli line for the past four years has been that there is no Palestinian partner and that Yasser Arafat is persona non grata. Arafat has been blamed for being personally involved in planning and encouraging terror attacks. He has been accused of using funds donated by the European Union to finance terrorist activity and of establishing close links with those “forces of evil”—Iran and Iraq. There has also been criticism over the mismanagement and embezzlement of public resources and the use of authoritarian methods to control the Palestinian administration and security apparatus.

While some of these allegations are no doubt true, they have been disseminated again and again by the Israeli government and media in order to create a “no-partner” myth—a myth designed to convince the world that Arafat was an obstacle to peace, the major reason why the Oslo process collapsed.

Had it not been for Arafat, it was asserted, negotiations could have been resumed, the cycle of violence broken and ultimately peace attained. World leaders like Bush and Blair and many other shapers of public opinion all sang from the same hymn sheet, helping to promote the notion that Arafat was the primary hindrance to a just settlement.

Like every political myth, the “no-partner” one has been used to conceal rather than to reveal. It aimed to obscure the fundamental grievances fueling the conflict, namely that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for 37 years and that the number of Jewish settlers actually doubled during the Oslo process—the years Israel was ostensibly preparing to withdraw from the territories.

The “no-partner” myth was also used to undercut basic Palestinian demands, which Arafat represented: Israel’s full withdrawal to the 1967 borders, the establishment of a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, and the recognition of the rights of Palestinian refugees.

Finally, it sought to destroy Arafat’s persona, for he had become an international symbol of resistance, a symbol of the Palestinian struggle for self-determination. And as the embodiment of this struggle, he had managed to unify Palestinian society—both exiled and occupied—and thus strengthen his people’s national identity.

This potent myth accordingly suggested that the escalating conflict was due to the absence of a partner, rather than to Israel’s unwillingness to address Palestinian grievances and demands.

Israel’s problem is that Arafat’s death will not resolve anything. The reasons for the conflict will persist. Prime Minister Sharon must therefore choose between two radically different courses of action. He can decide to address Palestinian claims, which undoubtedly would entail painful compromises by Israel but could eventually lead to peace in the region. Alternatively, he can fashion a new myth, one that would again divert the public’s gaze from the real issues, and enable Israel to continue expropriating Palestinian land and destroying the population’s infrastructure of existence. This latter option is the one Sharon will most likely embrace. The question then becomes: What new myth will be created?

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  The “fundamental grievance(s) fueling the conflict” is none that you mentioned.  It is the existence of a Jewish state, Israel, in Palestine.  You refer to “37 years” as if that takes events back to the beginning of time.  37 years ago, Arabs controlled the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.  The PLO charter, back then, did not call for a Palestinian state in those territories, it called for the destruction of Israel.  A “new myth” is not necessary.  The world has one and it is the myth that the Palestinians and the rest of the Arabs will ever live in peace with a Jewish Israel if they have a viable alternative.

  Posted by Cary Salsberg on Nov 13, 2004 at 1:17 AM

  The suicide bombs the past four years are not a “myth.” The call to Jihad by Arafat, the adoration of martyrs and martyrdom operations are not a myth.  The refusal of Arafat to restrain the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade which are part of his own Fatah movement from blowing up jewish women and children is not a myth.  The fact that Arafat turned down Barak and Clinton’s offer in 2000 for 97% of the disputed territories and partial right of return is not a myth. The fact that the Palestinians want their own state and want to also move into Israel and take over Israel is not a myth. The fact that Arafat even denied that the Jews had a temple in Jerusalem is not a myth.  The fact that Cairo born Arafat is a Palestinian or gave a damn about peace or the welfare of the Palestinians is a myth!

  Posted by David Simantob on Nov 13, 2004 at 1:38 AM

  Putting self interest and grandstanding aside, and looking at history for a moment…and fairly recent history.

  It seems to be that in order to reach agreements you need to have leaders on both sides that are willing to agree. Also, all parties on all sides have to be viewed as legitimate representatives of their constituents in order to sell any deal.

  After the initial openings between Arabs and Israelis made by President Carter during the First Camp David accords, the stage had been set to really move forward in solving the Palestinian problem.

  Unfortunately, during both the Reagan and G.W. Bush Administrations a decision was obviously made to play to the Jewish vote and a policy of “marginalizing” Arafat was begun by the US. While this policy led to solid re-election victory for Reagan and played a major role in the election of GW, it wreaked havoc with advancement and set the stage for the first intifada. It also germinated the seeds of more openly hostile and violent factions within the PLO and significantly undermined Arafat and de facto any real chance for peace.

  President Clinton attempted to seriously restart that process and came very close to completing a real deal that would have given the Palestinians some measure of a homeland. Many blame Arafat for the failure of that agreement, but that’s way to easy.

  By the time of Clinton’s negotiation between Arafat and Barak, prior US policy has so damaged Arafat and his credibility with his people that he had no choice but to turn it down. To have agreed to the deal, and then be faced with serious disagreement at “home” and probably a defacto rejection of the deal, would have only driven Israel and the Palestinian radicals into even deeper and more intransigent bloodshed.

  Arafat was a warrior. I do agree to that view. But he was not an idiot. And he was, despite the view presently being promoted, an excellent politician.

  I would argue that by not signing the deal he performed a longer term service to the continuation of the peace process.

  Posted by Liberal but Proud on Nov 13, 2004 at 2:09 AM

  The new myth?
  Try this one out.
  The myth will be in the form of a question.
  “Are the Palestinians ready for democracy?”
  One already hears this over and over again.
  Of course, what this really means is “Are they ready to capitulate?”
  The bar will be raised just high enough that it is unattainable.
  As if the conditions of living under complete occupation would permit freedom.

  Posted by notacolony.ca on Nov 13, 2004 at 2:45 AM

  To Cary Salsberg & David Simantob,

  Yes, it’s true, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict goes back before 1967.  It goes back to the Zionist colonization of Palestine (which, on the eve of the Balfour declaration, was 90& Arab) against the wishes of the vast majority of the native inhabitants.  It also goes back to 1948, with the expulsion of between 500,000 and 750,000 Arabs and the destruction of over 400 Palestinian villages .  Like it or not, these aspects of history are still part of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. 

  However, the fact is that Arafat and the PLO did concede their claim to 78& of their homeland and recognize Israel in exchange for withdrawal from the territories occupied since 1967.  Rather than accept this historic compromise, Israel continued to colonize the West Bank and East Jerusalem; as the article points out, during the Oslo process, the number of settlers in the West Bank doubled to around 200,000 in the West Bank (that doesn’t include East Jerusalem.  Ultimately, it’s the failure of the Oslo process to bring any benefits to Palestinians that led to the end of Oslo and the outset of the Intifada. As for Barak’s generous offer, that’s another story.

  Posted by Peter on Nov 13, 2004 at 3:11 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 128 posts.

Also featured The Ballots at the Back of the Bus
Election Reflection
Fallujah 101

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Neve Gordon

• Gaza in the Crosshairs
  Israel cites all the wrong reasons for its invasion of Gaza.Posted on January 14, 2009
• The Experiment in Gaza
  The experiment in famine began on January 18, 2008. Israel hermetically closed all… morePosted on February 4, 2008
• Israel and Hamas Just Say No To Peace
  Over the past 40 years, the Arab League's position on Israel has radically shifted. It's time for Israel to recognize the change.Posted on April 17, 2007
• Fighting the Larger War
  The War On Terror is unique because its political, temporal and geographic borders are unknown and its enemy is fluidly ill-defined.Posted on September 12, 2006
• Israel’s September 11 Effect
  Israel is uniting in its war with LebanonPosted on August 11, 2006