The Web

Articles & Analyses

About the Slogan Removing the Effects of Aggression
By: Moatasem Hamadeh
June 12, 2018

The setback of June 1967, Naksa (the other edition of the Nakba of 1948), is now in its 52nd year, and the slogan “removing the effects of aggression” has not yet achieved its objectives. As in the era of Sadat, Egypt has entered into unilateral negotiations with the Israelis and achieved the Camp David Peace Treaty. The official Palestinian leadership also took part in this by the coup of September 13, 1993, when the Oslo Accords were signed, and Jordan was later in the Wadi Araba Treaty. However, the Palestinian territory is still under occupation, as are the occupied Syrian Golan, the Shebaa farms in southern Lebanon and parts of the Jordan Valley, where four Israeli settlements are still there. This is when we consider that the slogan “removing the effects of aggression”, refers only to the return of the land, occupied in the aggressive war of on 5 June 67. Noting that limiting the slogan to this matter alone, is a leap away from the concept of aggression and its real objectives.

As the aggression (if we describe what happened on June 5 as a mere aggression) has achieved a great goal when it broke through the Arab rank and took Egypt out of its hands in favor of a single treaty that removed Cairo from the direct conflict with the Israeli enemy and transformed the Egyptian political system from Sadat to Mubarak to the moment, from a partner to a partner in issues and a mediator between Israelis and Palestinians in other issues.

As for the Jordanian side, the journey is very long, and its joints are more complex than the other axes of the conflict. The signs of ambiguity still affect the relationship between Amman and Tel Aviv, because the Zionist project in its content is much broader than the occupation of a piece of land (despite the importance of this), which in fact affects the entire Arab situation in its various titles and fields. Therefore, the relationship, for example, on the fronts of Egypt and Jordan, is complex, as it is based on peace treaties signed at the highest levels. At the same time, it is based on objective contradiction, which has not succeeded in ending the conflict with Amman or Cairo, and especially with the Palestinians whose official leadership still describes its negotiations with the Israeli side as a peace process and is still searching for peace with Israel. It is as a blind looking in a dark room for a black cat, and the cat does not exist at all.

Israeli aggression, as a living expression of the Zionist project not only targets the land. Perhaps the historical leaders of Israel, led by Shimon Peres, realized with their experience and awareness of the reality of the situation, the impossibility of extending Israel, as a one unified state, or imposing its full sovereignty of the Euphrates to the Nile. Therefore, aggression, according to those, turns into brilliant projects that address feelings and minds together and Israel exercises aggression in peaceful ways to achieve the same goals. Thus, while it cannot impose its military control on the ground, it imposes its hegemony in other ways. Some of these methods are:

• It perpetuates aggression on history, memory, and consciousness, to redefine the history of the region, so that the children of Israel are the owners of the land, while the Arabs are invaders from the Arab Peninsula. And the occupation is described as liberation of the Israeli territory.

• Violating our culture by inculcating the concept of anti-Semitism as a charge against anyone who criticizes Israeli colonial practices. It is not surprising that the Americans demand that we stop incitement against the occupation and Israel, and that some American and European civil society organizations try hard to spread the culture of peace (culture of surrender) and the culture of tolerance of others (culture of submission to the occupation and its practices, and the condemnation of the resistance option in its various forms and considering it as terrorism and aggression against Israel that gives it the right to defend itself).

• As for Palestinians, in particular, it destroys their economy to link it with its economy, restricts them to interests that are difficult to dispose of by ordinary procedures, destroys their values in favor of alternative values that look superficially and distorts their ability to manage their own affairs, so that they look in the eyes of the international community, as a deficient class, incapable of building its own entity. Thus, only political, security, and economic guardianship can be maintained. This is what Israel has succeeded in achieving, through the implementation of the Oslo Accords, with prior awareness of its objectives of them and taking advantage of the naiveté of the official leadership and its eagerness for corrupt solutions, that experience has shown how sterile they are.

As we enter the fifty-second year of the setback (Naksa), let us admit that we have not yet entered the phase of removing the effects of aggression and even let us admit that we are entering into a phase of new fruits of the setback of June, which has not stopped since 1967, with the Trump administration.

The Deal of the Century born in the hands of the Riyadh conference between the Trump administration and the representatives of more than 50 Arab and Muslim countries, is only a great fruit of June 1967, that aims at dropping the slogan removing the effects of aggression in favor of alternative slogans based on presenting the Israeli side as one of the most important parties in a new regional equation, to move Israel from the enemy's position to the ally's position, and turn the Palestinian issue from the first issue of the Arabs into a mere sub-issue, must be quickly removed, so that the Israeli-Arab regional alliance, under the American supervision, to pass.

This great turn, we may find its root in the Sadat approach, which turned against the policy of the late Gamal Abdel Nasser, and we may find its reasons (or some) in the fatal mistakes committed by a wide array of Arab leaders, which have hindered the building of the national state, the state of independence, sovereignty, national dignity and social justice. The reasons for this, also are undoubtedly found in the political coup that the Palestinian official leadership carried out on the national program, as it joined the settlement tracks outside the framework of international legitimacy and the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and accepted the Oslo solution, which continues to cultivate its disasters to this very day in Jerusalem, plundering the land, threatening the future and the rights of refugees and preparing for cancelling the project of independence and sovereignty in favor of poor solutions.

On the other hand, since 5 June 1967 until the moment, the Arab resistance to the Zionist project has not stopped. It has taken different forms and included the entire Arab region, from Mauritania to Iraq and it has been expressed by the popular situation with its national, nationalist, progressive, leftist and liberal political forces in the possible and available ways, including in its struggles against corrupt regimes and in favor of the alternative national state. This is the major complex that disrupts the Zionist project, which has preserved the remnants of the slogan removing the effects of aggression. This “obstacle” requires the responsible departments to take steps to develop the foundations, requirements and mechanisms, to restore the true content of the slogan removing the effects of aggression, from Palestine, Lebanon, the Golan and to the rest of the Arab capitals.

The aggression no longer touches the so-called Arab neighborhood of Israel, but is an aggression that defies the entire Arab region. This is the essence of the subject, and its real entrance.

Moatasem Hamadeh is a member of the Political bureau of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine
Translated by Ibrahim Motlaq

Share |
copyright © 2004 - dflp-palestine.net