Click on Links masthead to clear previous query from search box
Palestine in the Middle East: Opposing neoliberalism and US power
Understanding
the logic of this economic framework is critical to assessing the current
juncture of the Palestinian struggle. The neoliberal vision underpinning these
policies is a central corollary to the political direction promoted by the
Israeli government, the Palestinian Authority and their
Such an
analysis, however, is only part of the story. The second part of this article
argues that these changes in the
A central
component of this vision is the normalisation and integration of
The Reform and Development Plan
On December 17,
2007, at a one-day conference in Paris, more than 90 international
representatives from various countries and donor organisations gathered to pledge
their support to the Palestinian Authority government headed by President
Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. The conference was
the largest of its kind since 1996, and was chaired by the French and Norwegian
governments, Tony Blair (as representative of the Middle East Quartet) and the
European Commission. Following speeches by various EU member states, the
Palestinian Authority, the International Monetary Fund and the Israeli
government, attendees at the conference pledged more than US$7.7 billion to the
PA.
The main
impetus for this conference was an attempt to garner financial support for a
new PA economic strategy called the Palestinian Reform and Development Plan for
2008-2010 (PRDP). Based upon a detailed series of proposals written by the
World Bank and other international financial institutions, the broad outlines
of the PRDP were first presented in November 2007. Since that time it has
become the guiding framework for economic policy, particularly in the
The first
thing to note about the PRDP is that the heavy hand of the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund and other neoliberal institutions such as the
British Department for International Development (DFID) can be clearly seen in
its policy recommendations and outlook. The argument behind the PRDP is
explicitly neoliberal, calling on the PA to undertake a series of fiscal
reforms in order to foster an "enabling environment for the private sector"
as the "engine of sustainable economic growth". Palestinian
grassroots organisations have gone so far as to describe neoliberal financial
institutions as "a de facto 'shadow government' in the
What does the
PRDP actually mean for Palestinians on the ground? As the name suggests, there
are two main policy components to the PRDP: ``reform’’ and ``development’’. The
reform component commits the PA to a program of fiscal tightening that exceeds
measures imposed by the IMF and World Bank on any other state in the region.
There are three key elements to this program.
First, in
probably the harshest attack on any public sector in the
Second, the PA
has pledged not to increase any public sector salaries over the next three
years. In an environment of very high levels of inflation (11% in the year to
March 2008) and rapidly rising food and energy prices, this wage freeze is a
recipe for disaster for the average person in the
Finally, a
further key component of the PRDP is the requirement that citizens present a
``certificate of payment’’ of utility bills in order to receive any municipal
or government services. This measure will have a dramatic impact on the poor,
as the subsidisation of electricity and water bills (i.e. allowing these
services to continue despite the non-payment of bills) was a central means of
survival for millions of people in an environment of rapidly spiralling poverty
levels. This new measure means that individuals applying for various services --
including requests for ID cards, car licenses, building permits etc. -- will be
denied if these debts are outstanding. Public sector employees will have
utility debts docked from their salaries.
International
financial institutions place such a high priority on the PRDP that virtually
all donor support to the Palestinian Authority -- including the $7.7 billion
earmarked at the Paris Conference -- is contingent on its implementation. To
ensure this compliance, a new bank account called the PRDP Trust Fund has been
established through which international support to the PA will flow. This
account is headquartered in
A 'Culture of Entitlement'?
To fully
comprehend the impact of the PRDP measures they need to be placed in the
context of the existing economic situation in the
In addition,
over the last 15 years there has been a significant shift in the structure of
the Palestinian labour force that further compounds the effect of these
policies.
On
The strike was
largely unsuccessful in turning back implementation of the PRDP. One of the
main reasons for this is the fact that public sector workers in the
It needs to be
clearly understood that the Palestinian population in the WB/GS has no control
over basic services such as water, electricity and telephone access. As a
result of the system of control established by
Because of
this relationship, the PRDP ``certificate of payment’’ essentially means that
the PA has taken on the role of debt collector for Israeli companies, choosing
to target the poorest layers of the community in order to sustain the
structures of occupation. Even worse, the neoliberal language adopted by the PA
blames millions of people living under never-before seen conditions of poverty
for attempting to find ways to survive.
South African
activist Salim Vally has recently noted that neoliberal municipal governments
in
By gutting 20
per cent of the labour force, imposing a wage freeze as prices skyrocket and
compelling the poor to immediately pay millions of dollars in debt, the PRDP
will have a savage and unparalleled impact on the population. These neoliberal
measures will undoubtedly open significant fissures within the different
political forces and social movements over the coming period. But key to any
effective response is an understanding that the PRDP is not solely a deliberate
attempt to impoverish the population. Rather, it aims at complementing the
second component of the PRDP: its particular model of ``development’’.
'Development' and the industrial zone model
Alongside the
fiscal measures discussed above, the PRDP promotes a series of development
projects that have been heavily backed by the
The PRDP
development model aims at utilising cheap Palestinian labour in industrial
zones and parks, located at the edges of the patchwork of Palestinian
territories in the
The first
stage in this scheme focuses on the
Inside these
zones, Palestinian and Israeli labour laws, wage levels, environmental
regulations or other workplace conditions will not apply. Movement in and out
of the areas will be controlled by the Israeli military and Palestinian
security forces. Presumably, if
Plans for the
Tarqumiya zone would appear to confirm this prognosis.
In addition to
the exploitation of cheap labour, these zones serve to normalise and
legitimatise the existing structures of the occupation. A clear example of this
is shown by the case of the Jenin Industrial Estate (JIE). The land for the JIE
has twice been confiscated from Palestinian farmers: in 1998 when the PA first
mooted the idea for the industrial zone, and then once again in 2003, when the
Israeli military confiscated the land as part of construction for the Apartheid
Wall ``buffer zone’’.[11] Indeed, in
a striking example of how this model of development is integrated with the structures
of the occupation, the wall will form the northern border of the JIE.
The centrality
of the industrial zone ``development’’ model to the US, Israel and the PA was
confirmed at the end of March 2008 during a visit of US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice to the region. On 30 March, at a meeting convened between
The May '
As the March
meeting between Rice, Barak and Fayyad indicated, the construction of zones
such as Tarqumiya and the JIE is a high priority of current political
negotiations. Another component of the tripartite meeting was a discussion of
how
More than 1000
delegates attended the conference, including all of the key figures in the
Palestinian Authority (Abu Mazen, Salam Fayyad and other key ministers were
present).[12] It brought together
the wealthiest Palestinian capitalists from outside the country (particularly
The main aim
of the conference was to showcase the neoliberal attacks on the public sector
implemented by the PA under the PRDP, holding these up as ``good for business’’
and an attractive reason to invest in Palestinian areas. In addition to the
industrial zones discussed above, several projects were promoted throughout the
conference that aimed at bringing together Arab and Israeli capital in joint
investments. Israeli businesspeople were encouraged to attend, although this
fact was not widely publicised due to the opposition of the Palestinian public
to these types of joint projects.
One of the
projects highlighted during the conference was the ``Corridor for Peace and
Prosperity’’ (CPP), which aims to create an agroindustrial zone in the fertile
areas of the
The CPP aims
to establish a free trade agricultural zone in the area that will turn the
small-scale Palestinian farmers into day labourers and subcontractors to large
agroindustry controlled by Israeli and regional capital.[13] In other words, not only does the CPP consent to the
occupation and expropriation of land that has taken place over the last 40
years in the Jordan Valley, it actually aims to integrate this occupation into
the project itself. The agricultural produce grown as part of the CPP will do
nothing to alleviate concerns of food security in the area: the produce is
intended for export to
One final
indication of the relationship between the structures of occupation and the
neoliberal development model was the support given by the Israeli military to
the conference itself. While everyday residents of
It should be
stressed that the conference did not pass without strong opposition from
grassroots forces within the
``Economic and social development in
In sum, the
PRDP fiscal measures and their allied development projects will in no way
contribute to ending the Israeli occupation of the
In the late
1960s, with the definitive collapse of British and French colonialism in the
Three pillars
First, like
elsewhere around the world, the
Second, in
addition to these client regimes, the US power rests upon the countries brought
together through the regional integration project -- the Gulf Cooperation
Council. The GCC was established in 1981 between Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait,
Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. As a regional integration project,
the GCC resembles the European Union, aiming to create a single economic zone
covering the six member states with uniform laws, economic policies, a common
central bank and single currency by 2010. The GCC countries are particularly
dependable allies of the US. Their heavy reliance on migrant workers means that
they differ from states such as Iraq, Iran, Egypt and others where strong
indigenous working-class movements present a potential threat. The GCC is also
a key outpost for the US military in the region. In 2003, the US military moved
its Centcom forward headquarters, the unified commander centre for operations
in 27 countries, to Qatar. By 2005, according to a US congressional report,
more than 100,000 US military personnel were located in Gulf states (not
including the approximately 150,000 in Iraq or security personnel operating
under private firms).
Most
importantly, the third key prop to US power in the region is the Israeli state.
Since the 1967 war, Israel has played a key role in defending US interests in
the region. It is the weapon that the US uses when it wants to crush popular
movements but is unable to invade directly. There are many examples of this --
beginning in 1967 and continuing throughout the 1970s, Israeli military attacks
and assassinations crippled leftwing and Arab nationalist movements throughout
the region that were threatening client regimes. During the 1980s, Israel was
used to crush Palestinian and progressive forces in Lebanon.
Israel has
promoted US foreign policy objectives across the globe. It was a key political,
military and economic supporter of apartheid South Africa and in the peak years
of boycott and sanctions was the conduit for South African goods into Europe
(one of the reasons for Israel's central position in the world diamond trade).
In Latin and Central America, Israeli weapons and training were used to arm and
equip the military dictatorships of the region during the 1980s.
Since the
early 1990s, within the context of a generally more favourable global geopolitical
environment, the US has attempted to reshape the relationship between these
three pillars of support in order to better consolidate its power and
influence. The underlying goal of this policy is to tie these three pillars
together in a single neoliberal economic zone (dubbed the ``New Middle East’’
by Condoleezza Rice in 2006). It is very important to understand this strategy:
it is key to the regional environment in which the politics of the region is
unfolding today, as well as the specific forces driving economic plans such as
the PRDP.
The `New Middle East’ and MEFTA
The central
thrust of the ``New Middle East’’ strategy is the deepening of neoliberal
economic policies -- such as privatisation, free trade agreements, cutting-back
of public sectors, opening to foreign investment, removal of state subsidies
and so on -- throughout all states in the region. Over the last decade, cajoled
by international financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF and
supported by regional bodies such as the Arab Monetary Fund and the Arab
Business Council, virtually all governments in the region have embraced these
policies.
The neoliberal
turn is indicated by the rapid wave of privatisation across the Middle East:
factories, airlines, postal services, hospitals, banks, electricity and water
plants have been transferred into private hands. Most importantly, from the
perspective of US and other foreign capital, the opening of the region's oil
and gas fields (and the downstream sectors of petrochemical industry) promises
a generational reversal in ownership structures. The most dramatic example of
this is found of course in Iraq, where the government recently agreed to the
return of the four largest Western oil companies (the same four companies which
controlled Iraqi oil from the 1920s until nationalisation in 1972). Despite the
uniqueness of the Iraqi occupation this is not an isolated example, elsewhere
in the Gulf foreign oil companies are also winning access to oil and gas
resources that have been off-limits for decades. In 2003, for example, foreign
oil companies were given access to explore for gas in Saudi Arabia for the
first time in three decades.
Neoliberal
policies have also meant the removal of subsidies on basic items such as food,
fuel, electricity and water, and rent. This is often mandated by the World Bank
and IMF in return for loans and other aid. As early as 1991, a World Bank loan to
Jordan was conditional on the doubling of the price of electricity and an
increase in the price of water by 140 per cent. And this year in Egypt, where
22 per cent of the population lives below the poverty line of $1 dollar a day,
and with food prices having more than doubled over the past year, the
government lifted subsidies on fuel prices leading to a more than 40 per cent
increase overnight.
The most
far-reaching aspect of neoliberalism in the region, however, is the
implementation of bilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). The US has signed
FTAs with individual countries including Bahrain, Oman, Egypt, Jordan, Israel
and Morocco. These FTAs commit the countries in question to open their markets
to US companies and prevent them from controlling import policies (such as
privileging local companies or hindering the flow of foreign capital into the
region). In doing so, they inevitably mean the destruction of local industries
and, most importantly, the inability of countries to extend state services and public
spending designed to help the poor (as this would be considered ``discriminatory’’).
There is an
additional development of FTAs in the region that is essential to understand:
the Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA). Announced by the US in mid-2003, the
goal of MEFTA is a single, free trade area across the Middle East by 2013. The
logic behind MEFTA is explicitly neoliberal: maximum wealth, happiness and
prosperity will be achieved by removing all barriers to exports and capital
flows into and within the region, treating foreign capital on par with domestic
capital, adopting widespread privatisation programs, allowing foreign
ownership, and reducing state expenditure on social services.
In June 2003,
then US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick gave a speech to the World
Economic Forum in Jordan where he clearly outlined these principles as the
basis of the MEFTA plan. Zoellick's speech blamed poverty, unemployment and
terrorism on Arab ``autarky’’ and ``failed socialist’’ models. He argued that
if economies liberalised and opened to foreign capital within a regional
trading bloc then these problems would be solved. According to Zoellick, the
goal of the US "is to assist nations that are ready to embrace economic
liberty and the rule of law, integrate into the global trading system, and
bring their economies into the modern era".
The US
strategy was to negotiate individually with ``friendly’’ countries in the
region using a graduated six-step process eventually leading to a full-fledged
FTA between the US and the country in question. These individual FTAs would
then be linked over time until the entire Middle East came under US trading
influence. In essence, the logic driving MEFTA is an economic free trade zone
across the whole region, anchored by Israeli capital in the west and Gulf
capital in the east, and each tied in turn to the US economy in the advanced
capitalist core. This is what Condoleezza Rice means by the ``New Middle East’’.
Normalisation with Israel
Paramount to
achieving this vision is the economic and political integration of Israel into
the region. It is very important to understand this point: ``normalisation’’
(as it is called by the Palestinian and Arab left) is the sine qua non of MEFTA and the neoliberal vision for the region. A
rejection of normalisation has long formed a dividing line between progressive
forces in the region and those governments and leaders willing to collaborate
with Israel and US imperialism. The basic contention behind the rejection is
that Israel should not be considered a ``normal’’ country in the region as long
as it refuses to recognise the explicitly colonial nature of Zionism and denies
the right of Palestinians to return and self-determination.
The US
insistence on economic and political normalisation of Arab state relations with
Israel is nothing new. The linkage of this objective with neoliberal policies,
however, came to the surface during the 1990s with the Oslo Accords. As Oslo
unfolded, the US and other world powers sponsored a series of four consecutive
summits, known as the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Economic Summits,
first held in Morocco in 1994. The Jordanian government was not shy about
promoting MENA's goal of normalisation, with its foreign ministry openly noting
that the summits are "intended to create economic interdependencies
between Arab states and Israel, promote personal contacts between the two sides
and foster trade, investment and development".
Following the
onset of the Palestinian uprising in late 2000 and the apparent breakdown of
negotiations between Israel and the PA, discussion of a trend toward normalisation
of relations with Israel may appear mistaken. Yet away from the public
spotlight, the economic and political ties between Israel and Arab governments
continue to deepen. One example of the essential link between neoliberalism and
normalisation are the bilateral FTA agreements. Each of the agreements between
the US and countries in the region contains a clause that commits the country
in question to normalisation with Israel, and forbidding any boycott of trade
relations.
Perhaps the
most revealing confirmation of the way in which normalisation has become
integrated into the neoliberal project is the establishment of the so-called
Qualified Industrial Zones (QIZ) in Jordan and Egypt. These zones came about as
a result of economic agreements between the US, Israel, Jordan and Egypt. Their
establishment contained the extraordinary provision that goods produced in
these industrial areas can gain duty-free status to the US provided that a
certain proportion of inputs are Israeli.
Most of these
QIZs contain textile factories that act as subcontractors for large US capital
such as Wal-Mart, and GAP and other clothing chains. The factories themselves
are owned by regional and international capital, predominantly from the United
Arab Emirates, Israel, China, Taiwan and South Korea. Although it is difficult
to accurately determine the size of the QIZ workforce, it is estimated that in
Jordan they hold more than 40,000 workers, most of whom are migrant labourers
from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and other South Asian countries. The conditions in
which they work are horrific and rarely tackled by Arab leftists and trade
unions. No labour laws apply and workers are prevented from joining unions. Pay
is as low as 2 cents an hour, with 72-hour shifts reported. Workers are regularly
beaten, sexually assaulted and forced to live in extremely overcrowded and
filthy conditions. They must pay their own way to reach the Middle East and
their passports are confiscated from them on arrival.
These QIZs
have come to dominate bilateral trade between the US and Jordan (and to a
lesser extent, Egypt). By 2007, the US government was reporting that exports
from the thirteen QIZs established in Jordan accounted for an astonishing 70
per cent of total Jordanian exports to the US. Egypt launched its first QIZ in
2004 and now has four of these areas. By 2006, the proportion of Egyptian
exports to the US produced in QIZs had reached 26 per cent of total exports.
These zones
are constructed to weld Israeli and Arab capital together, integrating them
with the US market and the American empire, in the joint exploitation of cheap
labour. No clearer depiction can be found for how the US envisions the New
Middle East.
Destroying popular unity
A corollary of
this US-inspired vision of a single neoliberal economic zone linking Israeli
and Middle East capital is the sustained attempts to fracture and break apart
the forms of political unity and social resistance, both national and regional,
that stand opposed to this outcome. US foreign policy in the Middle East, it
needs to be stressed, is preoccupied with isolating and then breaking any
forces that stand opposed to its vision.
For this
reason, US military intervention in the region must be understood as a necessary
complement to neoliberal ``peace’’. With the US occupation in Iraq, and the threats
and attempts to destabilise and attack Iran, Syria and Lebanon, the US supports
and cultivates those social forces that it hopes will act as subserviently
towards its interests in the region, and pursue normalisation with Israel, as
have the Jordanian and Egyptian governments. The most important factor in US
policy is to limit capacities for countries in the region to exert independent
control over economic or foreign policy. In this sense, regardless of the
regimes in place (and we should not forget that countries like Iran and Syria
have their own dungeons filled with political prisoners), the national
interests of these countries inevitably clash with the forms of rule that the
US attempts to impose on the region.
In the case of
Palestine, this fracturing of national unity of the resistance is pivotal to
the success of the neoliberal project in the region. Because of the intimate
relationship between normalisation with Israel, and the US vision for a single
neoliberal economic zone stretching across the Middle East, the Palestinian
struggle holds a central position within the broader regional anti-imperialist
struggle. The fact that, sixty years on, Palestinians have refused to accept
their expulsion in 1947-1948 and continue to demand the right to return and
live on their land, is a potent threat not just to the racist character of the
Israeli state but also to the nature of US power in the region. This is why it
is impossible for any progressive movement to develop in the region that is not
centrally concerned and linked with the Palestinian struggle. All popular
struggles across the region are soon intertwined with the question of
Palestine.
This also
means that successful regional struggles against the imposition of
neoliberalism act to strengthen the Palestinian struggle. Recent strikes and
worker demonstrations in the Egyptian town of Mahalla are one example of this.
Mahalla is home to the largest textile factory in the Middle East (with a
labour force of 27,000 workers) and is also the location of one of Egypt’s QIZs.
For two years, these workers have been at the centre of one of the largest
strike waves in the Middle East, culminating most recently in an attempted
strike on 6 April 2008 that was met with bloody repression by the Egyptian
government. During these actions, demonstrating workers carried placards
denouncing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's close links to the IMF, the US
government, and the process of normalisation with Israel. These strikes thus
need to be understood not only in their narrow economic sense of improving
wages and conditions in Egyptian factories, but also through the way that they
inevitably confront the nature of the Egyptian regime and its role in the
configuration of US power in the Middle East.
This is the
same context in which the PRDP and the actions of the Palestinian Authority
must be situated. Since the beginning of the Israeli occupation of the West
Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967, Israel has aimed at truncating the Palestinian
population in those areas into isolated population centres divided from one
another by Israeli settlements, bypass roads and military installations. These
pockets of territory -- aptly described as bantustans by many analysts in
reference to the black ``homelands’’ developed under apartheid South Africa --
would be given the trappings of autonomy. But in reality they would be nothing
more than open-air prisons. In place of direct Israeli military rule over the
Palestinian population in these areas, a quiescent Palestinian leadership would
mediate Israeli control. As with all prisons, real control would remain with
those who hold the keys: i.e. the Israeli occupying forces that continue to
regulate the entrance of all goods, people and services.
Bantustans
The Oslo process
was designed to formalise the establishment of these Palestinian bantustans and
to confer the blessing of the ``international community’’ on a subservient PA.
Although this intention was disrupted by the beginning of the popular
Palestinian uprising in September 2000, it is painfully obvious to anyone who
cares to look at a map of the West Bank and Gaza Strip that these bantustans
have taken on a very real existence with the final contours of the Apartheid
Wall encircling villages and towns in the West Bank. An elaborate scheme of
checkpoints, ID cards and permits completely regulates entrance in and out of
these areas of people and goods.
We can see the
reality of this system of control in the case of Gaza, which can perhaps best
be understood as a test case for the West Bank. Because the Hamas-led
government in the Gaza Strip has not accepted the vision of bantustanisation or
normalisation, Israel has chosen to simply lock 1.5 million people within an
open-air prison and attempt to starve them into submission. The Palestinian
Authority, despite some lip service to the unity of the West Bank and Gaza
Strip, has generally acquiesced to this siege. Indeed, in a striking example of
how the PA leadership has effortlessly come to adopt the language of Israel, a
key PRDP document states that blame for the siege on Gaza should be laid at the
feet of Hamas, ignoring the fact that Israel's closure of the Gaza Strip and
separation from the West Bank is not a new phenomenon, but has been evolving
since 1989 as part of a clear strategy to fracture territory.
Palestinian
and other regional capitals are fully integrated into this project through
joint economic schemes such as the industrial zones outlined above. These forces
directly benefit from the bantustan arrangements and will be granted some
controlled economic spaces in which to accumulate. As the Palestine Investment
Conference attests, they will not be subject to the same restrictions on their
movement as the average Palestinian. Blessed with the appellation ``peace’’ by
the ``international community’’, this solution will be heralded as the ``Palestinian
state’’.
In reality,
the truncated patchwork of territories and industrial zones has nothing to do
with national self-determination. Within this evolving map, the West Bank
becomes the gateway for Israel into the broader Middle East hinterland. The
massive highways running east-west across the West Bank, and that connect
Israeli cities on the Mediterranean with settlements in the Jordan Valley, are
clearly designed for much more than local traffic: they are intended to
function as conduits for trade between Israel and the Gulf (through Jordan and
the West Bank). The success of MEFTA, and the parallel normalisation of Israel
into a neoliberal Middle East, is predicated on the successful completion of
this process.
Conclusion
Activists and
supporters of the Palestinian struggle spend much time documenting and
conveying to a broader audience the horrific conditions faced by the
Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The litany of abuses
faced by the people of Gaza under the siege, the ongoing construction of
settlements and the Apartheid Wall in the West Bank, the ways in which movement
and daily life are regulated by Israeli military orders, and the ever-growing
levels of poverty are all meticulously catalogued.
These facts
are essential to explaining the depth and scope of Israeli control over
Palestine. For those who have not had the opportunity of living under or
witnessing these conditions first-hand, the routinisation of misery that is the
reality of everyday life in Palestine needs to be conveyed.
Yet, it is
necessary to understand that an appeal for solidarity based on these
ever-present human rights abuses does not go far enough. Palestinians are not
victims but a people in struggle. This struggle goes beyond the borders of the
West Bank and Gaza Strip: it is a central component of a broader regional
fight. It is impossible to understand events in any country of the Middle East
today without situating the national context within the single, coherent and
unified offensive that the US and other imperialist states are waging against
the peoples of the region. It is not merely the depth of suffering or length of
exile that makes the Palestinian struggle an imperative of international
solidarity in the current period. It is also the central location of the
struggle within the broader context of global resistance to imperialism and
neoliberalism.
At the heart
of this regional framework is the intrinsic relationship between the
development of neoliberal capitalism in the Middle East and normalisation of
relations with Israel. All of the efforts of the US and their client regimes in
the region are aimed at promoting these inter-related themes. It is not
accidental that the key discussions at the regional meetings convened between
Rice, representatives of the Quartet and other international figures revolve
around ways of encouraging joint projects between Israeli and regional capital,
including Palestinian capitalists. This is why the bilateral US FTA agreements
centrally insist upon normalisation with Israel, and why such an enormous
effort has been extended in schemes such as the Qualified Industrial Zones.
Boycott, divestment and sanctions
Solidarity
activists can play a key role in rejecting and preventing this process of
normalisation. While this has long been a demand of the Palestinian and Arab
left, the call has gained a renewed urgency following Bush's announcement of
the MEFTA plan in 2003. In 2005, Palestinian grassroots organisations called
for a global movement of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against the
Israeli state in the manner of the campaign against South African apartheid.
Since that time, student groups, municipalities, artists and labour unions
around the world have passed BDS resolutions in support of the 2005 call.
This movement
is critical to the overall struggle in the region. International solidarity is
not a question of charity or helping out the ``misfortunate’’. It is
fundamentally a question of siding with and supporting people in struggle. The
BDS call reinforces and strengthens those regional forces that refuse to
normalise with occupation and apartheid in Palestine. It is aimed at severing
the international support -- ideological, economic and military -- that enables
the Israeli form of apartheid to continue.
The effort to
de-legitimise and turn back normalisation with the Israeli state is, moreover,
not just an act of solidarity with the Palestinian struggle. It is also an
indispensable element in supporting other peoples of the region, whether in the
struggle against the US-led occupation of Iraq, attempts to prevent military
action against Iran, or numerous other popular movements across the Middle
East. But most fundamentally -- because of the region's central role in
underpinning global US hegemony -- what happens in the Middle East has
implications for all. Confronting the neoliberal policies of immiseration and
``race-to-the-bottom’’ competition that have brought such catastrophe to the
vast majority of the world's people depends critically on our future success.
[Adam Hanieh
is a doctoral candidate in political science at York University, Toronto. His
research looks at the political economy of Middle East and the Gulf Cooperation
Council. This article first appeared in The
Bullet, no. 125, July 15, 2008, the e-bulletin of the Socialist Project (Canada).]
Notes
1. Stop the
Wall, "National BDS Steering Committee:
2. The PA
attempts to obfuscate this mass layoff by claiming that those losing their jobs
were not ``legally appointed’’. Regardless of the hiring procedures, this will
have an enormous impact on those relying upon this employment for survival. See
Palestinian National Authority, Building
a
3. World Bank,
Trust Fund Details - as of June 2008, http://www.worldbank.org/.
4. Karen Laub,
"IMF: Palestinian Reform Plan Doable", Associated Press,
5. Statistics
on labour force and dependency ratios available from Palestinian Central Bureau
of Statistics, at http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/.
6. Amira Hass,
"Democratic Suspicion", Haaretz,
7. A similar
dynamic was revealed during the last significant strike over 10 years ago, when
Palestinian teachers sought to win higher wage levels. This 1997 strike was
initiated and led by a grassroots committee of teachers who bypassed the
traditional union structures allied to Fatah. It was met with severe repression
that saw dozens of teachers arrested by the Palestinian Authority. Industrial
action by teachers continued off and on until 2000, when the onset of the
Palestinian uprising ended organising attempts in the name of "national
unity".
8. Salim
Vally, "From South Africa to
9. See the
Palestinian Industrial Estates and Free Zones Authority, http://www.piefza.org/.
10. Guven Sak,
"The Challenge of Developing the Private Sector in the Middle East,"
The Economic Policy Research Foundation of
11. Stop the
Wall, "Development or normalisation? A critique of
12. See the
conference website at http://www.pic-palestine.ps for the conference attendees,
press coverage, and presentations.
13. See
"Development or normalisation?", op cit, for a full critique of this
project.
14. Stop the
Wall, "National BDS Steering Committee: