Israel dictates the lives of the Palestinians, not the other way around. We are dealing with the historical interaction between an occupying modern state and a dispossessed and marginalized native people. Israel is like Mike Tyson in the sheer terms of its strength: it is the only country in the Middle East with a nuclear arsenal, and has one of the most powerful armies in the world. The Palestinians on the other hand have no army, and often resort to desperate acts in response to the difference in power.

Zionism, the founding ideology of Israel, was based on the idea of establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The problem was that people already lived there. Palestine's native population went from 90 percent Arab in 1895 to 20 percent in 100 years. The establishment of Israel entailed the exodus of over 900,000 Palestinian refugees and the systematic depopulation of 531 Palestinian villages. (Dr. Salman Abu-Sitta, The Register of Depopulated Localities in Palestine London:The Palestinian Return Centre, 1998) This happened because of a considerable amount of premeditated violence. It was part of a plan, a program, similar to many other colonial enterprises.

However, many work to deny, downplay or justify the colonial character of this. Perhaps this is because as one supporter of Israel said here in Berkeley, "the word colonization has negative connotations." That statement is emblematic of a voice powerful enough to dictate descriptive terminology not on the basis of its applicability but on the negativity of the PR points attached to it. In other words, that side is so strong, they can say, forget if the word is accurate or not, we don't like it.

The power of the Israeli narrative over the Palestinian one also serves to further the perceived complexity of a common colonial script. When those in power claim to be the victim, as with the Affirmative Action debate here, the debate appears much more complex and deep than it really is. One side rests more on its power, a louder voice, rather than the substance and truth of the argument.
  
          

I think it is intentional to paint the situation as deeply ethnic, religious, or dating back thousands of years, because such descriptions imply an insolvability to it. That benefits the present state of things, in which Israel is the heavily advantaged power. If Americans, who have the most important public opinion in the world, see the situation as so complex, it prevents attempts to even think about it. Change will only come if we look at the real terms of the conflict: what actually happened.

While some claim the first Israelis wanted peace and the Arabs rejected it, Jewish leaders at the time were open as to the true intents. In 1937, David Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, frankly stated, "We must expel Arabs and take their places." (Morris, B. (1987): The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-49, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987)

In 1948, prior to the establishment of Israel, he planned to "smash the Arab Legion's strength and bomb Amman, we will eliminate Transjordan too, and then Syria will fall. If Egypt still dares to fight on, we shall bomb Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo." (http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/1998/1948/377_supp.htm)

Jospeh Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department in 1940, wrote about the need to "transfer the Arabs from here (Palestine) to the neighboring countries" without sparing "one village, not one tribe should be left." (cited in Uri Davis and Norton Mevinsky, eds., Documents from Israel, 1967-1973, p.21.)

Any state developed with a "Colonization Department" deserves critical attention. The fact that these statements were prophetic speaks to the pre-existing power imbalances as well as the premeditated character of events in Israel's history.

Some of the native Palestinian population and their children remain. Many live in squalor, refugee camps and under the rule of Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Their lives are so controlled and in such destitute that they resort to rock-throwing against a modern army. Others whither away in refugee camps, serving as statistical columns of the largest and oldest refugee population in the world. The situation shown on TV is one of a desperate, refugee, powerless population against a modern military with all the latest killing technology.

The Palestinian situation is the direct offspring of the Zionist success of taking Palestinian territory and sovereignty. The native population continues to be controlled by the settler population. Israeli forces occupy Palestinian land and people, not vice versa. The best way to understand Palestinian reactions is explained by Edward Said. He writes, the "Palestinians have behaved as all colonized people in history have behaved towards the colonizer: they rebelled in protest." ('Where will Sharon take Israel?' Dawn (Pakistan)  February 8, 2001)  Israeli actions, conversely, are best understood as the tactics of the colonizer.

DISCLAIMER ::The article above is not by any means the overarching socio-political opinion of EM magazine as a whole. We do however encourage further discussion and debate regarding this delicate matter and welcome your feedback.