Forget
Dialogue: Another Zionist Instrument That Has To Be
Abandoned
31 May 2010By Mary Rizzo
For quite a while, people involved in activism (as
advocates of Palestinian nationalism and the
Palestinian cause) have been part of a "dialogue
movement". This follows an extended period of time
wasted in the failed "peace movement". Once we figured
out it was another Zionist trap (and it admittedly
took several decades too long, since no Palestinian
advocacy participant is against peace, so it was
difficult to communicate to all that peace was not its
objective and thus our participation was enabling
Zionism) we were well out the door. Peace, in the
Zionist dictionary is quite singular in its
definition, and over the years has even gone beyond
the previous Zionist definition, "leave us in peace",
it now means only an actual cessation of evident
hostilities with exception made for Israeli war needs
of course, while Israel is still permitted to do what
it wants. To have peace, as we know, the promotion of
Israeli normalisation is essential. To "cooperate"
with Israel through normalisation, in this case
intended as "dialogue", however, is of course another
Zionist instrument that has to be abandoned, just like
the "peace movement".
The "dialogue movement" is merely the peace movement
with a new name. To be able to engage in dialogue
requires a minimum of conditions; a common argument
and at least two interlocutors. The participants may
be aligned anywhere on the scale, and can even agree
on nothing. That is, nothing except the rules. Yes,
there are rules to follow, as is required in any
social contract, from the family to the state. And, in
the dialogue contract, the goal is simply dialogue
itself, to show it can be done. In the age of
Internet, it is nothing that exceptional in itself.
Yet, rules are a bit more important and if you set the
rules, you actually control the dialogue, and have we
come to realise who is setting the rules? It's almost
always the Zionists who do because they control the
territory, physical or cyber as it may be. To be
accurate, we can even call them the "masters of
dialogue".
If we think that the rules of the failed "peace
movement" were different than those of the new
"dialogue movement", perhaps it's time to get wise.
It's Zionists who have set it up and have an agenda,
which is not dissimilar from the normalisation agenda.
The Palestinian goal in obtaining peace was to stop
being occupied and to obtain human rights. None of
this of course was ever on the table in the peace
movement, aside from some words sounding accommodating
in order to maintain our interest and support. As long
as there is a Jewish State in Palestine that is not
required to fulfill its requirements as per even the
foundational resolution's requirements toward the
Palestinians, and the "existence of Israel" is always
excluded from the argument, which it is, since there
are no "masters of dialogue" who are willing to
challenge the foundational premise, dialogue is a
Zionist thing. In order for Palestinians to accept it
means capitulation to the terms of the discourse,
accepting illegality and captivity as a status that
must not be changed. The Israeli peace condition has
been uttered in a word, the primacy of Israeli
"security".
That is indeed the only common denominator that every
Zionist government and Zionist supporter has hammered
home: Israeli security. However, it's impossible to
fulfill, and they know it. As long as there is
occupation, lack of recognition of the rights of
refugees, including the Right of Return, resistance is
sustained by law and is also recognised as right and
necessary, and Israeli security cannot be possible
when resistance is legitimate and has not been
abandoned. What we have to realise is that the
Israelis who are in power know this, but basically
play it down, as it exposes the impossible request
that spits in the face of justice and law. We know
that efforts made to change those aspects of Israeli
violation of international law and human rights
statutes have met only with failure in more than six
decades, actually with the condition of millions in
Gaza and the refugee camps worsening in recent years.
It might finally be the moment for those dialoguing
with Israelis to give them the facts straight, no
chaser: "you cannot ever obtain security as long as
you violate tenets of international law and do not
recognise our rights and stop violating us."
So, abandoning the failed "peace movement" after
recognition of it as a Zionist instrument of
domination frees our energies. Or at least it did
until we got sucked into the "dialogue movement". If
the goal is simply to communicate, we can say that the
goal has been met. We have dozens of dialogue groups
between Palestinians and Israelis. Sometimes
Palestinians are even allowed to travel to parts of
their own city to physically meet Israelis, but that's
actually pretty rare, so much of the dialogue takes
place on social networks with everyone physically
separated. The networks are of course arbitrary, as
they accept or reject members according to how
accommodating they are to the views of the owner, and
the owners are mostly Israelis who have zero tolerance
for what they call "radical pro-Palestinians" and as
soon as they realise that these "members" are not
promoting their agenda, these culprits who expose the
game are first treated to mobbing and then eliminated.
So, people are talking. So? That's supposed to be
positive, but is it enough? It's actually negative if
it turns out they have gotten us to fuel Hasbara Trap
to waste our time, mine our information and contacts,
insult and demoralise us, pull our arguments into
Zionist-safe territory and to impose their rules on
our discourse by gatekeeping and introducing
self-censorship. An analysis of this, including over
100 comments that demonstrate the tactic make very
interesting reading! And, not the least, the masters
of dialogue allow themselves to be the recipients of a
Zionist victory, defining ourselves according to their
terms and allowing them to twist logic around with
word games and deception.
Let's look at a simple example of dishonesty. We all
know what a Zionist is, don't we? Well, if you start
to dialogue with some Israelis, they will insist
intensely that you are wrong in any definition of
them, that you first of all can't call them Jewish,
because they aren't religious. Ok, fine. You go along
with that one, it's not even that important. Then you
can't call them Zionist either, because they aren't
Zionists.
There is little difference in anything they say from
the Zionist dogma: they refuse to recognise
Palestinian rights to Historic Palestine, reject all
Palestinian claims to anything but a fragment of
Jerusalem, do not consider it fair or necessary that
there be full Palestinian Right of Return, believe
that the past is the past and today's Israelis should
not pay for deeds of the founding fathers or even of
any Israeli government, believe that the Wall is sad
but necessary, do not believe that every person who
ever wore an IDF uniform should potentially be
culpable of the acts of the IDF and eventually need to
answer for war crimes in a future prospective of
courts of the sort, and most of all, they believe that
"both sides have made mistakes and now both sides need
to make sacrifices". Yet, they insist they aren't
Zionists.
How are they able to say this? It's a good question,
but upon some reflection, I think it falls under the
"naming" obsession that has been part of Jewish
tradition for a long time, with roots as far back as
the Bible. You will always find a Jew spending
inordinate amounts of time in this distracting
argument, talking about himself and his identity, as
if it is the most fascinating topic on the face of the
earth, because to him, it is. You will find many
making it a point to stress for us that they are "not
Jews anymore" or that they "are Jews but also
atheists", which they believe is going to make a
difference in their argument somehow, which it
doesn't, unless we really care for our own reasons. We
may need to be tolerant of that as long as it doesn't
consume too much of our energy, as it might be
narcissism, ugly enough, but ultimately harmless if
reigned in, or it might be that once one considers
himself chosen, or is considered as chosen, it is for
life and they just can't help it. But we must be able
to draw a distinction for our cause. No one really
cares if one is a Jew or not. No one actually cares if
one is an Israeli or not. One DOES CARE if one is a
Zionist or not. There are Israelis who are not
Zionists or Jews just like there are Zionists who are
not Israelis or Jews and Jews who are neither Zionists
nor Israelis. What matters is knowing who thinks like
a Zionist and not being duped by him. It is the
Zionist that is the enemy of the Palestinian because
he works to make the Palestinian aspirations sink into
oblivion. One can call himself a Martian if he wants,
but if he thinks like a Zionist, that is what he is.
Running away from the label is meaningless and a
diversion meant to then define how we engage, by
pushing the arguments away from the issues and
personalising them.
So, if the goal of peace-seeking was just Israeli
security, a condition that cannot be obtained during a
military occupation, the goal of dialogue-seeking is
more or less the same, mental colonialisation and
forcing the interlocutor into sustaining Israeli
interests. So, the Zionists tell the Pro-Palestinian
advocates and the Palestinians who participate
directly what is expected of them: first they confuse
them and hope to confound their very ideas about what
they know. Then they make sure they tell Palestinians
that they have to work hard to obtain Israeli security
so that there can be longer intervals between one
Israeli war and the next, though they will call this
peace. To be involved in dialogue on those terms is
falling directly into the Zionist web, spun by those
who refuse to be called by that name because they have
realised there is a growing awareness that the
ideology of Zionism is one of racism and they seek to
distance themselves from the title, though the mindset
remains intact.
So, to these Martians who have diverted the attention
of Palestinians away from nation building and into
collaboration with a Zionist project (many
Palestinians have indeed participated in good faith,
but the facts have caught up with everyone), should be
told that we have had enough. The years of frustration
with the failure of all other attempts won't allow us
to let down our guard now.
Palestinians know they should make no deals with the
enemy, because the Zionist desire for obtaining this
kind of "peace" only means the lengthening of the
torture of the Palestinian people and the
impossibility of developing truly patriotic efforts.
My own desire is that Palestinians work on what
matters to them, seeking justice, seeking to unite
themselves across all the divides in order to build
their nation with every energy they possess. That is
what I see as the way forward, not shuffling around in
a circle while it is still the Israelis/Israeli
advocates and Zionists telling them what to do and
even what to think. A united Palestine back to its
Arab body is indeed the single greatest threat to
Israel, because it will lead to the victory against
the colonial-imperialist oppressor/occupier.
A rejection of the Israeli push towards divisions in
the Arab and Palestinian body is the best solution to
counter their "Divide and Rule" strategy. Remaining
divided serves Zionist interests perfectly.
Differences in ideology, beliefs and politics are as
much part of Palestinian heritage as almost any other
national heritage, because individuals may have
different religions, beliefs, values, political ideas.
It is only natural that they are varied and diverse,
but never should they be at the expense of unity
between Palestinians. Patriotism and nationalism do
not belong to one party, and all are responsible to
protect Palestinian society from lack of hope,
fragmentation along geographic, political, religious
and social divisions. Palestinians should remain
patriotic to their land and people and seek dialogue,
but inter-Palestinian dialogue, which is what is
needed. It can only bring good things and be positive,
as it has a common basis: not Israeli security, but
Palestinian nationalism.
Mary Rizzo is an art restorer, translator and writer
living in Italy. Editor and co-founder of Palestine
Think Tank, co-founder of Tlaxcala translations
collective. Her personal blog is Peacepalestine.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments