Reassessing the Palestinian voice
September 29After a dramatic spring semester, in which many students on this campus took part in the huge Israeli-Palestinian debate, and in which much frustration and unproductive criticism took place, I was hoping that this year would be a fresh new start. However, in my first weeks at Tufts, I still opened the Daily only to find viewpoints that repeat the same phrases and slogans over and over again. It was very disappointing to me to see the viewpoint "The Oslo peace process: RIP" (9/17), which declared affirmatively that the author, Ilan Behm, was an expert on the "Palestinian mentality" of terror and hatred, while highlighting that the Israelis in contrast are a "peace-loving people". It is strange how the article conveniently neglected to mention the acts of terror that have been carried out day after day, for as long as the Israeli military occupation has existed, by the side that supposedly wants to negotiate. I'm a Palestinian, and I've heard these things time and time again. Why do people assume the right to know what is going on in the minds of my people? What makes them think that they can make bold statements, such as yours, about the psychology of an occupied and confined being? Why have you assumed the role of telling me what the fundamental difference between my people and yours is? It is fine to criticize, but you lose much credibility with your approach, tone and language. For fear of following the same unproductive path, I will not proceed to complain about Sharon and his endless acts of "terrorism" (although a part of me feels as though I should since in my opinion Sharon does in fact play an integral role in the reason why peace has not been reached). I feel as though I would be redundant if I continued to rant and rave about all of the lives suffered and paid to feed his military occupation, particularly since last spring and the double standard of claiming that Sharon has a right to be at the negotiating table whereas Arafat does not. Instead I wish to convey the desperate situation with which the Palestinians are now faced. In addition to their homes being demolished, their land being literally raped, their schools being shut down, the prospect of any future slowly disappearing before their eyes, and their life being in constant threat, Palestinians now find themselves "governed" by the Palestinian Authority (PA) which lacks all the powers and requisites of government. This leadership has been incapable of delivering services (let alone security) to its own people, yet it is in control of political decision-making as the official "voice" of the Palestinian people. In the Palestinian's desperate situation, with virtually no other options at the table, they have had to rally in defense of an authority that they do not actually support. In the face of Israeli assault and dismantlement, their only option is to defend an authority, whose survival and reactive/defensive decisions of self-interest are actually contributing to their further deprivation and suffering. Who would want to back something that contributes to his/her suffering? Before pointing fingers and affirming that the PA's voice is the Palestinian people's voice, one must evaluate the context of Palestinian life within the occupied territory. It is precisely the escalated military operations on top of this seemingly endless occupation that has placed these people in that situation and has given them close to no other choices. It is clear, then, that anything is more desirable than their present situation. Elections are, needless to say, desirable tools of democracy, and the Palestinian people have been yearning for the free and fair exercise of their democratic rights. But in order to carry them out, they need proper conditions in the land. It saddens me when everyone talks about "democratizing" the Palestinians, while Israel continues to employ the most provocative forms of military force including constant siege, incursions, reoccupation, and curfews that do not provide the political climate for democracy; rather, they encourage a climate dictated by radicalization of pain, revenge, and victimization. By what right does Israel's 'democracy' continue its genocide, ethnic cleansing, displacement and assassinations? As an American, I was taught that democracy means right to life, freedom of speech, and due process _ all of which lack in what Israel considers a "democracy" as its army continues this form of assault on a nation, a people, and a land. The seeds for peace will not grow if the land is not fertile and the land in that occupied territory has been raped, figuratively and quite literally. Truly, this occupation has not been in the Israeli people's best interests and we see this more and more as the occupied Palestinians' situation gets progressively more desperate. The continuous deterioration of their situation is out of the Palestinian's hands. So long as the occupation helps manifest this deterioration, this will always be the case. Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the PA's legislative council and a true spokeswoman for the Palestinian people, once said, "If they insist on shooting and killing us, at least we have the right to defend ourselves. We are not occupying their territory. The Israelis are occupying Palestinian territory" (CNN, late edition). Clearly, reforms must come from both sides of the equation. Palestinians want peace but not peace as a prerequisite for Israel's terms; they want a peace in and of itself-because this is the only meaningful lasting peace. Their lives depend on this kind of peace-the alternative option is death, and Palestinians have been longing to live (in every possible sense of that word). Lastly, I've been fighting the urge to bring up Arafat in this viewpoint, but I feel the need to address one point. Israel's timing to isolate him could not be any worse, as even the US now cannot afford to fully back Israel's actions. In fact, Sharon seems to have once again helped the "terrorist" (to whom the previous viewpoint kept referring) reclaim his popularity. Clearly there is this ongoing psychological showdown between the two and ironically, Sharon's plans against Arafat seem to actually empower him. So a word to the wise-every time one boldly states that Arafat has no right to be at the negotiating table, one must keep in mind who keeps dragging him back to that very table. Reem Assil is a sophomore majoring in international relations and economics, and serves at the public relations representative of the Arab Students Association.

