From Challenge # 67
May-June 2001 

Editorial

The Intifada and May Day

The initiative comes from the PA (Palestinian Authority). Its representatives have turned to Foreign Minister Shimon Peres with a request that his government permit Israelis to frequent the casino again. For in the heady pre-Intifada times, this institution was a gold mine for the Palestinian economy. On an average day, 3000 Israelis used to show up, leaving behind a cool $710,000 (Ha'aretz April 25). Since the uprising, however, Israel has forbidden its citizens to enter Area A, which includes Jericho, and as a result, the temple of Mammon has closed. Figures for the first two months of the Intifada show that the casino's owners lost $25 million, half of which would have gone to the PA. Jibril Rajoub alone, head of Arafat's Preventive Security - who took responsibility for the safety of the worshippers - lost $167,000 in protection gelt. The first contacts toward re-starting the casino date back to January, even before the Israeli elections. In Vienna, Oasis part-owner Martin Schlaf met with Muhammad Rashid, Arafat's economic adviser, and Omri Sharon, son and delegate of the leading Israeli candidate. The contacts have continued since.

Is this not strange? Even as funerals multiply, the PA and Israel seek to re-establish a single Oasis of peace, where itchy fingers reach not for the trigger but the dice. For the casino is no isolated fact. It belongs in a context - indeed, it carries its context with it. A vice which Israel does not allow within the purity of its confines is shunted off to the third-world neighbor, as the old song has it: "South of the border, down Mexico way…" The casino has epitomized, ever since its founding three years ago, the skewed relationship between Israel and the PA entity. Here the meaning of Oslo comes to sublime expression. The Palestinians are supposed to rest satisfied with the crumbs that fall from Israel's table - they will perform its menial labor, adjust their economy to its needs, serve as a bridge to the Arab world - so that Israel can take its place, unhindered by local squabbles, in the vanguard of the global economy.
It was Israel, we recall, that initiated the Oslo process, when Shimon Peres understood that his country could not compete in the cutthroat global market unless a semblance of local peace were attained. Real peace was not an option. In the global rat race, Israel could not brook competition or even non-cooperation from a viable Palestinian state. With millions of refugees in camps outside the country, a peace that included them would have threatened the Zionist project. 

A semblance of peace, however, seemed attainable, given the desperate situation of the PLO after the Gulf War of 1991. Oslo was designed to co-opt the Palestinian bourgeoisie, and it succeeded. That is why we find this same bourgeoisie, in the midst of the bloodshed, dickering to open the casino! The Intifada was never their heart's desire. They would like to subdue it. Viewed from the vast empty halls of the Oasis, matters like the settlements, Jerusalem and the refugees look tiny indeed.
The Intifada began after the failure at Camp David, when ordinary Palestinians had their first clear look at the most Oslo could offer. They saw it wasn't meant for them at all. Oslo I, Oslo II, the Paris Protocol… were written to serve as Israel's ticket to the global order, with the Palestinian bourgeoisie in the role of footman. Those fighting at the checkpoints are there because they have nothing to gain from such "peace ". They seek freedom of opportunity. What sort of peace could offer them that? Certainly not one that confines them to the third world while their neighbor booms at their expense. 

Behind Israel's Oslo, then, lies the spirit of globalization. The Intifada may seem to be a national, even ethnic conflict - and no doubt national and ethnic feelings ride high - but basically, it is a local response to the very issue that brought millions to the streets this May Day.
This May Day marked the first time that demonstrators from all over the world rose up against the same enemy. Ever since the Seattle protest in November 1999, no one can hide the deterioration that has taken place in the conditions of workers everywhere. It is a result of the draconic economic measures that global moguls have imposed on the poorer nations, whether through the IMF and the World Bank or through their own investment decisions. Internal protections, which insured the workers a basic minimum, have diminished to nothing. Labor takes jobs from labor. The last years have seen a 20% decline in unionization. Basic goods and services are privatized. Last year, for example, twelve countries - eight in sub-Saharan Africa - received IMF loans on condition that they privatize drinking water. As a result, only the well-to-do can afford to live. (www.cosatu.org.za/samwu/20mar2001.htm) In the last decade, the net of globalization ensnared the Middle East too. It came late to the region, partly because the Soviet Union had managed to keep a foothold here. When the latter collapsed, the way was open for the US and Israel. This process took on the sheen of peace talks, but the wheels that drove it, from the first, were those of the market. To take its place in the new world order, the Middle East was forced to adjust. The Arab economies had to "open". And Israel had to get its semblance of peace. The Palestinian masses expected much from Oslo. Their Intifada is an outraged response to the swindle of globalization.

Yet, though it bumped Oslo off, the Intifada hasn't killed the giant. The tale of the casino shows that the big globalizers and their local minions persist in their agenda. Martin Schlaf of Vienna, Muhammad Rashid of Gaza and Omri Sharon of Israel all share the same interests.
The struggle for national liberation faces, then, two alternatives: It can stick to the present leadership, which sees the US as an ally. This alternative will leave the Palestinians under a dictatorship like those in Egypt and Jordan. Or it can tie the struggle against Israel's Occupation to the worldwide struggle against international capital. In this case, the Palestinian cause will add its message to the messages of others that seek a world based on social justice. True, the anti-globalization movement is still scattered, unfocused and weak. But that is no reason to spurn it. Our task is to give it strength.