Thunder of the third Intifada

Atul ANEJA

Within hours of the Gaza bloodbath on Saturday, December 27, the leader of the embattled Palestinian group Hamas made an important statement. Speaking to Al Jazeera television network, Khalid Mashaal, the Damascus-based leader, called upon Palestinians to launch a third Intifada against Israel.

His words have acquired a greater sense of urgency as Israel has gone ahead with its threatened ground offensive against Gaza. Already, the death toll is over 550. Israel’s so-called “surgical strikes” have killed scores of civilians, the majority of them women and children.

To Palestinian ears, as well as to the rest of the world, the term Intifada has a familiar ring.

The first Intifada, or mass uprising, began in the 1980s. Television audiences worldwide then saw images of raw courage and commitment - of young Palestinians, most of them teenagers, hurling stones at Israeli tanks as they advanced menacingly over their occupied ancient land.

The first Intifada was not fruitless. It brought the idea of an independent Palestinian state firmly on the international agenda, and generated a political process to achieve that goal.

The Oslo accords became the foundation for the evolution of a future Palestinian state. Despite all subsequent attempts by Israel and the United States to throttle the emergence of a viable Palestinian nation-state and the disillusionment with the “peace process” that followed, the idea of statehood, achieved on honourable terms, has lived on.

The second Intifada began in September 2000. It started soon after Ariel Sharon, then a Likud party opposition leader and later Prime Minister, visited in Jerusalem the Temple Mount area, which Muslims call Al-Haram As-Sharif. For the followers of Judaism, this is their holiest site. For Muslims, it ranks only third in terms of religious importance.

A wave of rioting began in the days after Sharon’s visit, which acquired political shape and meaning in the months and years that followed.

Rise of Hamas

The violence that was built into the second Intifada caused further radicalisation in both camps. It led to the emergence of the ultra-rightwing government of Ariel Sharon, which had a natural inclination to use excessive force to achieve political objectives. The years following 2000 saw a sharp increase of influence, especially in Gaza, of Hamas - an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

The rise of Hamas was partly attributed to the growing dissonance within Fatah, the nucleus of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. The PLO’s iconic leader, Yasser Arafat, died in November 2004.

No one in the ranks of Fatah, with the possible exception of its imprisoned senior leader Marwan Barghouti, had emerged to show sufficient promise for the long haul. After Arafat’s death, Fatah’s capacity to steer the Palestinian independence movement was in doubt.

In an atmosphere of growing political desperation, Hamas stood out as an alternative. The group denounced the peace process and did not appear compromised. Unlike the PLO, it did not recognise the State of Israel.

The ferocity of the Gaza attacks, which have devastated large parts of the coastal strip, cannot be separated from other major developments that have been taking place in West Asia in recent years.

The Gaza attacks follow a string of political defeats that the U.S. and Israel, its key ally in the region, have suffered in recent years. It is well recognised that for the U.S., Israel’s primary strategic role lies in the assistance it provides in safeguarding the region’s vast energy resources.

However, this alliance has suffered a series of setbacks. It began with Iran’s Islamic revolution, which saw the emergence of a nation hostile to vital American interests in the heart of the oil-rich Persian Gulf.

Iran has the resources, a rich civilisational past, and a network of Shia sympathisers in the region, which has given it the capacity to seriously challenge American domination over the region. An eight-year war waged by Iraq, but encouraged by the U.S. against Iran, failed to dislodge the revolution, despite causing the death of half-a-million Iraqis and Iranians.

Rising Iranian influence

On the contrary, Iranian influence in the region began to expand slowly but surely.

Israel suffered from the consolidation of the Iranian revolution when Hizbollah in Lebanon, backed by Tehran, forced an Israeli retreat from South Lebanon in 2000.

The blow was heavy as the withdrawal also meant that Israel’s unstated goal of accessing the waters of the Litani river in South Lebanon had been denied. In arid Israel, water is an issue that has defined most of its wars with the Arabs.

The unity of new forces that have defied the U.S.-Israel diktat has been visible during the demonstrations against Israel that have taken place in Damascus since December 27. During these protests, the Syrian flag was unfurled along with the Palestinian, Hamas and Hizbollah flags.

The U.S.-Israeli plans in Iraq following the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 have also foundered. Iran has emerged as the most important player in Iraq which, like Iran, has a majority Shia population, and has intricate political, religious, social and charity networks.

It is not surprising that Israel has unleashed its full might in the territory as it fears the permanent exit of Gaza and the Palestinian territories from the U.S.-Israel orbit of influence following these defeats.

Apart from the larger strategic goals, there are some immediate concerns that have led Israel to launch its deadly attacks. The ruling combination of Kadima and Labour parties is being increasingly threatened by Benyamin Netanyahu’s Likud in the coming parliamentary elections.

The disproportionate use of force in Gaza by the ruling combine has therefore been widely viewed as a means employed to bolster conservative support in the polls. The connection between the elections and the Gaza attacks became a matter of public debate in the Israeli Knesset (parliament) on December 29.

Two Arab members of the Knesset accused the ruling combine of attacking Gaza as a part of electioneering. “There are those who are profiting from Palestinian blood in order to get elected,” said lawmaker Mohammed Barakeh, in response to a statement by Defence Minister Ehud Barak that Israel had launched an “all-out war” in Gaza.

Taleb-a-Sana, another member, said: “There are those who are counting bodies and at the same time counting Knesset seats. Bodies for votes - this is done primarily by the Labour Party.”

Like most wars, conflicts have their unintended consequences.

Popular protests

The war that has been unleashed on Gaza also has a fallout that could have a far-reaching regional impact. The attacks have generated a storm of popular protests all over West Asia, including in countries that have, in effect, been silent supporters of Israel, and allies of America.

From Lebanon to Sudan, Egypt to Morocco, there has been an outpouring of emotion against the attacks. While Israel and the U.S. have been roundly condemned, a lot of anger has been directed at Arab rulers, especially the Egyptian leadership.

Remarks by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak blaming Hamas for triggering the catastrophe by not renewing the ceasefire with Israel have been widely criticised in the region.

Critics have pointed out that throughout the six months of the Gaza ceasefire that expired on December 19, Palestinians faced the collective punishment brought about by severe shortages of food, medicines, power and other essential supplies.

During this period, Israel regularly closed the Gaza border crossings that are used to bring in essential humanitarian supplies.

As the third Intifada promises to unroll, it remains to be seen whether it can change the political complexion of the Palestinian territories and have a lasting liberating impact in those Arab countries that have so far been effectively held under the tutelage of the Americans, backed by their ally, Israel.

Courtesy: The Hindu