Maybe It Depends On What Your Definition of "Nation" Is

How many times over the past 4 years have you heard some media personality or politician claim that Yasser Arafat torpedoed the last best hope for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians by refusing to accept the incredibly generous offer made by Ehud Barak at Camp David in July of 2000? Now, that honest broker, Bill Clinton informs us of his deep regret that Arafat "missed the opportunity" to bring the Palestinian nation into being. Since the death of Arafat has become an occasion for reflection, might we consider, for just a moment, the seldom heard view of the Palestinians about what happened at Camp David?

The San Francisco based human rights organization, Global Exchange is an excellent source for the Palestinian perspective on the conflict with Israel. In particular, there is a frequently asked questions section dealing directly with the Camp David Peace Proposal http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/palestine/campDavidFAQ.html.pf . In response to the question of why the Palestinians rejected the Camp David proposal you will learn that it was never set forth in writing and denied the viability of the nascent Palestinian state by dividing their territory into 4 separate cantons entirely surrounded, and therefore controlled, by Israel. The proposal also denied Palestinians control over their own borders, airspace and water while legitimizing and expanding illegal Israeli settlements in their territory.

Many Americans have been led to believe that Israel's proposal would have given the Palestinians back almost all of the territories occupied during the 6 Day War of 1967. According to Global Exchange, Israel actually sought to annex almost 9% of the occupied territories and offered only 1% of Israeli territory in return. In addition, Israel sought control over an additional 10% of the occupied Palestinian territories in the form of a "long term lease." However, as Global Exchange points out, the central issue is not about percentages, it is about the viability and independence of the Palestinian state. The point is brought home by using the example of of a prison compound where 95% of the facilities - cells, cafeteria, gym, infirmary - are ostensibly for the prisoners but the remaining 5% is all that is required to maintain control over the prison population.

The Camp David Proposal also required Palestinians to give up any claim to the occupied portion of Jerusalem. The proposal would have forced recognition of Israel's annexation of all Arab East Jerusalem.

The comprehensive settlement to the conflict is embodied in United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338 which call for an Israeli withdrawal from the land occupied in 1967 and agreement on final status issues. On a number of occasions since Camp David, the Palestinians have presented their concept for the resolution of key permanent status issues but it is important to recognize that the Israelis have a very different and more limited view of what would constitute Palestinian sovereignty.

While the Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist in 1988 and re-iterated this at Madrid Summit in 1991 and Oslo conference of 1993, the Israelis have yet to explicitly and formally recognize Palestine's right to exist. The Palestinian people waited patiently from the conclusion of the Madrid talks for their freedom and independence despite Israel's continued construction of settlements in the occupied territory (a 52% increase, excluding East Jerusalem, since 1993).

Prior to entering into the first negotiations on permanent status issues, Israeli Prime Minister Barak publicly and repeatedly threatened the Palestinians that his "offer" would be one that they could not refuse and that if not accepted, Israel would seriously consider "unilateral separation." This is in effect what is going on now with the construction of the wall and other prison-like attributes of the "nation" Arafat "missed the opportunity" to bring into being.

He's Gotten Away With Everything - Now What Do We Do About It?

Unbelievable. The guy completely ignored the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda prior to 9/11 or, even worse, was complicit in allowing the attacks to take place (see: Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and The Bush-Cheney Junta by Gore Vidal; The War on Freedom: How and Why America Was Attacked September 11, 2001 by Nafeez Ahmed and; The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin). He lied us into a an unnecessary war with a weak, beaten, broken country that posed no immediate or even near-term threat to anyone, least of all the continental United States. He has taken no note of, probably can't understand, the danger posed by our growing trade deficit to the continued financial stability of the nation. He, and the cohort of religio-right-wing reactionaries he has appointed to the E.P.A. refuse to accept the scientific reality of global warming or take even modest steps to reverse it. Yet, he has now been returned to office with the backing of at least 51% of the voting population.

What's going on here? How is it that so many Americans, like their president, are so divorced from reality?

I think a big part of the explanation arises from the way, and from whom, these people get their information about politics. As Democracy Now's Amy Goodman has pointed out, our corporate-conglomerated media has come to resemble nothing so much as the state-run news agencies of dictatorships past and present. FOX News, in particular, functions as an outright ministry of propaganda for the Republican Party while AM radio continues to be dominated by rabid, ranting, racist right-wing voices. George Soros, other wealthy capitalist opponents of Bushism, and anybody else who is concerned, should make expanding print, radio and television alternatives to the "mainstream" media one of their top priorities.

And what are we to make of the continued defeat and marginalization of the Democratic Party? A recent pre-election segment of Now With Bill Moyers profiled the hard life of a single, working poor mother. At one point in the interview she was asked "What about politics...who are you supporting in the election." Her response was that she felt the system ignored people like her and she wasn't sure who to vote for. Even more troubling is the phenomenon described by Thomas Frank in What's The Matter With Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. Many working class people see both major partys' support for NAFTA, the WTO, the failure to address declining real wages or worker's rights etc. and figure they may as well go with the party that's "right" on abortion and gay marriage.

Frank suddenly seems to be getting more attention in Washington. He was on C-Span this morning where he was asked what Democrats need to do to win back culturally conservative working class voters. With his usual brilliant insightfulness, Frank reminded us that the Republican coalition of billionaires and Big K-Mart shoppers is highly and historically unnatural. The Democratic strategy should be to identify the weak points in that coalition and drive home the wedges of dissension just like the Republicans have been doing to them since 1968.

The question is, do the Democrats have the guts, skill or even inclination to reintroduce issues of class into our political discussion? Today, Democrats run scared the moment some plutocratic pundit screams "class warfare" over attempts to preserve the estate tax. Republican pollster, Frank Luntz told Bill Moyers that the Democrats should have countered charges that the estate tax was a "death tax" by referring to it as "the billionaires tax." If the Democrats' strongest responses are being fed to them by Republicans then they truly are a party in deep trouble.

Almost 40 years ago to this day, Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater offered the American people "a choice not an echo" in the 1964 election. He was blown out of the water by LBJ winning a total of 6 states and 52 electoral votes. But, Goldwater's supporters were passionate and utterly committed to advancing their agenda of lower taxes and less government at home, and a stronger U.S. posture against Communism worldwide. Though the political winds were clearly blowing against them in 64', their continued commitment to core principles helped them to elect Ronald Reagan, one of their own, as president just 16 years later.

In 1994, just 1o years ago, Newt Gingrich led the Republicans to win their first majority in the House of Representatives since 1954. He had started out as a back bencher in a party that had blithely come to accept its permanent minority status. Newt would have none of it and began fighting back any way he could. Taking advantage of the newly created C-Span network, he made speeches to an empty chamber reaching millions of foot-soldiers and converts to the conservative cause. Then, in 94, he came up with the hardly novel idea of having congressional candidates sign on to a uniform party program, the much ballyhoed "Contract With America." Although it was more of a poll tested marketing plan than a real party program in the European- parliamentary sense, enough Americans were sold on it to give him his majority.

Perhaps the best advice for the Democrats is to take a page out of history. Republican history.