21 July 2008

BIENVENIDOS, PALESTINOS
by Romina Akemi

(SANTIAGO, Chile)—117 Palestinian refugees arrived in Chile this year with a warm welcome from the sizeable Arab community and the national government. The 29 families had been living in the Al-Tanf refugee camp on the border of Syria and Iraq. There are some 700 Palestinians living in Al-Tanf.

The 117 Palestinians arrived in three groups to Chile. Each group was greeted at the airport with large publicized events. The Palestinian Federation also organized two events at the Chilean Congress. On May 15, the President of Chile, Michelle Bachelet held a formal welcoming event for the 29 families at the presidential house, La Moneda. The President of the House of Deputies, Juan Bustos, also held an event for the refugees of the 18 of June.

The arrival of the Palestians was due to the work of not just the local Arab community in Chile, but also the Catholic Church and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. With the planned arrival of the Palestinian refugees, a new organization was formed in September of 2007 called the Palestinians’ Right of Return. In an interview with Jaime Avedropo, the president of this new organization, he explained the impetus this has given to reawaken the dormant Palestinian groups in the country. Avedropo is of Palestinian dissent and has become active in the last year in this cause. He explained that many of the families were placed in the northern city of La Calera. Before their arrival, housing and school placement was organized. Each family is to receive $500 monthly, Spanish lessons and availability to a psychologist if needed. Avedropo explained how he was moved by a recent meeting with some of the refugees who were already speaking to him in Spanish.

The Arab community in Chile dates back to the end of the 19th Century. They integrated well within the Chilean community, seen in the number of politicians and athletes of Arab ancestry seen in Chile today. One of the soccer clubs in Chile is called Palestinos, and their emblem is the Palestinian flag.

There are also two conventions that will take place in Chile by the end of the year that are of importance in relation to the Palestinian struggle. In November, the Palestinian Congress of Chile will unite the various Palestinian organizations in the country to discuss events and activities. Also, the United Nations sponsors a yearly Convention on the Palestinian theme that includes organizations and intellectuals. The UN Convention will be in Chile at the end of December.

To follow the events of Palestinian community in Chile, please visit the two following websites:
•http://www.palestinalibre.org/
•http://www.rfg2.cl

WHAT CONFLICT?
by Abid Yahya

(FRESNO, California)—I had a conversation recently that made me think that perhaps it’s time I reiterated some of my concerns with defining the occupation of Palestine as a conflict, as with two sides. This understanding, I think, is pretty common and is largely what allows most folks to tune out what’s going on in Palestine. We see in the news that there’s been another airstrike, another bombing, another rocket attack. It’s easier to just dismiss it. These folks hate each other, we say. This shit will never end, we say.

But it’s not a two-sided conflict, and the sooner we see that, the sooner we can end it. The problem here is that the arguments about the occupation of Palestine have come to define our understanding of the thing itself. Sure, we may set up a debate about the occupation, where there are clearly two sides, one in favor and one against. Very simple, see. So there must be two sides on the ground, then. However, the debate and what’s happening on the ground don’t match up, not by a long shot. Thanks to our cowardly mainstream media, and thanks to other forces much more calculated than mere cowardice, the data we ordinary citizens of USA use to inform our understanding of the debate about the occupation is, by the time it reaches us, wildly distorted and spun. So this, in part, accounts for our common understanding of the occupation as a two-sided conflict.

But on the ground, there aren’t really two sides. Though, in a way, admittedly, there are. On one side, there’s a very rich state with very sophisticated and well-equipped armed forces, who are almost exclusively engaged in occupying foreign territory by force. On the other side, there are masses, without a state, suffering under the inhumanity of foreign occupation, a universally-recognized crime and a pretty egregious affront to human rights. Sure, one can make arguments in favor of the occupation in spite of its criminality or inhumanity, and someone could counter-argue, so there are two sides in that conflict of words, but, on the ground, there aren’t really two sides.

Most Palestinians aren’t even fighting back against the almost daily aggression they face from the IDF—they’re suffering and bearing it if they can—but those who are fighting back, who are, one might say, participating in a conflict, are participating in it—whatever it is—only as victims. Palestinian fighters are, to be sure, fighting, but their fight is not against Israel, per se, but against oppression, and Israel merely happens to be, in this case, the oppressor. The Palestinian militant’s fight is only in defense, whether it be in literal defense of his own life or in defense of something more intangible like honor or culture. Were there no occupation, though, there would be nothing to defend against, and that would be fine.

Just as it would be ridiculous to accuse a rape victim of having engaged in a conflict with the rapist, it’s a gross misrepresentation of the situation to accuse Palestinians in general (who are victims of a monstrous attack on their lives, livelihoods, and shared culture) or even Palestinian fighters in particular (who are also victims of a monstrous attack on their lives, livelihoods, and shared culture, but who have opted to take up arms in defense against this attack) of representing one side in some justifiable conflict. This kind of thinking benefits only the oppressor. It lends Israel’s adventures in imperialism legitimacy, and I will have none of it.

Clever debaters may argue in favor of the occupation, but these are merely attempted justifications of something that is, in and of itself, (inhumane, unjust, and thus) fundamentally indefensible. This of course won’t stop the defenders of Israel from honing their arguments, and this conflict will carry on, but, again, on the ground, there is no war, no conflict—there is only the occupation and all the misery it has wrought.