For Palestine: 'How Long? Not Long'

Beaten, bloodied and exhausted, when the civil rights marchers finally reached the steps of the State Capitol of Montgomery Alabama after a five day march from Selma in 1965, there was undoubtedly a question in their minds: “How Long?” How long must they bear the brutality of the state? How long would they be forced to kiss the boot that tramples them? How long would they and their children fall prey to a racist system bent on criminalizing their very existence? Perhaps sensing this, Martin Luther King Jr. gave a speech that culminated with these words: “How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

Today, when we look at Palestine, we see that at long last that arc has finally started to bend.

The signs are there: for perhaps the first time Israel has been criticized by sitting members of Congress, a phenomenon that is due to the changing demographics of modern America and the rise of a new breed of politicians less wedded to the ideological strictures of the past, where criticism of Israel was career-ending blasphemy. Does this matter? Yes it does.

In the 2014 bombardment of Gaza not a single member of Congress dared speak out and even Bernie Sanders vociferously defended Israel’s actions. Today, we see that very man condemn Israel’s ‘racist nationalism’ and call on the United States to stop being “an apologist for the Netanyahu government.”

While he did withdraw his bill blocking a $735 million arms sale to Israel, note that polls claimed such a bill would have the support of 53% of democrats and a surprising 47% of Republicans. Even more surprising is the revelation that support for Israel among young US evangelical Christians has dropped from 75% in 2018 to 33% in 2021, with a corresponding increase for the creation of a Palestinian state.

Again, this is reflective of and accelerated by a change at the grassroots level where we see that college campuses have called on their universities to divest from companies that support the occupation, and we also see that multiple city councils in the United States have already done so.

On a state level, Ireland went even further by becoming the first EU country to call Israel’s occupation a de facto annexation, in what the Irish foreign minister called “a clear signal of the depth of feeling across Ireland.” While the amendment to calling for the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador was defeated, the fact that this went through at all is evidence of a seismic change in international attitudes towards Israel.

And then there’s the United Nations Human Rights Council which has decided to launch an international investigation into alleged crimes committed during the 11-day bombardment, with the UN commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet saying that the Israeli strikes might constitute war crimes. The investigation will also examine Hamas’ rocket firing but however hyphenated the inquiry may be, it nevertheless represents a major shift.

Contributing to this is the absolute drubbing the Israeli narrative has received in the arena of global public opinion, as exemplified by the reactions on social media. Again, the same factors are at play: the rise of a global generation far less willing to accept the status quo; a generation on whom the tired rhetorical gymnastics of apologia simply do not work. And there’s a new generation in Palestine too, armed with clarity and cellphones, telling their story directly to the world without the filters and spin that dominate traditional western media coverage of Palestine. Coverage in which the very name of Palestine is forbidden.

But even there we see hints of change: the New York Times, which until recently would be loath to even admit that Palestinians are killed (they simply die), ran a front page with the names and faces of  Palestinian children who were killed in Israeli attacks. Not just that, the NYT also ran an oped by Palestinian Basma Ghalayini which not only perfectly laid out the Palestinian case but also argued that violent resistance to a brutal occupation was not just to be expected, but was in fact a just response. The very fact that the NYT, long accused of an overt pro-Israel stance, chose to publish this, means that the edifice of Israeli immunity to criticism is indeed crumbling.

Faced with this, Israel and its supporters reacted the only way they know how: by accusing critics of anti-semitism. Their stance, thus, is that the state of Israel and the great religion of Judaism are one and the same; to criticize one is to criticize the other. This patent untruth is also now being rejected, and notably by those of the Jewish faith – secular and observant – who reject the notion that the state of Israel acts in their names, who reject the ideology that claims that security is bought by the blood of children.

There’s a long road ahead to be sure, but it is clear that the costs for Israel are mounting: just a few months ago a wave of diplomatic moves gave Israel greater acceptance in the Arab world, and all the speculation revolved around which Muslim country would be next in line to normalize relations, with the issue being actively debated in Pakistan. That debate now lies buried in the rubble of Gaza.

– Zarrar Khuhro is a Pakistani journalist who has worked extensively in both the print and electronic media industry. He is currently hosting a talk show on Dawn News.

Twitter: @ZarrarKhuhro