Lessons from the Palestinian teachers’ strike

Palestinian teachers have suspended their month-long strike after the PA president and government decided to respond to some of their demands. The majority of teachers joined the action, despite the fact that their union abandoned them from the beginning and the Palestinian Authority was very stubborn and rejected what was being asked for. Moreover, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was late in offering support to the teachers, and actually incited people against them; indeed, most of the factions failed this test, especially Fatah, despite the fact that most of the strikers and the leaders of the action were Fatah members and supporters. The strike demonstrated how to gain community support and see it grow, as a protest held on 5 March included a large number of students and their parents from various social backgrounds. Thus the action could escalate from a teachers’ strike to a popular protest against the PA’s stubbornness and denial of teachers’ rights, even after admitting that their demands were legitimate.

What has the strike action achieved? Dignity for the teachers, and this is more important than achieving their other demands. However, the teachers are now capable of getting everything that has been asked for if they learn from the strike’s lessons.

The first is that rights are taken, and are not granted or bestowed by the government as a kindness or gift. In order for demands to be met, we must believe that only we ourselves can achieve exactly what we want; this requires us to be armed with the representation embodied by thousands of teachers and then resort to the community for further support, because any individual sector or group can be broken eventually. We must also be prepared to endure the pressure, threats and accusations — possibly even the involvement of the security agencies and arrest — set against the strike by conservative members of society; Fatah, the media and intellectuals will be incited to oppose the action. In this case, the teachers’ strike will be portrayed as a conspiracy or coup in favour of Hamas, Israel or Mohamed Dahlan, or even as a means to distract people from the occupation and the intifada that has been ongoing for over six months.

The worst thing that the PA did was refuse dialogue with the teachers’ representatives, who led the protest in an impressively-organised and peaceful manner. The PA refused on the grounds that they do not legally represent the teachers, even though the authority knows that it stripped the teachers’ union of any legitimacy to the extent that shortly after the strike began the union backed away, putting itself at the disposal of the Fatah-controlled grassroots organisation commission, which is affiliated with the PLO. The PA should have negotiated with those leading the strike, as there is no law against it happening.

The authority in Ramallah also argued that the teachers did not follow the laws regulating strikes. However, it must be pointed out that strikes are a right guaranteed by the Basic Law and that regulations are there to ensure organised actions; they are not there to restrict strikes. Those sections of Palestinian law that restrict strikes must be changed in line with the Basic Law; there is a need to sign up to international agreements which compel signatories, without any reservations, to amend any clause in their laws that violate human and basic civil rights.

The second lesson is that the teachers’ strike is similar to the intifada wave, the BDS movement and the popular resistance; it is a popular movement without a leadership. Some factions participate in these movements, but they do not lead them. As for the PLO, it is paralysed, disabled and absent; this suits the interests of the PA. The latter is limited by and committed to political, security and economic obligations to the Israelis and does not have the will or courage to abandon them. This is despite the fact that the PA has been threatening to do so for many years and acted against these obligations during the second intifada.

The factions are either opposed to the strike, do not care about them, try to utilise them against internal rivals, or do not have enough power to influence its course. Hence, we have witnessed a shift in civil society, the parliamentary blocs and a large number of writers, prisoners, etc., who have turned into mediators between the two sides. This is how the conflict between we Palestinians and the Israeli occupation has, since the Oslo Accords, turned into a conflict between two parties amongst ourselves who possess the same rights.

Intercession in matters of right and wrong is not acceptable, even if it is under the pretext of the PA’s claim that its budget cannot bear the demands of the teachers and they should lower their sights. This all suggests that the gap between the people, the leadership and the factions has widened and that we must change, renew and reform our policy and performance by means of the current structures and institutions, which is difficult; or that new groups and leadership must emerge. This has started to happen but it still needs time before it is too late. Nature hates a vacuum and it can be filled by new parties and players.

The third thing that we can conclude from the teachers’ strike is that keeping to a solution produced by the PA is impossible, as it really should not continue to exist. The authority was created around the delusion that an independent state was imminent, after passing through the transitional period, the election of a new US president, or the formation of an Israeli government committed to peace. It has to be either a tool to serve the occupation or its constitution, role and commitments must change. Although this cannot be done immediately, it must be done gradually in accordance with a clear and announced plan whereby we know, from the beginning, where and how it will end. We must also be completely committed to its implementation.

Among the changes that must be made are fundamental changes to the PA’s budget. It requires a comprehensive reconsideration in order to serve the strategy of perseverance and confronting the occupation. The budget must be shared responsibly to meet the needs, priorities and general interests of the people, starting with their health, education and domestic production. There must also be a boycott of Israel, not just the settlements, so that the burden of the occupation is distributed more equitably across Palestinian society. As long as the budget remains based on past calculations, including a veritable army of employees, many of whom have no real job or do nothing useful, the PA will continue to use “shortage of resources” as an excuse. If and when the budget philosophy changes, the situation will be different; the security agencies, for example (which serve the interests of the occupation), will not receive a third of the budget.

Finally, there is an old-new lesson based on the impossibility of separating the national struggle from the democratic, social and economic struggle. The Palestinian people cannot fight a long battle while suffering from the pressures of life under occupation without national resources being distributed fairly by honest, elected and accountable institutions which combat corruption, poor management and nepotism. We cannot have two societies and nations; the fact is that the occupation is ultimately against all Palestinians. We can’t have one section of society making sacrifices and suffering bloodshed, arrests, house demolitions and trouble at checkpoints, while another lives under completely different conditions, armed with VIP cards to get past checkpoints, investments with or without partners in Israel, and guarantees that they are buoyed by the Israeli economy, as per the Paris Convention.

The new authority must respond to the interests of the people and serve the national programme as well as be an organ of the PLO, which itself needs to rebuild its institutions on national and democratic foundations, and a true partnership that includes everyone and all factions. If establishing such an authority is difficult or impossible, then the current PA should be dissolved, with the Israelis left to bear the full cost and responsibility of their occupation. However, we must work quickly to build an alternative so that the failure does not lead to chaos or dual authorities, which we see at the moment, with one in each of the isolated ghettos established by Israel since its occupation in 1967.

Translated from Masarat, 15 March, 2016.