Community Control of Politicians and Representatives. Malcom was explicit that an early step toward empowerment and the creation of autonomy for the African-American community was to ensure that politicians and representatives to larger governmental bodies were directly responsible to the community and set in their place of influence with the blessings of the community. So long as political boundaries were shuffled to maintain white majorities in districts and thereby nullify the desires of the African-American communities, or so long as "representatives" of the African-American community were handed power by the oppressive, white-supremacist system, African-Americans would be unable to become truly involved and therefore influential or self-directing. This concept extended from the neighborhood to the federal capitol.

A similar disparity exists between the "official representatives" of the Palestinian peoples and their intended constituency. Within the technical bounds of Israel, politicians must be selected from the Israeli Jewish population. Palestinians are almost completely disenfranchised, not allowed political self-expression or determination. Even if they were, all candidates are by law Israeli Jews, and a Palestinian Muslim would not have the chance to vote for anyone of their own faith or community. Outside of the technical bounds of Israel, in the so-called Occupied Territories (the OT, which Israel unilaterally and illegally annexed for the most part in 1980 & 1981), there is a confused political situation. The so-called Palestinian National Authority (PNA) rules as a "mini-state" in limited areas of the OT, controlled by Yasser Arafat of the Fatah/PLO political movements. The PNA claims popular support, but it is constantly clear that PNA is no more than a puppet organization-- what Malcom X probably would have labeled an Uncle Tom organization. Within the PNA and the OT, when Palestinians elect local officials, for instance the equivalents of mayors or university boards, etc. PLO/PNA candidates lose consistently to members of the semi-legal organization called Hamas. Yet Arafat and the PNA continue to lord over the spare state of Palestine with impunity, pressuring politics at the community level toward their own goals, not necessarily toward goals that would benefit the Palestinian Nation overall. What Malcom X apparently saw as similar situations in 1960's America led him to campaign against self-aggrandizing and sell-out politicians.

Internationalization. Connected to the idea of community control over politicians is Malcom's intent to internationalize the struggle of the African-American, both to broaden the scope and view of the struggle itself, and to bring international pressure to bear on the United States. This ultimately was aimed at the involvement of the international community, especially the non-white world, in various ways--from possible economic pressures (i.e. sanctions or other actions against the US by other states) to political pressures (specifically, the indictment of the US before the United Nations on charges of racism, exploitation, and violence).

Internationalization of the situation in Palestine was attempted, and to a small extent worked. In the 50's and 60's, several of the Arab/Muslim nations in West Asia sided with the Palestinians over the Israeli state, especially Egypt and Syria. There were probably several reasons for this, not the least of which were based on racism against the Jewish people and some desire to see the backwater (yet politically influential) Palestinian refugee communities return to their own soil. But Pan-Arabism was also very much a factor, as was the Soviet backing which very strongly objected to the presence of the pro-American Israeli state. A great deal of international pressure then was probably ready to come to bear against Israel in support of the Palestinians, and some action was taken-- a general West Asian and North African embargo against Israel, the harboring and aiding of "radical" Palestinian elements, and eventually the wars of 1948 and 1967. Nothing seemed capable of dislodging the power if the Israeli state, however, largely due to the 993.7 million dollars that the US funneled into Israel between 1951 and 1967, plus direct military and intelligence support in the 1967 war. The failure of the 1967 war essentially broke the pan-Arab power in West Asia and ended virtually all hope for the restoration of Palestine. Only a few years later Egypt became a major client state of the US, as did Syria, to a lesser extent. Jordan also became a major client of the US and in 1970 the Jordanian military, using Israeli military gear, swept through Palestinian-dominated towns and even the refugee camps, killing three thousand and destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian resistance movement. What Malcom X called dollarism in his memorandum to the OAU, coupled with the power-mongering inherent to such a doctrine, broke the solidarity of the Arab states and with it their ability to actively aid the Palestinian Nation.

The current "international situation" regarding Palestine is not too promising. The PLO is the only official voice for the Palestinian Nation, having been accepted as an "observer" organization in the UN. But, again, the PLO has only limited influence among and support from the Palestinian Nation. (The PLO is commonly referred to as "The Tunisians," a reference specifically to the fact that the PLO was based during most of the 80's in Tunisia, and generally to the fact that the PLO never actually was based in the Palestinian community itself, always remaining in comfortable, self-imposed "exile.") Such grassroots community organizations as Hamas are not recognized by the international community, instead labeled as "terrorists," which is relatively ridiculous in itself. While Arafat and the PLO maintain a lofty position, it is in name only, and only with the blessings of the US and of Israel. The international prestige is most likely a clever ruse on the part of the West and Israel, a façade to simulate the appearance that Palestinians have a recognized voice. Arafat is invited to attend "peace talks" but is in no position, from any angle, to actually apply leverage in the situation. It goes directly back, then, to the access to and control by the community of its own representatives. Arafat is very much like the leaders of the African-American struggle whom Malcom accused of being appointed to their positions by whites, a matter of appearance rather than a matter of influence.

The Chickens Coming Home to Roost. In his famous statement regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Malcom X put forth the idea that violence begets violence. His comment was intended to explain that the assassination of the president was not too terribly shocking, as the culture to which the president belonged, as well as the government he led, were based on violence and oppressive behavior. That the violence not only created by but also espoused by the United States government might at some point reflect back upon it was only natural. In fact, in an extension of this thought, Malcom's insistence upon self-defense by and for the African-American against violent, racist elements preached the continuation of this violent reciprocity. That African-Americans could or should sit back and wait for violence against them to somehow, someday end was ludicrous to Malcom.

Again, there are direct parallels to these events and ideas in Palestine. The assassination of Yitzak Rabin can be seen as another example of "the chickens coming home to roost." Even Kennedy and Rabin can be compared on a certain level-- that they were both leaders who really for the first time were at least nominally offering some relief to the populations that had been assaulted and enslaved by their cultures. And Rabin was assassinated by a fellow Israeli who was so infuriated that a Prime Minister would offer leniency to the Palestinian Nation that he shot him to death in full view of the public.

The Palestinian people also refused to lay down and be enslaved or destroyed by the Israeli state. Sporadic uprisings had been attempted in various communities and refugee centers over the decades since the Israeli state declared itself in 1948 and began the pogroms against the Palestinians. But none was so coordinated, long-lived, and successful (only up to a point, granted) as the Intifada, begun in 1987. The symbol of the Intifada, in the Western mind, is a group of unruly youth throwing stones at Israeli soldiers. But the actually minimal violence of the Intifada is far outweighed by its social, cultural, and economic elements. Whereas Palestinians had served as virtually slave labor for Israeli businesses since 1948, and especially after 1967, Palestinians now refused to work for Israeli business. Instead, workers remained in their own communities and sought to repair infrastructure, improve cleanliness, build homes, and so on. During Intifada Palestinians refused to buy food from Israeli farmers, instead choosing to stay in their own communities and do with the very little land and water they had with which to cultivate. Hunger actually increased in many Palestinian communities because of these ideas, but the Palestinians chose to maintain their defiance. (Israeli soldiers eventually were sent in to round up Palestinians, take them to Israeli-run markets, and force them at gunpoint to buy Israeli goods, but even this was ineffective!) But even the symbol of the Intifada, in the Palestinian mind, the kuffiyeh head covering traditional to Palestinian culture and which could be wrapped to conceal the face, was to be made a target of oppression. On 4.July, 1989 the Chief of the General Staff of the Israeli military declared that henceforth any Palestinian seen wearing the kuffiyeh would be executed on the spot. The Palestinian Nation incorporated Malcom X's ideas of nationalism and self-defense into a cohesive, powerful movement, which was never put down, and only called off when the PLO/PNA erroneously promised that the Palestinian "mini-state" was to become a reality.