Don’t Palestinians Have Rights too…?! - Tidningen Kulturen

Abdel-Qader Yassine

  • Smaller Small Medium Big Bigger
  • Default Helvetica Segoe Georgia Times

“All that evil needs to prevail is that
people of good will do nothing…!”

Martin Luther King (1929 - 1968)

There was, of course, genuine sympathy and support for the Zionist case for restoring Palestine to its “historic owners”; in other words handing it over to the Jews, as represented by the Zionist movement, even though the Jewish community that had stayed in Palestine since that time was either opposed to or disregarded the European Zionist movement, and even though this land at the time Lord Balfour made his Declaration, was overwhelmingly populated by a people whose historicclaims were at least as great as the Zionists’.

IF there is one thing a Palestinian cannot understand, or IF he did understand cannot forgive, it is the apathy and hypocrisy with which governments in the “Free World”, especially in the United States, react towards issues of right and wrong in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Indeed, questions of morals and of justice seem to have no relevance, and policy appears in most cases to be determined solely by considerations of what one party only to the conflict might agree to, or at least not protest about.

Ninety-nine years ago, Lord Arthur James Balfour, British Foreign Secretary, signed a document which has bedeviled the peoples of the Middle East ever since. Although I do not propose to discuss here this document at length, in any serious debate on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict the Balfour Declaration can hardly be avoided given its place in the mythology of all peoples involved in the conflict.

The Balfour Declaration was the product of an imperialist era, whose primary aim was to serve the interests of the British Empire. This is made clear in British Cabinet discussions of the time.

There was, of course, genuine sympathy and support for the Zionist case for restoring Palestine to its “historic owners”; in other words handing it over to the Jews, as represented by the Zionist movement, even though the Jewish community that had stayed in Palestine since that time was either opposed to or disregarded the European Zionist movement, and even though this land at the time Lord Balfour made his Declaration, was overwhelmingly populated by a people whose historicclaims were at least as great as the Zionists’.

The Balfour Declaration, promising Britain’s support in the establishment of a “national home for the Jews” in Palestine, was an ambiguous document, as were most of the promises the British were making to the Arabs at the time. However, the Churchill memorandum which followed it five years later was more specific. In this document, clarifying British policy in the Middle East, the Balfour Declaration was upheld but unmistakably reinterpreted.

To quote Professor Maxime Rodinson, in his book, Israel and the Arabs: “What was to be the nature of the promised Jewish national home? Not as some had led to believe that Palestine should be as Jewish as England is English, and as France is French. The intention had simply been ‘the further development of the existing Jewish community with the assistanceof Jews in other parts of the world in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and pride.’

“Immigration would be limited according to the economic capability of the country at the tome to absorb new arrivals. There was no intention to bring about the disappearance or the subordination of the Arab population, language or culture in Palestine.”

This memorandum was issued at a time when Britain was preparing for the League of Nations meeting which was to give its approval to the British mandate over Palestine. The British made it clear to the Zionist organization that it would have to approve this rewording if it wanted Britain’s mandate over Palestine be given sanction. And the Zionist Organization did approve it, thus - again quoting Maxime Rodinson - “officially repudiating the project for a Jewish state”, although it still hoped that this could be brought about by force of circumstances.

Of course, what has happened to the Arab population, language and culture in Palestine is a matter of record. I do not propose to go into this in detail, because it has already been well documented for those who have the curiosity to seek out the truth and the integrity to accept it when they find it. It is enough to say that the Palestine of 1948 has already disappeared from the map, with whole villages being bulldozed to make way for Israeli settlements.

A key provision of the United Nations Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947 recommending the partition of Palestine was that the rights of all those living in Palestine should be honoured. Israel uses this resolution as the international basis for its very creation, yet it has ignored every subsequent resolution passed by the United Nations calling for the return of Palestinians displaced by the 1948 war and the restitution of their property.

The whole issue of the Palestinian Diaspora raises fundamental, moral, philosophical, social and political questions: Is the right to self-determination universal or is it to be applied in some cases and withheld in others? In other words, do the Palestinians have the same rights as the black Africans of South Africa, or do they not?

I have always found it strange to encounter rational logical people who will uphold the right of indigenous people around the world to self-determination but who are less certain of their ground when it comes to Palestinians. The whole history of the Middle East in the past century has largely consisted of attempts by outsiders to enforce on the Palestinians a destiny not of their own choosing.

In 2016, the problem is to reconcile historical rights and wrongs with present day realities. If we are to accept the most recent statements of Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, there will be no Israeli acceptance of a sovereign and independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or recognition of the inalienable rights of 12 million Palestinians.

The simple fact, which no amount of political smart talking is likely to obscure, is that the Arab-Israeli conflict is basically about the Palestinians. They are the primary (and some would say the only) party that should be involved in the search for a just and durable solution of the 99-year-old Palestinian - Israeli conflict.

The Palestinians have one of the highest levels of education in the Middle East. They do not feel the need for guardians or custodians. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is their sole legitimate representative.

Since the Oslo Agreement in September 1993, there has been growing awareness within Israel that Palestinian rights have to be satisfied in some way, but the present Israeli Government is saying to the Palestinians that this is your problem, solve it as best you can, but we do not really accept responsibility for what has happened in the past 69 years.

According to the Oslo Agreement, Israel and the PLO agreed to solve the conflict according to the UN Security Council Resolution 242. This resolution has no special sanctity, either legal or moral. Constant reference to this resolution (which was adopted by the Security Council at a time when it had no Arab member) does not add to the its legal substance.

It should be interpreted in the context of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which speak of the right of peoples to self-determination and to fundamental freedoms) and of the many resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly which speak of the “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.”

What irks us is that there is not one single mention in Resolution 242 of Palestine or Palestinians. There is a mere oblique reference when the resolution “affirms…. The necessity for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.”

Resolution 242 calls for the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” There has been a great deal of argument as to what precisely this means. It is allthe territories occupied, or only some of them? The Israelis, naturally, favour the latter interpretation. They speak about a “vulnerable” Israel with a narrow territorial waist difficult to defend militarily and they say they are entitled to “defensible” borders. This, of course, can only mean one thing to Israel’s neighbours: further Israeli aggrandizement.

Resolution 242 speaks of “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area.” In other words, respect for the sovereignty of Jordan, not for a Palestinian state. The Palestinians do not (and will not) accept this, and insist on the recognition of a Palestinian state. There is no justification in law or in morals for not conceding this claim.

All the indications are that the Israelis do not genuinely want to negotiate with anybody about anything to do with Palestinian rights. They want to continue with their colonization policy and are not likely by peaceful means to give up any significant part of what they now hold.

The word irreversibleis often used by Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu as describing the present state of affairs. The maximum that Israel is likely to concede is a South African kind of Bantustanfor the Palestinians to control their minor domestic affairs.

It would be entirely inappropriate to finish this article on a note of optimism. The present situation gives no reason for optimism. The only hope for the future is dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians, but the recent statement of Mr. Netanyahu make it clear that there is no chance of this in the foreseeable future. Something tragic and evil has happened to the Palestinians. Without exception everyone is either in exile, in a refugee camp, or under Israeli military occupation. For the Palestinians the clock of human progress has been turned backwards.

People of conscience and good will must ask what possible justification there can be for this. If some Palestinians, after 69 years in the Diaspora of despair, resort in self-defence and in pursuit of their rights to what some describe as terrorism, shouldn’t part of the blame fall on those who sit on the fence and blithely ignore the Palestinians’ cry for justice?

For the first time since its establishment, Israel now has a chance to regularize and settle in the Middle East and to establish a just and durable peace and achieve lasting security. This is a matter in which the USA and the European Union as well as the entire world have direct and legitimate interests.

Honesty and courage are precisely what are needed to put an end to the conflict, and the Palestinians hope that there would be enough of these qualities in evidence. Only thiswill rectify the injustice and alleviate the misery suffered by the Palestinians in the past sixty-nine years, and restore their faith in human kind. In the meantime, the Israelis should not expect justice from those who have never known it, or expect respect for International law from those excluded by it. 

Abdel-Qader Yassine

Klicka här för att söka efter böcker hos Bokus apropå den här artikeln.
Varje köp via denna länk stödjer TK.


Populära artiklar i denna kategori


Media. En intervju med Guido Zeccola som slutade arbeta på Tidningen Kulturen.
Läs mer...

Media. Den svenske journalisten Dawit Isaak, född i Eritrea, har tilldelats UNESCO:s Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize 2017. Dawit Isaak arresterades under en räd mot medier i Eritrea 2001. Sveriges Radios vd Cilla Benkö som är ordförande för juryn för UNESCO:s Guillermo Cano Frihetspris 2017 kommenterar: – Jag hoppas att denna utmärkelse får hela världen att ropa ”Free Dawit Isaak now”.
Läs mer...

Musik. CIRCADIA på Nissanscenen, Halmstad Stadsbibliotek 23 mars kl 19.00. Fri Entré.
Konserten sänds live över nätet och ligger sedan Tidigare konserter finns också på:
Circadia är en grupp sammansatt av gitarristerna David Stackenäs och Kim Myhr, bassisten Joe Williamson (the Electrics a.o) och slagverkaren Tony Buck (the Necks a.o). Gruppen begick sin debut på Fylkingens 80-års jubileum i november 2013 och blev därefter omnämnda i Sound of Music som en av årets musikaliska höjdpunkter. 2016 släppte de sin debut CD på norska skivbolaget Sofa Music, och har fått strålande recensioner i både svensk och internationell press.
Kommande INES konserter i vår: Nissanscenen må 10 april kl 19 VIVA BLACK MED GRETLI OCH HEIDI Nissanscenen 4 maj kl 19 SHITNEY MARIA FAUST – saxofon, effekter

Läs mer...

En komedi av Pulitzerpristagare Mary Chase
Föreställningen spelas på italienska
En sammanfattning av pjäsen på svenska och engelska delas ut på teatern 
6 - 7 - 8 april 2017, kl. 19.30 Ordinarie pris: 150 kr (förköpspris t.o.m. 1:a april: 110 kr);
(Barn under 12 år: fri entré) Köp biljetter här:
 Föreställningen genomförs i samarbete med ABF, FAIS och Teater Tre
 Handling (spoiler alert!!!):
Elwood P. Dowd är en trevlig man som uppger sig ha en osynlig vän som heter Harvey, beskriven som en två meter lång vit kanin, vilken han presenterar till alla. Hans syster Veta tycker att Elwoods beteende är både obehagligt och generande och hon bestämmer sig för att lägga sin bror på Professor Chumleys berömda psykiatriska klinik. När hon kommer till kliniken hamnar hon dock i en rad roliga missöden som leder henne till att reflektera över vem som egentligen är tokig i kliniken. Och vad tycker ni? Är vi verkligen normala när man tittar närmare? Författarinnan, Pulitzerpristagare Mary Chase, ger oss ett underbart tillfälle att börja en inre resa genom huvudpersonen Elwoods och hans vän Harveys äventyr. Pjäsen lyfter fram konflikten mellan vem vi egentligen är och vad sociala konventioner kräver från oss. Komedin ”Harvey” har haft stora succéer på Broadways teatrar och med en Oscarpristagare film i 1950 med James Stewart i huvudrollen. För mer info besök gärna hemsidan:
Läs mer...


Rekommenderad läsning på Tidningen Kulturen

Cron Job Starts