|
Summary
Premises and Justifications
-
The Awareness of the Palestinian people of the need to alienate
the Zionist project from the very beginning
-
Refuting allegations that seek to discredit
the Palestinian people
The foundations on which the right of return
is based
Mechanisms
aspired after in order to implement the right of return
Summary
Many people have talked and written about the Palestinian "Right
of Return" in the recent years, however, this essay is totally
different from most, if not all of what was written about this
subject. Some dealt with the right of return as a pure humanistic
right, while others considered it a legal right provided for by
all divine and temporal codes and rules… some have addressed this
right in a perspective which presents it as the minimum
requirement the Palestinians should preserve in the light of the
wave of conspiracy against the refugees, while others incorporated
it in political biddings aimed at embarrassing the Palestinian
negotiating team… on the other hand, some have never felt at ease
with rising this subject in the first place.
However, the perspective of this essay is totally different,
because it basically aims as we have mentioned at setting an
initial concept of a project and a vision for a political struggle
work that can reshuffle the cards for the good of the Palestinian
agenda, first and foremost.
A comprehensive view of what the Palestinian cause has arrived
to, at this moment, is becoming an increasingly important need
that could not be overlooked; the Arab- Israeli conflict has
become a tragic carnage which bears down heavily on the
Palestinians, wherever they are, especially in the west bank and
Gaza strip. For the first time since the eruption of the
Palestinian revolution, the Palestinian project sees itself amid a
crisis on the level of the Political action, despite the
continuous raising of the revolutionary slogans that the
revolution originally started in order in order to achieve, and
the heroic legendary epic the heroes of the blessed uprising are
writing down, every day on every inch of the land of historical
Palestine.
Basically, the mark of the Palestinian project is reflected
through the absence of the political horizon – on the general
foreseen level- in terms of scoring progressive points for the
record of the Palestinian struggle movement, since it became
controlled by regional and international variables that storms the
Arab region and the Palestinian cause in particular.
This essay attempts to formulate a general Palestinian political
project that starts off from the lofty axioms of the Palestinian
cause, without wasting any of the axioms of the Palestinian
revolution worked hard to achieve since the first cry against the
Zionist project was heard in Palestine, taking into account the
total developments and changes in the Palestinian arena, in an
attempt to revive the Palestinian political activism and take it
out of the crisis it has ended up with.
Our presentation here is based on a sacred and fundamental
Palestinian constant which had proved, over the years of hard
negotiations, its inability to be broken or moderated… that is the
" Palestinian right of return".
Many people have talked and written about the Palestinian right
of return in the recent years. However, this essay is totally
different from most, if not all of what was written in this
respect. Some dealt with the right of return as a pure humanistic
right, while others considered it a legal right provided for by
all divine and temporal codes and rules… some have addressed this
right in a perspective which presents it as the minimum
requirement the Palestinians should preserve in the light of the
conspiratorial wave against the refugees, while others
incorporated it in political biddings aimed at embarrassing the
Palestinian negotiating team… on the other hand, some have never
felt at ease with raising this subject in the first place.
However, the perspective of this essay is totally different,
because it basically aims – as we have mentioned- at setting an
initial concept of a project and a vision for political/ struggle
work that can reshuffle the cards for the good of the Palestinian
agenda, first and foremost.
Premises and Justifications
From the beginning, more than a century ago, the Palestinian
people understood that the Zionist project aims primarily at
uprooting it from its land and implanting in its place Jewish
groups that were dispersed all over the world. This fact was fully
comprehended by the Palestinians from the very first moment… since
the establishment of the first Zionist colony on the land of
Palestine. It had not been too long before the Palestinian people
made their decision to confront the Zionist project.
In this field, one can seek information in the documents of "The
Arab Center for research and Documentation", which were issued
about the "Arab-Israeli negotiations, 1949-1991". In one of these
documents, one can read the following:"… In 1908: the first
Arab reaction to the Jewish immigration appeared during a session
of the Ottoman parliament in Palestine and Constantinople..."(1)
then the document reads:' On April 4, 1920: the first Palestinian
uprising against the Jewish colonization took place in Jerusalem
and persisted for 4 days… During it 14 strugglers were killed…"(2)
and " In may 1920: the second uprising went on for 15 days,
and took place in Haifa… then it turned into a bloody fight, in
which 147 men were killed and another 705 men were wounded.."(3).
According to statistics presented by the center, one can make a
preliminary calculation of the number of victims, in the ranks of
the Arab Palestinian resistant, who fell during the major
confrontations and who counted as follows: 7557 dead, 11621
wounded, 4722 prisoners, and 112 martyrs who were executed between
April 4, 1920 and November 30, 1947, about six months before the
May 1948 Nakba (calamity). This, of course, excluding the
individual confrontations or events that were not considered
massive public actions.
These shocking figures ( in the sixth uprising, September-
December 1937, which erupted all over Palestine, 4000 Palestinians
fell as martyrs, 112 were executed, and 2750 were imprisoned)
indicate many other facts, the most important of which are the
following:
·
The Awareness of the Palestinian people of the need to alienate
the Zionist project from the very beginning:
In spite of all the hard circumstances that characterized that
stage, the Palestinian people made great sacrifices. Here, we must
mention that the Palestinian people were living under the British
mandate that confiscated the Palestinians' weapons, money and
properties. The above listed figures also show the Zionist –
British bloody barbarianism that accompanied the torturous deeds
that were committed against the Palestinians. this great number of
martyrs, who fell during such a short span of time, although the
criminal machine was underdeveloped compared to the advanced
capabilities used by Zionists in suppressing the modern uprisings
of the Palestinian people, in addition to the mass executions, can
only indicate the Zionist blood thirst, on the one hand, and the
steadfastness of the Palestinian people, on the other hand.
Top
·
Refuting allegations that seek to discredit the Palestinian people
Many allegations seek to discredit the Palestinians by saying, at
times, that they were not fully aware of the dangers and
dimensions of the Zionist project and that their retaliation and
resistance came too late, and by claiming- at other times- that
the Palestinian people had "sold" his land off to the Jews.
This dreadful barbarianism, practiced by the British and the
Zionist Jews who perpetuated the massacres, was unequivocally
designed to displace the native population and pave the way for
the absorption of the Jewish invaders who had started to come to
Palestine from all the regions of Europe. The British role in this
process was documented. The second and fourth articles of the
mandatory constitution stipulated that the country (Palestine)
should be prepared to become a Jewish homeland. As indicated also
in the sixth article, the local government should cooperate with
the Jewish agency in order to facilitate the residence of the
Jewish immigrants (5)
All the above mentioned was to highlight a matter fully
comprehended by the Palestinian people, which is: " That the
Palestinian cause (basically, with great reservation with regard
to using this widespread expression) is the case of a people
displaced from its land… A cause of a people and not a cause of
individuals who have the right to return… and any talk about
"return" must take into account this point in particular.
The "right of return" cannot be retrieved through the
establishment of human rights bodies and the like. The difference
here is in terms of peculiarity and not in terms of depiction. The
right of return is a human right that relates to the destiny of a
people, and not to an individual matter (a notion often neglected
by many of those who talk about the right of return on the basis
of U.N resolution //194// or the international declaration of
human rights).
The second point, which is equally important, relates to the
situation the Palestinians found themselves in with the
commencement of the ill- boding negotiation process, in Madrid,
and the birth of the freak that came into being- behind the
scenes- as a result of this process: the Oslo Agreement. There are
fundamental reasons that make this agreement ill-boding, but no
one yet- not to my knowledge- has ever discussed the impact of
this agreement on the unity of the Palestinians, as a "people". It
formally and firmly established the fragmentation of the
Palestinian people into many geographically and legally divided
sub-entities that can be classified in three main categories:
1-
The "1948- Arabs": Palestinians who sticked to their lands, in
spite of all the harmful and torturous practices inflicted on them
by the Zionists.
2-
Palestinians who live in refugee camps, especially in the
countries neighboring historical Palestine, and who were dispersed
among dozens of refugee camps and subjected to special political
and formal policies, not only according to the situation of each
Arab country, but even according to the special case of the camp
itself, particularly in Lebanon.
3-
Palestinians who are distributed between the west bank (which is
disconnected by settlements) and Gaza strip (in no better
condition than the west bank itself).
This fragmentation is no more a geographical one; the Oslo
agreement contributed to the dispersal of the Palestinian people,
politically, administratively and legally. The Palestinians who
held on to their lands (occupied in 1948) became "Israeli"
citizens, according to all signed agreements (second class
citizens of course). No present or future Palestinian authority or
government is related to them, except in terms of historical,
emotional and conscientious ties that we fear their erosion in
time. All political, administrative, cultural and livelihood
matters of these Palestinians are separate from those of other
Palestinians, except in terms of their shared collective history…
Indeed, it is a bitter and difficult fact, but the reality
indicates it strongly. The political agenda of the steadfast
Palestinians in the areas occupied in 1948 is qualitively
different from that of any other Palestinian. It wasn’t so before
signing the Oslo agreement, and the accident that took place on
the "Day of Land" is an eyewitness to this fact.
However, the structural changes that happened amid the
Palestinian people have driven those undoubted national loyalty to
formulate political agendas that are consistent with their
political and legal conditions. True that the phenomenon of some
Palestinians' candidacy for membership in Israeli Knesset dates
back to the pre- Oslo stage. But "Oslo" directed the internal
Palestinian argument , among those who had held on their lands,
towards an endeavor that aimed at establishing a special status
which can improve their living conditions as a "group" of people
(and not as individuals) representing the native residents of the
land. Certainly, history tells us bad news about indigenous people
in more than one place on earth.
As for the Palestinians of refugee camps in states bordering
Palestine, it can be said that their living conditions are hardly
better, and they may even seem worse on more than one level. They
often complain about the absence of a competent authority that can
take care of their affairs as they are. They became totally
deserted in scattered and disconnected areas, deprived of the
basic requirement of decent living conditions are hardly better,
and they may even seem worse on more than one level. They often
complain about the absence of a competent authority that can take
care of their affairs as they are. They became totally deserted in
scattered and disconnected areas, deprived of the basic
requirement of a decent living (something that differs from a host
country to another, and sometimes from one place to another inside
the same country).
The Palestinians suffer a lot in their daily life… perhaps the
most austere feature of their suffering is that complete
generations grow up inside Palestinian camps and become more
related to the camp and is narrow alleys that to the land of the
fathers and grandfathers. Certainly, this argument may evoke a
rhetorical hurricane on the highest level. However, this is not
going to change the reality on the ground; inside the camps, there
are too many refugees who know everything about their camp and
sufferings, while they know nothing about the village or city from
which they were ousted. This knowledge (about the homeland) is
becoming mere stories told by grandparents. True!... these stories
are needed and necessary, and may have an important effect in
terms of building the consciousness of the Palestinian refugees
and tying them to the land of the ancestors, where they would have
suffered from harsh living conditions if they had been living on
it, instead of living in these narrow alleys… but here we see a
kind of cessation… a dangerous kind of cessation.
This emotional and conscientious charge received by the new
generations does not find its way to be really translated on the
ground. There are no real practical working programs in which one
can invest this charge, in such a way that puts people in the
right direction towards the invaluable homeland, as was the case
in the days of guerrilla action… true that the uprisings inside
Palestine contribute actively to igniting nostalgia and increasing
the longing of a Palestinian to his homeland, and makes the fury
of a living desire for revenge vanish in the veins of
Palestinians…. However, this – in itself- is not being transformed
automatically in a living public action that can make a
breakthrough in this reality, for many known reasons which can
hardly change anything if defined.
In the refugee camps, Palestinians are subject to the fluctuant
political circumstances that control the milieu in which they
exist. As a result, they are always subject to the ever-changing
moods of the host countries, and to the domestic considerations
and political agendas of these countries- a vested right for each
country under (Sykes- Pico) treaty.
After the Oslo process, these Palestinians have become
increasingly attached to their special situations inside the host
states, and even more affected by the violent upheavals that are
still throwing them back and forth, waiting decisive developments
that may determine their status through agreements and compromises
which everyone has come to know that they may never absolutely be
in the refugees' interest. There are real fears and an
overwhelming obsession under which the refugees are living today,
increasingly concerned about being forced one day to leave the
camps. Here, the irony plays its game: such discourse prompts a
Palestinian to hold on to the narrow area of the camp and be
always ready to defend it, out of fear of some unknown destiny or
a repetition of the ordeal that the fathers had underwent when
they were forced to leave Palestine- a memory which is still live
in the minds and souls.
True those refugees in the camps are Palestinians, unlike the
Palestinians in the territories occupied in 1948, who – according
to internationally recognized official documents- have become
"Israeli" citizens. However, negotiations and plans that fall on
them from everywhere aim at robbing these refugees of their status
as Palestinians, through reiterated discourse about whether these
refugees have or do not have the right to return to the suggested
Palestinian "pretty state".
They are Palestinians who must talk about everything but
Palestine… even the promised Palestinian authority or state would
not be the only side responsible for deciding their future… they
are abandoned and subject to the fluctuations of the negotiation
and the conditions of the Palestinian state, on the one hand, and
to the upheavals that the host countries undergo, on the other
hand.
The hope which glows amid this dense uncertainty,
notwithstanding, is the refugees' insistence on practicing their
right of return, and their assertion of this right every now and
then… they sign in blood every document that condemns any attempt
to abandon this right, no matter what it takes… this hops is what
should be bet on… it’s the grain that is able to be planted and
cultivated… but repetition is useful here: there must be a working
program that translates the flowing emotion into a living action
able to reshuffle the cards for the good of the Palestinian
people, first and foremost.
In spite of all the greaves from which the Palestinians in the
west bank and Gaza strip have suffered, it is the one and only
part still recognized as "Palestinian" – wholly Palestine- in the
official record of post Oslo stage… its established political and
administrative authority is the Palestinian authority, which
earned the right to assume its recognized existence the day the
agreement was signed; hence, it was transformed from a "sole
legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" into an
"authority" seeking to govern part of the Palestinians, while
actually neglecting the remaining parts. Even though, the
Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza strip do not represent one
category; there are the Palestinians who live in the west bank and
Gaza strip since before the Zionist occupation of 1967; and there
are also the Palestinian refugees of the territories occupied in
1948. the last category is considered the basic pillar for the
power of the last two uprisings (the first- actually the seventh-
erupted in 1987; and the second- actually the eighth – began in
2000), according to many studies and statistics. Those refugees
have seized every opportunity to assert their right of return, and
they fight, struggle and get killed toward this right. Perhaps one
of the most important factors in opting for the cessation of
"martyr operations", by the struggling Palestinian forces inside
the territories occupied in 1948, was the psychological and
conscientious attachment which fills the spirit of a martyr and
drives him to die on his land ( the most beloved part of the
homeland soil for him).
The Palestinian authority fully understands the meanings that
martyrdom bears; and that's why it still dare not directly abandon
the right of return, in spite of the many attempts it had made to
wangle it self out of this dilemma and the many loud voices heard
inside and around it demanding a discussion of this "matter" by
the Palestinian public, in order to break the holy nimbus
surrounding it… however, all attempts in this respect were made in
vain. Significantly, the open letter written by one of the
Palestinian leaders in the West bank and Gaza strip was subject to
comment by the head of the Supreme Court in the Zionist entity,
dany Rubenstein, who wrote:
.. In an open letter to the brother who directs the negotiations
(in another word: Yasser Arafat), Abdullah Horani wrote last week:
" tell the Israelis that Jerusalem is one part of the problem, but
the issue of the refugees is the whole problem; and that Jerusalem
is one part of the homeland, while the refugees are the homeland
itself…". Abdullah Hourani, the Palestinian leader who had
returned with Arafat from Tunisia, is a member of the Palestinian
liberation organization (PLO), who was born in "Massmiya", grew up
in Khan Younis, and worked many years close to Arafat.
In his open letter, published by the Palestinian newspaper "Al
Hayat Eljadeda" (the new life), hournai wondered if his name and
position would be wasted and whether all he might earn would be
the "refugee's status": ((... My address is not important… we
all have the same address... we all are outside our land, in
exile…we are equal, whether inside camps or outside it, inside our
homeland or in the Diaspora… our address is carved on the trunks
of what was left of the trees there.. On the cactus trees that
twinge with their thorns anyone who tries to uproot them…)).
Hourani remind the "brother who negotiates with Israel" of
something between them:" between you and us there was a covenant
under which you promised to restore us our rights… it is the
covenant that we signed in the PLO, when the organization assumed
the right of representing us.." here, Hourani implicitly threatens
Arafat by saying:" you have to abide by the terms of the covenant…
otherwise, you shall bear the consequences of breaking it.."
(6).
All the abovementioned facts indicate certain matters the most of
which are:
1-
The Palestinian people's right of return to its land constitutes
the core of the conflict process.
2-
The Palestinians insist on returning to their land, regardless of
the way or method, because it is only a detail subject to
discussion, and the Palestinians have proved ready to sacrifice
everything toward restoring this right.
3-
The right of return, always defined as "inalienable", is the
"sanctum" for the Palestinian people, exactly as Jerusalem is one
of its most prominent sacred places.
4-
Working toward the restoration of the Palestinians' right to
return to historical Palestine guarantees the reunification of the
Palestinian people that has been torn apart by the Oslo agreement.
This can be achieved by combining the dimensions of time and
place, which requires the mobilization of all available resources.
5-
Any solution that does not stipulate the return of the Palestinian
people, including every Palestinian child and old man, would not
be a solution that aims at solving the Palestinian cause, but one
that seeks the liquidation of the Palestinian people and canceling
it out of the list of peoples.
On the basis of these premises and justifications, one can discuss
the right of return, away from any other logic. What does the
right of return mean on the political level, in addition to the
above mentioned notions?
In an essay filled with absurdness and published by the Israeli
press, Daniel Pipes, a famous author in the Zionist entity,
dilated upon a title that raises much curiosity :" the Palestinian
Zionism"(7). The essay in itself may hardly be
described as important. It was a desperate and miserable attempt
by the author to prove that the Palestinians try to imitate the
Zionist in every thing: claiming that Jerusalem is the sacred
eternal capital, and that the Palestinians have the right to
return… etc, complaining about this imitations on the basis of the
precedence of the Zionist "facts" the date back to about three
thousand years ago, while the historical roots of the Palestinian
claims do not precede the year 1920! (Without mentioning the
special significance of this date for the Palestinians). But the
essay suggests- implicitly- that each one of these two projects
(the Palestinian liberation project and the Zionist project)
invalidates the other. This is certainly the case, since the
Zionist project was essentially based on negating everything that
is Palestinian; consequently, any opposing project would
constitute a negation of this negation, notion to notion and issue
to issue.
The same can be said with regard to the right of return. How do
the leaders and thinkers of the Zionist project see the
Palestinian's right to return to their lands? Numerous citations
are valid in this regard. However, suffice it to mention an
arbitrary sample published in the Zionist press during the last
two years, especially with the outbreak of the blessed "Al-Aqsa"
uprising. But before doing so, it is important to present a
dazzling citation brought by David Ben Gurion, the founder of the
Zionist entity:
"…
Israel considers the American plan more dangerous to its existence
than all the other threats of Arab rulers, kings and dictators,
and more than all the Arab armies together, and all the Nasser's
missiles and Soviet "Mig" aircrafts… Israel will struggle to the
last man against the implementation of this plan…" (A letter sent
by Ben Gurion to president Kennedy's administration, in response
to suggestion granting the Palestinian refugees the right to
choose between returning and receiving financial compensations)(8).
Going back to what was published in the Zionist periodicals of
various trends, one can cite some examples:
-
Drur Yessini wrote in Ma'ariv:
".. the current war (he mean the uprising) is comfortable for the
Palestinians… true that they suffer... but they win, because they
allow themselves –through this war- to insist on the right of
return... let us be excused by the leftist zealots who often
reiterate to us the expression : ( we must understand)… in this
respect, the ability to understand must come to an end… the right
of return is the right of liquidation… for this reason, historical
justice is irrelevant… existence is better than justice.. The
right of return will transform Israel into a public battlefield,
similar to the pattern of nitzarim, or Kfar Darom, or to the
existence of Jewish residents in Hebron… As much as we do not want
a "Nitzarim" inside Gaza, we also do not want Hamas in the heart
of "Israel"… this is not racism… its madness"(9)
-
in response to what was said about Barak's readiness to negotiate
the right of return, Meir Livesches wrote in Ma'ariv:
"… Amid the political storm of the forthcoming elections, emerges
the recent Israeli consensus: the right of return… we have not to
witness such a unity since the operation Anteba. The leftist
rabbis were at pains to issue an embellished juristic verdict
forbidding the entry of even one Arab refugee, not even an old man
or a sick person, to the area beyond the green line… this of
course, out of fear of disrupting the demographic balance, hence
endangering the Jewish character of the state…
The left wing's arguments in opposing the return of the refugees
seem instantaneous in terms of its content, and apparently racist…
if the Arabs have the right to return to their homeland, how on
earth would they deprived from returning? By whichever right?...we
all remember the refugee from Sabra or Shatilla camp, who still
keep the (Koshan)[ii]
of a piece of land in Ramat- Aviv, and who raised the interest and
concern of professor (Scheter Nezal), of the college of moral
philosophy, about the Jewish Hegemony in occupied Palestine,
especially that the professor's office in the university is
located exactly on that piece of land, which had once been planted
with grape and fig trees by that woman. It's worth mentioning here
that the professor was too much worried about this matter when he
was spending his vacation skiing on the mountain tops of
Switzerland!
But the bare truth is that we have no commitment towards any
Arab... our fathers came to this century in order to establish a
national homeland… to establish their existence in it, and to
built a democratic state, or a state for all its citizens…
… The way of ruling is a flexible matter… however, the Jewish
existence in Palestine is greater than any instantaneous political
mix… we have fought… we have fallen (dead or wounded)... and we
have built in defiance of the "48 Palestinians", and against them…
we succeeded and triumphed… we occupied the land and established
our existence in their place… there is always a price that the
defeated party must pay… and today is the day of payment… it is
time to abandon the right of return and return back to reason…"(10).
-
Gideon Sa'ar addresses this subject , also, more comprehensively
in Ma'ariv:
"… for Israelis, the right of return is a theoretical illusionary
subject… while for Palestinians, especially millions if those who
live in refugee camps, the right of return is a rosy dream… the
settlement that provides more land and authority to Arafat's "sub
state" would be less convenient for a refugee who lives in Dheisha
camp and dreams of his home is Zakariya, and keeps –until this
day- the keys of his house as he keeps his eyes pupils…".
Arafat, who was welcomed in the refugee camps of Gaza as a hero,
after his return from camp David, would not have dared to enter
these camps if he had made any concessions regarding Jerusalem
represented a matter that reflects Arab and Islamic dimension,
then the concession regarding the right of return is a glaring
national Palestinian issue. The Palestinian slogan is:" they do
not sell out the brothers"… this slogan bears a strato- dimension,
whereas the wealthy minority is not eligible to give up the rights
of the majority in the refugee camps.
On the other hand, the right of return is the real and certain
threat to "Israel's" existence. The same is true for the leftist
camp that agreed on turning the wheel backward: to border lines
close to the 1967 boundaries , however this camp is not ready to
turn the wheel backward another twenty years from 1967.
The reason behind this seems existential: there are talks about
returning hundreds of thousands of refugees to areas, villages,
Kibbutzim and houses populated by Jews today. This is not
dangerous change in demographic balance inside the tiny Israel,
but also a direct threat to the image of the Jewish state, and to
the interests of the Israeli residents in the borders of this tiny
Israel… (11).
Only few days after the outbreak of the blessed "Al- Aqsa"
uprising, the former Zionist prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu
published in Yedeot Ahronot an article under the title of "the
principles of the Israeli National Consensus". In this article,
the right of return occupied a considerable portion, where it
reads:
"We
have to limit the Palestinian aspirations, not only in the
geographical sense, but in the psychological sense also. The
argument with the Palestinians isn’t basically regional, but
existential in essence. It is clear enough that the Palestinian
demand is not the 1967 borders, but the 1947 borders. This means
getting to the Galileo and the Negev. Hence, we must demarcate our
borders in any future agreement, on the basis of a firm belief
that we shall have to defend ourselves, even after the signing of
an agreement…
For this reason, it is a taboo for us to return to the 1967 border
line, or to any borders close to it; because these borders are
indefensible, and this will certainly affect Israel's deterrent
capability. Furthermore, we must wholly reject the demanded
discussion of the right of return and the signing of any agreement
that may allow the return of even one refugee, because any hole in
this dawn would lead to a sweeping flood, whereas masses of
refugees would enter the state… the demonstrations in Jafi and
Haifa are as strong as a thousand evidence of that the Palestinian
dream of materializing the right of return is still alive… the
absolute rejection of any expression of the right of return must
be a precondition in every political agreement, whether the talk
were about a partial agreement or a permanent settlement; this is
the basic condition to rebuild national consensus inside us…"(12).
Netanyahu considers that merely expressing the dream of returning
to Palestine is a crime against the Zionist entity that can be
tolerated under any circumstances.
Hence, for the Zionist project, the Palestinian refugee's right of
return means the following:
First,
the right of return not only breaches the Zionist composition and
structure, but also sets a ticking bomb inside the structure of
this composition which would certainly blow it up, or at least
blast its Zionist order and paralyze its ability to breach and
threaten the Arab and Islamic interests.
The entity known as "Israel" would not remain the same after the
return of the refuges. The return of millions of people to their
villages and lands would belie this entity's claim as to being the
democratic state of world Jewry. The ethnic trend that exists in
this entity- however- will lead it to a violent quake, and the
formidable military strength will lose its ability to determine
the power balance… in other words, Israel, cannot remain as it is…
it will be forced into many internal conflicts that would at least
guarantee the neutralization of its ability to threaten its
surrounding and the degradation of the Zionist majority to a
minority always subject to the self security factor…
We certainly believe that the disintegration of the Zionist
structure of this entity, or at least forcing into successive
internal crises, is liable to destroy its political fabric which
constitutes the "spearhead" in the western project that aims to
take the Arab and Islamic world to pieces.
Second,
the right of return would deal the recognition of the historical
and religious rights of the Hebrew state a blow, which may lead to
the fall of the land of Israel predicament.
The recognition of the Israelis entity, in its present form,
and in the course of the tumbling settlement, is considered an
unforgivable historic crime, because it formally recognizes these
alleged rights and invalidates claiming the Arab rights, at least
on the theoretical, legal and historical levels.
The return of the refugees to this land would actually blow over
the Jewish religious claims related to the land, because the
return of the virtual and legitimate land owners will refute these
allegations.
Third,
the return of the Palestinian refugees to their lands and
homes does not necessarily mean recognition of the legitimacy of
the existent entity. The individual and natural right of every
person to return to his land is a right which necessitates seeking
its achievement, notwithstanding the nature of the existent
political system. Certainly, the philosophy and political formula
on which the new state will be established is bound to be subject
to wide argument and discussion.
Fourth,
it is extremely important, in this respect, to assert that holding
on to the right of return can not be classified with certain
predicaments that bid on the spontaneous vanishing of the Zionist
entity, because such predicaments bet on the conflict inside the
Israeli social structure and render the Arab side neutral,
awaiting an illusion comes real such self destruction is not going
to happen, and these predicaments only reflect ignorance of the
nature of the existent entity. On the contrary, the right of
return enables the Arab side to enter the political, and not the
social structure, and to be an active party, positively and not on
the periphery. In other words, it is a different form of conflict,
linked- until this moment- to the predicament that accentuates the
value of the armed struggle and never seeks any other means to
wage this conflict.
The above mentioned argument has centered mainly on two points
extremely important for the Palestinian liberation project:
First:
Presenting this right of return as a political project not only
rebuilds Palestinian nationalism on a solid base and around a
divine cause of high priority, but also contributes to the
reassembling of what was dispersed as a result of the Zionist
aggression on the eve of 1948, and was latter established through
the Oslo negotiation process.
Second:
The right of return means sending the conflict with Zionists back
to the first checker: the struggle over the land and its rightful
owners, and breaking out of the vortex of profligate mini-
projects that dwarfed the Palestinian cause and turned it into a
case of self determination or a case of the Palestinian state and
the negotiations concerning the boundaries and qualities of this
state. This right of return brings back the conflict with the
Zionist project to the core of the fundamental issue on which it
had been based: the land, and the nature of the political entity
existent on the land of historical Palestine.
There is a third essential and important point other than the
last two, which is: bringing the Palestinian active work back to
the circle of live political action. This matter is extremely
delicate and sensitive and needs profound discussion:
The numerous political terms subject to a wide controversy inside
the Palestinian movement, with its various specters, the most
important of them are: "the political realism" and " mixing up
ends with means".
The first term (political realism) has created a great deal of
sensitivity in the Palestinian street, especially in the circles
of Islamic and leftwing movements, and the reason for this is
justifiable. This term has been awfully misused by the PLO's
leadership who tried to justify the Oslo agreement and the
following talks and agreements. The shallow political results and
gains made by the Palestinian authority – in return for great and
substantial concessions- played an essential role in arousing
resentment in the Palestinian street, in general, because of this
term which became a synonym to high treason in the Palestinian
conscious.
Unfortunately, however, the Palestinian opposition, with all its
partisan and popular forms, and all its Islamic and leftwing
specters, were unable to crystallize another formula which would
deprive the negotiators of their cards and expose them
politically. Perhaps there are certain justifications (sometimes
objective and subjective, sometimes acceptable, and often even
unjustifiable) behind these forces' inability to crystallize a
counter- formula, but the result is always the same. These forces
of opposition have reaffirmed and reiterated their basic and firm
position, and held on to a rhetoric that accentuates the
Palestinian people's high goals and axioms, without presenting an
opposite plan for political action. Also, these opposition forces
have settled with the continuous practicing of the resistant armed
struggle, in the absences of clear political plan, through the
political leadership were fully aware of the fact that no
political horizon loomed ahead.
However, this must not lead to mixing up ends and means, and it
is extremely important to use every possible way in resisting the
Zionist project, including martyr operations, in all the
Palestinian areas. Any talk about rationing the resistant action
is sheer absurdness. This resistance, after all, is a field
action. Thus, its field events that determine forms, limits, and
inhibitors. It should always be remembered that these operations
are not a goal in itself, but a mean of achieving specified
objectives. Furthermore, these operations should always be
governed by one specific and controlling criterion, which is
serving the political project that undertook achieving these
objectives.
Political realism does not –at any rate- justify the concessions
of Oslo. Political realism does not mean surrender. It means only
one thing: taking into consideration the international, regional,
national and organizational changes, in order to rewrite the
political rhetoric that maintains the same constants that it aims
at achieving. In addition, political realism never means dwarfing
the area of the Palestinian homeland to only 21% of its original
area, and principle positions never means granting means of action
exaggerated sanctity to make ends out of them.
In order to lose the idea in the middle of details, amid the
ongoing argument, we repeat and insist in an important suggestion:
all the Palestinian forces, especially the opposition, urgently
need to crystallize a Palestinian rhetoric firmly consistent with
its declared constants, while encouraging all struggle-activities,
including armed struggle and martyr operations, under the banner
of "The Palestinian right of return".
Political realism, as we understand it, is a mere tool of
analyzing the reality, and this tool leads us currently to the
following facts:
-
First
The slogan "liberating Palestine – whole Palestine-" is no more
politically and officially supported even by the closest friends
of the Palestinian cause on the international level. All the
regimes and political parties in the region are becoming fully
aware of the fact that waging a single comprehensive military
operation, from their territories, against the Zionist enemy,
would expose them to woes of ominous ramifications. Meanwhile,
every one has admitted- whether willingly or unwillingly- that the
solution is based on the existence of two states (despite many
deep doubts upon the solution's avail and chances of success).
However, no one on the official political level would oppose the
Palestinians' clinging to their right of return. True that no one
would allow practicing the military action in this case either,
but the power of political Palestinian and Arab maneuvering in the
face of international pressures would be much greater.
-
Second
Raising the banner of the "right of return", as a goal sought
after through martyr operations inside Palestine, would bring back
the discussion to the first checker. Instead of exposing these
operations to open discussion inside Palestine, this discussion
would become external, with Zionism and its allies, about the need
to put into effect the right of return, and no one ignores the
fact that this implementation would accomplish a quantitative
shift in the context of the conflict
-
Third
The right of return will mobilize all the resources of the
Palestinian people around a single project which everyone
understands its nationalist and subjective importance (on both the
national and individual levels).
Consequently, every person will be called to do his best, as much
as the circumstances of his presence allow him to, in order to
further his goal.
-
Fourth
Claiming
the right of return would remove, or at least mitigate some of the
tension between the Palestinian refugee camps in the host
countries, as much as between the regimes in more than one of
these countries. It would be obvious for the Palestinians to
request assistance from these regimes, with full coordination and
integration with them by all the possible means, in order to
achieve this goal.
The formula that we have just suggested- for the right of return-
can certainly preserve the unnegotiable Palestinian constants that
may never be relinquished:
-
Palestinian rightfully belongs to the Palestinians;
-
The geographical and political unity of the Palestinian people;
-
The return of all refugees to the lands they had ousted from (
Jerusalem- Al Quds);
-
The Aqsa mosque is an established and sanctified Palestinian
right;
-
The unlawfulness of the recognition of Israel's right to exist;
and
-
The rejection of the Zionist entity inform and substance.
Furthermore, this formula maintains the means of achieving these
goals and guarantees its support and enrichment with extra means
of perfection.
********
Top
But, what would happen otherwise?... how would things look like if
slackness prevailed and the right of return did not get what it
deserves of attention in the context of the struggle with the
Zionist enemy?... what result could one expect if the right of
return was freezed on the negotiating table or considered one of
the issues left for the final settlement, knowing that it would be
the solution finally decided by the power balance extremely tipped
against the interest of the Arab and Islamic nation in general and
the Palestinian people in particular?
Frightening obsessions prevails in the Palestinian "street"
regarding this subject, and the scenarios talked about this regard
are uncountable (it is the main issue in this essay). However,
with the commencement of every new round of the ill- boding
negotiation process, and with each round in which some agreement
soon, fears and obsessions pop up to the minds of Palestinians
everywhere, raising one question: how would the Palestinian
problem be brought out?... especially under the current regional
circumstances, with all those American troops amassing to attack
Iraq, while the Palestinian express concern for more than one
possibility, the most prominent of which is : the possibility that
the Zionist entity would seize the opportunity of the
international preoccupation with the war to carry out a massive
transfer operation that may include not only the steadfast
Palestinians in the "1948 areas", but also the Palestinians of
West bank and Gaza strip. There is a real concern that striking
Iraq would aim to gather the Palestinians in one place, and then
get rid of them al in Palestine.[iii]
These concerns were not the product of the American preparations
to strike Iraq since, over the years of the Arab- Zionist
conflict, many different international scenarios had been subject
to public discourse, the last of which was, for example, the offer
by the Canadian government, during the first months of the blessed
Aqsa uprising. These scenarios were not separate from the
international course, but rather, they were consistent with other
international initiatives.
The Zionist press closely follows up these initiatives and records
the angry reactions of the Palestinian street against them. Akiva
Eldar, the known journalist, reviewed in Ha'aretz the Canadian
initiative and the similar international schemes, analyzing the
reaction of the Palestinian street against it:
"… About ten days ago, another flag was burned down in Balata
refugee camp. But what has the Canadians done wrong to have their
flag trodden..?"
John Manley, the new Canadian prime minister declared in an
interview with the "Toronto star" daily that this government was
ready to absorb thousands of Palestinian refugees from Arab
countries and to support an international scheme to resettle the
refugees. Meanwhile, the Canadian president himself called up the
president of the Palestinian authority, Yasser Arafat (on the
phone) and promised that his government would help the refugees.
Canada absorbs about 200000 immigrants every year, and another
100000 immigrants will be added to this figure soon. The total
number of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, who suffer from the
most difficult situation compared to the rest of the refugees in
other countries, is no more than 300000. Unfortunately, the
Canadian newspaper published the news the same day Nablus
witnessed the ceremony of the Palestinians' "blood oath": that the
Palestinians would never relinquish their right of return.
Approximately at the same time, it was known in Australia that
the government in Canberra was in turn ready to absorb some of the
refugees, and it became wide spread that the Australian minister
of absorption Philip Radock had promised, during his visit to
Jordan, that his country will absorb refugees if such a move would
help in reaching an agreement between " Israel" and other
Palestinians.
However, the Zionist journalist Akiva Eldar sees that the
position of the Palestinian street is different from what the
representatives of the Palestinian authority say inside closed
negotiation rooms:
"… The United States, Switzerland and Germany, who had expressed
interest in the resettlement plans, warned against exasperating
the Palestinian parliament speaker Abu-Ala'a, who is now the head
of the Palestinian delegation to Taba. Recently Abu-Ala'a had
reacted strongly to the Canadian suggestion, calling for a halt in
paying lip-service and demanding that something useful be done for
the refugees. Abu Ala'a has declared that the Palestinian
authority was not ready even to consider the Canadian proposal,
demanding that Israel must first recognize the right of return,
and then the Palestinian authority would allow the world to
resolve the problem.
…. Inside the closed rooms of Hilton- Taba hotel, Abu Ala'a and
his colleagues were talking somehow differently… the impression of
the Israeli delegation is that the Palestinians understand that
the "Zero-Sum game" will end with victory for the right wing.
Instead of recognizing the right of return, Barak can rather save
the results of elections and hand the key to Sharon… that's why
the two sides are trying to overcome the right of return obstacle,
by a mysterious and vague formula that would allow everyone to
declare that the U.N resolution 194 has already been brought into
effect... in order to circumvent the accountability for the
tragedy obstacle, it was agreed, in principle, that a team of
historians would rewrite the whole story of the refugees since
1948, and the two sides would then adopt the resulting narration…"(13)
The final statement mentioned in the article was very important
and dangerous at the same time. It meant that the Zionist
government was insistent not only on avoiding any discussion of
the refugees' right of return, but also on forging the history
itself, through the fabrication of some kind of historical fiction
officially ratified by the Palestinian authority or any other side
that represents the Palestinians, which reveals how sensitive the
Zionists are to the issue of the right of return.
"The return", in itself, guarantees the destruction of the Zionist
entity by undermining the foundations on which the Zionist project
had been based in the first place. As for the right of return, it
poses –even in its theoretical framework- an actual threat to the
Zionist entity, which this entity can understand more than any
other side or state.
For more than five decades, the Zionists have been blackmailing
the European government and obliging them to pay tributes on the
plea of the holocaust. True that the present power balance
protects the Zionist entity and exempts it from paying the bill
for its crime against the Palestinian people. However, this entity
has been working hard to benefit from this stance, in terms of
fortifying its position with documents that may serve its
interests in the future by refuting any narration that would
contradict these interests. Here appears its need of a joint
narration of the Palestinian calamity, especially in relation to
the displacement of the refugees, accordingly, the Zionists
admission of accountability for the displacement of the refugees,
as a trap designed to extract an official Zionist admission of
accountability for the refugees' plight. From their own point of
view, the Palestinian side is playing the same "game of the
future", awaiting any change or tilt in the current power balance…
all temptations that may be offered in this regard would not make
it up for the Palestinians, including the idea of allowing the
actual return of only a limited number of refugees, or proposing
that the return will be to the Palestinian state and not the
Palestinian homeland.
Thus, the Zionist entity embarked –as usual- on fabricating lies
as to who is responsible for the displacement of the Palestinians.
These allegations have become well known and quite invalid for
many people, even inside the Zionist entity itself. Nevertheless,
the most adroit trick used by the Zionist entity in this respect
is the one based on the principle of reciprocation; that is:
portraying the problem as if the Zionist entity had also suffered
from displacement, as naturally is the case during wars!!... If
the entity had accepted this reality and worked for solving the
resulting problem, why could not the Arabs do the same and try to
solve the problem on their side?... If there were some people who
–at least- demand compensations for the harm suffered by the
Palestinians, then the same would be true for thousands of Jews
ousted by the Arab states and absorbed by the entity. In this
regard, Avelin Jordan; a wolf disguised in a lamb's costume, wrote
in Jerusalem post:
"… one can not but feel pity for the refugees who, by virtue of
their brethren's ruthless indifference, have lived in misery
throughout the past fifty years, and still do… however, this does
not grant them a right of return never granted to any refugee in
history…
The only fair solution to their problem is getting them absorbed
by the Arab world, especially by the nascent Palestinian state,
just as Israel have absorbed the Jewish refugees from all around
the world, since 1948…"(14)
In short, all the abovementioned serves to highlight a very
important two- dimensional idea:
-
First
That the Palestinian refugees' right to return to their land is
not really left to what is called the final stat negotiations,
because the whole world is preoccupied with the search for an
acceptable formula that can bring the two sides together around
this matter.
-
Second
The Zionist entity is in a desperate psychological need of an
agreement in this regard, because such an agreement makes a valid
and formal recognition not only of the Zionist entity, but also of
the claim that Palestine is the "land of Israel", and of the
legitimacy of the sane Zionist project and the relevance of its
positions since the beginning; which means that the whole matter
will turn into a case of demanding a price for every moment in
which this entity had forced any opposition, fighting and
resistance.
Top
The foundations on which the right of return is based
Some futile and weird argument is raised about the foundations
upon which the right of return is based, but also about the
methods that should be used in order to implement this right.
Every one accepts the return or insists on it, but some do not
want this return to come under the U.N resolution 194, and will
reject even it if it came in this course!!! Others insist on
defining the way of implementing this right. And refuse its
implementation unless by force, and after the abatement of the
Zionist entity!!!
However, if there were the slightest hope that the Zionist entity
will be nullified by force in the foreseeable political range or
may be we would just need same time to prepare for its removal by
military force, the right of return would not have been our main
subject here. Of course, we do believe that the Zionist entity
will seize to exist, not only a religious basis, but also on basic
historical, civilizational and philosophical grounds. The Zionist
entity is a factious entity imposed on the region by force and,
whenever the power balance changes, this entity will seize to
exist, despite the tremendous efforts made to naturalize its
existence.
The problem is not in the belief or disbelief in the demise of the
Zionist entity, but rather in the way of facing this entity,
during the political stage, when no one can ignore the fact that
the weakness of the bloc supposed to resist this entity has
reached unprecedented level… this issue in question is : how can
we –as Palestinian people- assume the duties of the present
historical moment, when leaving matters as they are indicates an
international drive towards the liquidation of the right of
return, as mentioned above?... who can tell for sure whether the
world's greatest power ( the United States) will remain as it is a
few decades from now?...
If self-evident-truths were our main concern here, then, no one
has the right to contradict the inevitability of this course.
Nevertheless, there is a great difference between self-evident
truths and demagogic notions: does anyone dare even to entertain
the idea that "Red Indians would come back to rule the United
States?" of course not… because red Indians have long been out of
history and out of existence.
The factors that have so far protected the Palestinian people
from being transformed into "Red Indians" are this people's
adhesion to its land, its readiness to sacrifice and its continued
resistance by all available means, supported by an Arab and
Islamic bloc that kept on aiding the Palestinian resistance even
in the worst times of its weakness. Hence, for the Palestinian
people, seizing to act is just like seizing to exist, and "action"
here means "resistance"- in all possible forms- toward achieving
the objectives that were subject to our lengthy elaborations in
this article. The substantial and crucial objective which can
protect the Palestinian people from assimilation pr disappearance
is to reshape as a real people on its same land, rather than being
absorbed in the camps or in any other entity, whatsoever, even if
this entity was called " the independent Palestinian state".
Thus, the Palestinian right of return is a sacred right, demanded
a part from any real or factitious discussion relating to the
basis of the right of return, or any talk about the approach
suitable for recovering this right. It is based only on the right
of return, and it constitutes a natural, fundamental and permanent
right that needs no justification or proof, while the Zionist
entity needed an international consensus and a resolution issued
by the U.N Security Council in order to become existent. Thus, all
possible means and methods should be used to recover the right of
return for whatever right it involves.
Such is the case in principle. On the operation level, however ,
and in terms of any political rhetoric, it is rightful, or even
obligatory, to demand the right of return and uses every available
proof, evidence and document – in conformity with the situation in
hand- to demonstrate this right . It is a firm right based on many
evidence and supporting sources:
1-
The fact that there are more than five million Palestinian
refugees dispersed inside Palestine and in the neighboring state
is something that can not be overlooked… and all the suggestions
presented in the framework of the negotiation process are unable
to circumvent this standing fact. Legally, the right of return is
a cherished individual right that no person or body or even a
Palestinian state, can ever relinquish, and any move that may be
considered an abandonment of this right should be deemed
individual, even in the perspective of the international law and
the human right charter.
2-
Most statistics and surveys have showed evidence of the
Palestinian peoples' strong adherence to its right to return to
historical Palestine (rather than to the Palestinian state). A
study published by the Palestinian human right center indicated
that more than eighty percent of the refugees in Jordan seriously
contemplate carrying arms in case the Palestinian state was
declared and they were not allowed to return to their homes
occupied in 1948. According to another recent study, about 200
Palestinians civil associations and organizations demanded the
implementation of the U.N resolution 194 during the past five
years (1995-2000).
3-
Under the resolution 194. The United Nations ratified the right
of return (as a precondition to accept the Zionist entity's
membership in this international body, in return for the entity's
recognition of the refugee's right of return and preparation
rather than: preparation "or" return).
4-
The U.N resolution 194 is ratification, rather than an initiation
of this right. Legally, the right of return is based on the fact
of its being a natural, rather than a vested right (a natural
right can never be established nor abolished by laws that can not
but ratify it).
5-
In its resolution no. 3232 ( 1974) , the united nations maintained
that the right of return is one of the inalienable humans right
and urged the member states to offer support- including arms- to
the Palestinian people , in order to attain these rights.
6-
The international parliamentary convention (1999) ratified the
refugees right of return, with the endorsement of all of the
participating countries, including the united states, while the
Zionist entity stood alone in its opposition ( to the
ratification).
7-
The right of return is religiously sacred: ((... Sanction is given
unto those who fight because they have been wronged, and Allah is
indeed able to give them victory; those who have been driven from
their homes unjustly…))
8-
Against this backdrop, the right of return serves as a symbol of
the ongoing conflict with the Zionist entity by all available
mean, including the armed struggle (according to the
abovementioned resolution no.3236).
Mechanisms aspired after in order to implement the right of return
1-
The main and essential condition to implement the right of return
is the reconstruction of the Palestinians refugees' social and
political fabric in all the host Arab countries, and the
crystallization of a rhetoric based on the right of return. This
precondition can never be fulfilled unless through the
establishment of substantive bonds between the Palestinian
opposition forces, on one side, and the political, educational and
public Palestinian elites on the other. Without such bands, this
present state of futility will remain prevalent. It is useful here
to mention that study and research centers can play a prominent
role in this process.
2-
Retrieving considerations to the Arab and Islamic dimension of the
Palestinian cause, whereas all governments, institutions,
associations and political parties would constitute a moral and
material state of support to the right of return, for the
quintessential dimensions to represents.
3-
The struggle for the right of return may take many forms, in
conformity with the current circumstances, including the armed
struggle inside occupied Palestine, as is the case today, but
under the title of "the right of return", supported by established
laws. At the same time, all Palestinian refugees in the countries
bordering the Zionist entity can rally in millions to the so
called international borders, refusing to retreat and insisting on
returning to their homes and lands.
*************
Top
Finally, same people raise the following question: "… do you agree
on returning to occupied Palestine with the consent of the
Zionists, to live under a Zionist government..."
First, it is impossible for the present political regime in
Palestine to remain unchanged in case the refugees were returned
home, because "Palestine under the Zionist project", as is the
case now, would not be the same as "Palestine under the Zionist
project plus the return of millions of refugees". Every thing
would change, including even the mode of government, which would
change immediately. It is impossible for the Zionist enterprise to
survive, except on the "land of Israel", which can not sustain any
race other than the pure Jewish race. The existence of any other
people or race means failure for the Zionist project, and the
return of the refuges mean the disappearance of this project,
immediately, rather on the medium or even short term.
Second, the return to Palestine is the goal… the ultimate goal…
at least currently. Any occupation of land is about to terminate
as long as people exist on this land. Conversely, peoples seize to
exist if and when driven from their lands and stopped their
political action. This is the important truth here.
For me, returning to my land is the important thing. As for the
nature of the political rule, it is a matter that could be decided
in time. It is not the Palestinian who should fear returning,
rather its Zionists who feel afraid whenever they hear of the
right of return.
Notes
1-
"The Arab Israeli Negotiations: 1919- 1949", the Arab center for
research and documentation, first edition, April 1992, p.8.
2-
Op.cit. p.9
3-
Op.cit.
4-
Op.cit.
5-
Op.cit.
6-
Dany Rubenstein, Ha'aretz, January 30, 2001.
7-
Daniel Pipes, Jerusalem post, August 30, 2000.
8-
See, for example, George w.paul & Douglas B. Paul, "America-
Israel: An Intimate Relation", translated by Muhammad Zakariya
Ismail, Beirut. Bissan for publishing and Circulation, firs
edition, 1994, p.56.
9-
Drur Yessini, Ma'ariv, January 10, 2001.
10-
Meitr Levischts, August 6, 2000.
11-
Gideon Sa'ar, Ma'ariv, August, 6,200.
12-
Benjamin Netanyahu, Yedio Ahronot, October 6, 2000.
13-
Akiva Eldar, Ha'aretz, January 25, 2001.
14-
Avelin Jordon, Jerusalem Post, January 16, 2001.
[i] Haled
Abu heat is a researcher specialized in Palestinian affairs.
[ii] A
document issued by the land registration office.
[iii] This
article was written before the invasion of Iraq by the US
forces.
|
