|
Back to
Opinions Page
The idea of
establishing a Zionist entity on the land of Palestine, endorsed in the
infamous Zionist Conference in Basel in 1897, was based on taking over
the land and expelling the native population – the Arab, Palestinian
people whose ancestry goes back to the Arab Canaanite tribes, who have
lived continuously in Palestine for over 4,000 years past. They were
replaced, after being forced out, by a flood of Zionist immigrants, on
the pretext that they were of the Jewish faith, in an attempt to exploit
the religious factor, as an incentive to uproot them from their
countries of origin all over the world, in what researchers termed
replacement, exterminating colonialism.
The plan was prepared
and put in motion over the course of the 50 years after the Basel
Conference, with the help of various parties, contributing to the
implementation of this principle in both its parts. The British Mandate
had the greater role in facilitating and moving this project to its
objective. The middle of May 1948 was registered as the official date on
which the crime of the century, without parallel, was announced; the
establishment of the Zionist racist state on roughly two-thirds of the
land of historic
Palestine.
This declaration was
accompanied by a systematic programme of expulsion and exile of 805,000
Palestinians from 531 cities, towns and villages. They were turned on
their faces to wander aimlessly all over the world; the majority settled
in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and neighbouring countries,
particularly Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon in the main. They were scattered
randomly in the official refugee camps looked after by the UN through
its arm, UNRWA, but also without forgetting those unofficial refugee
camps and centres, or those Palestinians not registered with UNRWA, who
were abroad at the time of the Nakba, or those who carried citizenship
of other countries, and so were not covered by UNRWA records and
therefore deprived of its provisions.
For a moment, the
Zionist politicians thought their success in expelling a large
proportion of Palestinians to behind the Green Line or outside the
borders of Palestine meant that their entity had begun to firmly take
root. This sentiment was expressed by the first foreign minister, Moshe
Sharet, in his letter dated 15 June 1948 to the president of the Zionist
Conference after the declaration of the establishment of the Jewish
state, in saying: expelling the Palestinians is considered the most
spectacular event in the modern history of Palestine, more important
than the creation of the state itself.
They had assumed
within the arrogant Zionist mindset that Western support for their
state, the waves of immigrants from close to 93 countries in the world,
their military might, the time factor coupled to the assurance of
continued Arab weakness and disunity, and with the Palestinians
geographically scattered, that they would forget about their issue. In
addition to a psychological factor, which was to assume that the
Palestinians were like themselves, in terms of their weak ties to the
new land and not having any affinity worth sacrificing for, other than
financial and the ideal of easy living in Palestine (demonstrated by the
successive waves of outward migration from the Zionist state during the
Palestinian Intifadahs). Based on all this, the page would be turned on
the Palestinian people and the land would be clear for the newcomers.
It is evident that
the strategic situation on the Israeli side after almost six decades is
not as rosy as Ben Gurion thought when he read out the declaration of
the establishment of the state of aggression. The refugees remained the
greater cause of anxiety and sleepless nights for those who had expelled
them from their homes and villages in Palestine. The main ingredients
relating to the totality of the refugee issue remain greater than can be
dealt with by the Zionist leaders and their supporters. In vain, they
tried to undo the knots that strengthened the rope that holds together
the Palestinian people’s resolve on the right of return. The letter by
Bush to the Prime Minister of the Zionist state, Ariel Sharon,
concerning the right of return, in what has become known as the new
Balfour promise, is considered one of these attempts. In the same line
of thought,
Israel
and the US continued their drive to gain the support of “individuals”,
supposedly from the Palestinian people, in order to cast doubt on the
Palestinians’ interest in return. This must be considered as a clear
sign of desperation to overcome the issue of Palestinian refugees and
their right to return.
This reinforces the
view that the Palestinian refugee issue has become a branched thorn with
which it is impossible to swallow
Palestine,
in spite of the priority it has had for Israeli strategists over the
past decades. We do not exaggerate in saying that the Palestinian
refugees were one of the most important factors in establishing the
state of instability on the Israeli side throughout it existence. Was it
not the womb of the refugee camps that gave birth to the PLO! That on
its own is enough for the Israelis to choke on.
The preservation of
the Palestinian refugees, indeed the entire Palestinian people, of their
identity and bond with their land during the periods of struggle was the
greater and more potent factor in keeping the cause alive and its
transmission from generation to generation, with growing awareness of
the inevitability of return to Palestine however long it takes.
It is only fair to
document the role of the PLO in preserving Palestinian national identity
in its early beginnings and later with the joining of its ranks by the
Palestinian resistance factions. This period contributed to the Arab
people establishing a tie to Palestine, without ignoring the Pan-Arab
nationalism prevailing in the region.
The factor of
religion also helped in maintaining the state of alertness in the psyche
of the Palestinians and their strong bond to their cause. This cannot be
discounted or ignored from the perspective of its importance as a common
bond for Muslims in Palestine, but also exceeds to include the Arabs and
Muslim peoples globally. This factor alone is sufficient to ensure
failure of the greatest Zionist plans, however cunning its strategists
or limitless the support received from the US or western countries. Here
we refer to history, where the 90 years of Crusader occupation of
Palestine did not prevent Saladin, a Muslim of Kurdish origin to strive
to liberate Palestine.
This nationalist and
Islamic dimension of the issue, on the one hand, and the justice of the
cause in the human conscience have become the nightmare that upsets the
sleep of the Zionists, especially after the issue took on an
international dimension, in the efforts of those who believe in the
freedom of peoples, and rejection of injustice visited upon the
oppressed of the world.
It is ironic that the
Israeli politicians were amongst the leading contributors to the
evolution of Palestinian identity, naturally unintentionally, and with
glaring stupidity. They have ably managed to create an environment of
mass attraction for the Palestinian people towards
Palestine
through the continued oppression of the Palestinians and attempts to
dehumanize them. This was not restricted to those Palestinians who
remained in historic Palestine; the West Bank, Gaza and the lands of
1948, but went beyond these to all parts of the world, where they are
present and smearing them as “terrorists”, fabricating crimes to create
the perception that “Palestinian terrorism” fills the world. Here we
recall the story of Samar Al-Alami and Jawad Al-Batma. Both fell victims
of this in the alleged incident at the Israeli embassy in
London
in the mid 1990s. They were imprisoned in British jails for a crime they
did not commit. In the previous Intifadah, the feeling of national
identity among Palestinians in Palestine and abroad was strengthened.
The relationship has become directly proportional between the increase
in Zionist violence and terrorism from one side, and the feeling of
belonging to the homeland on the Palestinian side. The latter have,
moreover, managed to rise above their differences in the face of the
common Zionist enemy.
The legal and
judicial dimension of the refugee issue is a factor of relative strength
in the face of the Zionist-American attack on the Palestinian right of
return. In politics, it is impossible for any party in any conflict,
however different the conditions and details, and however powerful, to
hold all the winning cards. Moreover, that there must be loss in one
aspect in order to achieve gains in another, whichever is greater in the
political balance.
This was on some
aspects of the conflict in
Palestine,
where the acceptance of the Jewish state in the international community
was conditional on its implementation of UN Resolution No. 194, which
requires facilitating the immediate return of the Palestinian refugees
to their homes from which they had been expelled as quickly as possible.
This resolution is not an exception, as there is what is more potent,
and had preceded it, that is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
of 1948, which stated the right of return as one of its principles.
Article 13, paragraph
2 reads “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own,
and to return to his country”. Article 30 of the Declaration came to
stand in the way of the Zionist state and the USA, which uses its Veto
to prevent some of these Resolutions from being passed. The article
states: “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for
any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to
perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and
freedoms set forth herein”. The UN has passed no less than 30
Resolutions that affirm the right of return. What causes a legal problem
for the Israelis is the individual and collective nature of the right of
return. In so far that it is an individual right, it cannot be delegated
to someone else or proxies. In the collective context no person can
surrender an individual right that affects the right of the public in
what can be likened to national security with states.
Notwithstanding,
there was an Israeli attempt to corner the Palestinian side through the
Oslo Accords with the aim of circumventing the right of return and
getting the signature of the Palestinian leadership. These fraudulent
overtures were however foiled. The Palestinian people lifted the cover
off the Oslo group by staging the Aqsa Intifadah. This was a clear
declaration that the time of monopoly and secret agreements had passed.
This does not mean the end of Israeli attempts or that there will not be
individuals from the Palestinian people of unsound character who profess
loyalty to the cause but demonstrate startling naivety in the name of
realism.
On another level, the
Israelis try to evade their responsibility for the Palestinian refugee
problem by arguing there was a population exchange between the Jews who
left their arab homes to settle in
Israel
and the Palestinians who were expelled. This claim was the highlight of
a conference organized by a British Zionist organisation in
London
a few months ago. Before its closure the Zayed Centre for Studies also
highlighted this issue in a conference in which several notable papers
were presented by authoritative scholars and experts on the subject.
The Israeli account
states that a long time has passed since the war of 1948, that the world
cannot turn the clock back sixty years and that facts on the ground had
changed irrevocably any possibility of return. At the same time, Israel
allows itself the luxury of promoting Jewish migration to Palestine
based on the religious pretext of a Biblical return to the Promised
Land, after 3000 thousand years in the Diaspora. It passed a law in
1952, titled the Israeli Law of Return, at the expense of the native
owners of the land, the Palestinians. Here we highlight the efforts of
Palestinian organisations in shedding light on the Israeli Law of
Return, in particular the conference by the Palestinian Return Centre at
the University of
London
in 2002 under the patronage of the Secretary General of the Arab League,
which dealt with the Israeli law and its impact on the conflict in
Palestine.
Hundreds of Israeli
attempts, backed by millions of dollars from Zionist supporters the
world over have failed to force the Palestinians sell off their land.
The Palestinians to this day legally own 94% of historic Palestine over
and above sovereign possession, considering that Palestine, all of
Palestine, is the national home of the Palestinian Arab people. The
Palestinians, Muslims and Christians, prohibit the sale of land. A
recent edict affirming this was highlighted by the Chief Justice of
Palestine Sheikh Taysir Al-Tameemi and Archbishop Dr. Father Ata Allah
Hana in their speeches to the 3rd Conference of Palestinians in Europe,
held in Vienna [May 2005]. They both endorsed the national campaign by
the Palestinian Christians from the Orthodox Church to oust Patriarch
Irenius I after the scandal of the secret sale of two buildings
comprising hotels close to the Yafa Gate in the old city of
Jerusalem
to Jewish businessmen. The campaign itself reached its climax with the
decision by the Council of the Roman Orthodox Church to remove the
Patriarch from office, as an example to others. If the Israelis were to
take heed, they would realize that the Palestinian refugees are resolved
to hold onto their rights and possessions, despite their suffering and
dire conditions.
The Palestinians
living in the lands of 1948 have played a remarkable part preserving the
right of the Palestinian people to return. The Israelis had practiced a
policy of completely denying their identity during the period 1948 to
1967 in an attempt to “Israelize” them, and cut them off from their
brethren in Palestine and the rest of the world. Once more the
Palestinians have proven stronger than their tormentors in holding on to
their right. The Palestinian Arabs of 1948 Palestine have demonstrated
exemplary steadfastness in supporting their brethren and preserving
their rights and sacred places. The
high point
of this was when they gave 13 martyrs at the beginning of the Aqsa
Intifadah in a show of unity. The killings were also an Israeli signal
that they made no distinction between Palestinians even if they carried
Israeli citizenship. The author cites here the example of Sheikh Raed
Salah who languishes in the jail of the Occupation, for no crime other
than his solidarity with his brothers in defending Al-Aqsa Mosque.
Likewise is the case of Dr ‘Azmi Bishara who tours the world demolishing
the myth of democracy in the state of Israel. The Palestinian Arabs from
the so-called unrecognized villages share the same deprivations as the
inhabitants of Balata Camp in
Nablus,
Rafah in the Gaza Strip, Al-Nayrab in
Syria
and Gaza camp in Jordan. All are in the same boat.
Such that the
Palestinian scene is complete, the Palestinians in the Diaspora, whether
in Europe, or the Americas, have proven to be an inseparable part of the
one Palestinian people. The tens of Return Committees spread all over
the world, the conferences of Palestinians in Europe held in these past
years, most recently the Vienna conference in which over 2500
Palestinians of all ages came together over the course of an entire day,
all agreeing on practical programmes, dividing themselves into workshops
of dialogue and discussion, complete with the marked presence of
Austrian officials and producing the Vienna Declaration of Adherence to
the Right of Return.
It remains to be said
that the coming years mark the beginning of the Palestinian epoch and
Palestinian success. What we have presented proves that the Zionist
project on the land of Palestine has begun to fall apart and the morrow
is close to the one who awaits it. |
