60 Days in Palestine: The Indigenous Ghettos Win Vs Israeli Apartheid Regime Cracks

August 12, 2021

Daniel Lobato

Source: Al Mayadeen

The events of those 60 days have shown a new scenario in the historical stage of Palestine under apartheid.

Between April 12 (beginning of Ramadan) and June 13 (the establishment of the Israeli Government) we have witnessed a small chapter in the story of 100 years of war on Palestine. The events of those 60 days have shown a new scenario in the historical stage of Palestine under apartheid.

There seems to be no way to differentiate these events of 2021 of those from 2014, 2012 or 2008 if you just list the facts: 250 Palestinians in Gaza were killed, including 67 children and 2000 injured; 11 Israelis were killed and 1000 Palestinians arrested.

And again this scenario was coinciding with a political crisis in Tel Aviv after 4 elections in two years, and the coming threats of a fifth election; another election campaign of repression and massacres, as an Israeli MP denounced on CNN

However, many changes have been in sight even if the beginning was similar to other conflict escalations.

On April 12, “Israel” permitted several ‘goodwill gestures’ at the start of Ramadan with a brightly lit Tel Aviv: “Happy Ramadan to our residents and friends”. 21% of “Israel’s” citizens are native Palestinians, most of them Muslim, and in that message their state was alienating them: for almost 2 million of its indigenous citizens, their “state” called them “residents”. “Israel” applies 65 segregation laws to them and furthermore sent them this poisoned greeting by downgrading their citizenship to a “residency” of outsiders in their own land. Alongside this, Tel Aviv deployed its armed forces to intensify repression in Jerusalem as soon as Ramadan arrived.

The Battle of Damascus Gate

In the first days of Ramadan, Israeli forces charged to clear the steps of Damascus Gate and cut off electricity to the Al Aqsa Mosque. It prevented the popular evening food distribution that celebrates the end of the daily fast. In addition, in Al-Quds without tourists, “Israel” sought further militarization of the Damascus Gate and Al-Aqsa Mosque by besieging the place with barriers and metal detectors. This battle was already lost by “Israel” in 2017 when it tried to cage Al Aqsa mosque and went so far to close it as a sign of pressure. “Israel” tried again in April 2021, the police crackdown was joined by groups of Israelis going around “Jerusalem” shouting “death to Arabs” and lynching with impunity any Palestinian they encounter. As the days passed, such Israeli mobs were repeated in Al-Quds and other cities beating and murdering Palestinians. “Israel” funds racist marches of this kind with more money every year.

As in 2017, the battle of Damascus Gate resulted in a small Palestinian victory, however, the battle of Al-Aqsa evolved into another dimension.

The Battle of Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan

Israeli courts have no legal competence to determine private property in a militarily occupied territory. Despite this, in a decades-old farce of a judicial process, its judges ruled that the Palestinian neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah in “Jerusalem” must be vacated by May 2, 2021, and handed over to a settler organization. This organization promised to take over the entire neighborhood and expel all Palestinians. This act of dispossession has been the Israeli DNA: in 1948, European settlers owned only 6% of the land in Palestine while 94% belonged to the natives. Today the natives own only 3% of the land inside “Israel”. Dispossession continues in the West Bank and Al-Quds with the natives confined in disconnected ghettos. As one US settler said to the Palestinian Mona el Kurd:  “if I don’t steal it, someone else is going to steal it”. This settler was fleeing his crimes in the US by adopting a fraudulent Jewish identity in order to obtain the prize of a free Palestinian house. In Sheikh Jarrah, harsh police repression included spraying toxic water and tear gas inside homes and Palestinians were threatened by the Israeli deputy mayor of Jerusalem.

Emptying Sheikh Jarrah of Palestinians is important for “Israel” because it allows it to connect illegal settlements. Just as the Spanish railway company CAF does in “Jerusalem”: connecting with its tramway the colonies in occupied territory and extending apartheid Made in Spain in Palestine.

Another Palestinian neighborhood in Al-Quds, Al Bustan, has a demolition order from the Israeli municipality, knowing that “Israel” has no legitimacy and destroys the IV Geneva Convention. In Al Bustan 1500 natives, 60% children, will be dispossessed under disguises of legalism. Ethnic cleansing against the natives (“temporary residents”) is camouflaged by sophisticated judicial, electoral, administrative, town planning, archaeological, religious and economic strategies. The aim is to eliminate all Palestinians, as in “West Jerusalem”, where the houses of the natives are still standing but occupied by Israeli settlers. The owners were thrown into refugee camps. This gives material reality to their mythology and their strategy of fraudulently Judaizing the city. Tourists strolling through the Old City of “Jerusalem” do not know that the Jewish Quarter is a fake. “Israel” erected it in 1968 after razing to the ground the historic Maghreb quarter built in the time of Saladin almost a thousand years ago.

The Israeli army, courts, settlers and bulldozers are always ready to act anywhere in the Palestinian territory. As in Beita, Nablus, where in just a few weeks the invaders have erected a city in the olive groves of the Palestinian people. Sometimes “Israel” gives up a colony in order to put the media spotlight there, and try to hide 73 years of dispossession of the natives.

The Battle of Al-Aqsa

In the midst of Ramadan when mosques are usually crowded, Israeli forces turned the esplanade into a theatre of war with repeated assaults day and nightinside the mosques. It is strategic for “Israel” to harass the mosques in order to provoke Muslim anger around the world. In this way, colonization would be disguised in the media as an unresolvable religious battle. In addition, Israeli groups demand the demolition of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in order to build a Jewish “Third Temple” in their place. 

This continued Israeli oppression of Al-Quds made Palestinian demonstrations explode throughout the territory. In cities within the Israeli state (Jaffa, Nazareth, Haifa, Lod, Acre or Uhm al Fahem), natives with Israeli citizenship lowered Tel Aviv flags and raised Palestinian banners. The Israeli mayor of Lod acknowledged that he had lost control of the situation and Netanyahu declared a state of emergency.

This united Palestinian revolt terrorized Israeli settler society and mobs lynched Palestinians with impunity.

The demonstrations showed the victory of the united native identity over the fragmentation sought by the Israeli government. The Western media also used submissive categories for Palestinians in “Israel”, such as desert Bedouin, Druze, Galilean Christians, Israeli Arabs, etc.

The Unity Intifada

This unitary revolt finally exploded with the  call for an indigenous general strike on May 18 for the three pieces into which historic Palestine is temporarily divided: “the state of Israel”, the West Bank ghettos and the Gaza ghetto. The call did not come from any political faction. It was youth and grassroots organizations from “Jerusalem” and “the state of Israel”. From Haifa to Galilee, Nablus or Gaza, there was a massive turnout. The whole of Palestinian society connected with its 1936 uprising against British and Zionist oppression, when native dispossession began with the arrival of European settlers. The Manifesto for Dignity and Hope swept across Palestine in those days expressing the significance of the reunification of Palestinian national consciousness. The physical separations and categorical prisons imposed by the colonial regime were destroyed: the prison of the West Bank ghettos, the prison of apartheid citizenship in the “Israeli state”, the prison of Gaza, and the prison of “Jerusalem”. It was set as a unitary goal to end all Zionist colonial structures.

The battle across Palestine

In the face of intense repression in “Jerusalem”, a warning was issued from Gaza on June 10 that rocket fire would begin. “Israel” ignored the warning and launched a large-scale operation against Gaza.

To describe these clashes as a war between “Israel” and “Hamas” is a manipulation. It is “Israel” against Gaza, or against Palestine. Why is a political party cited on only one side?

The Israeli operation “The Guardian of the Walls” announced the death of hundreds or thousands of people in the caged strip. It’s worthy of note that the two million people surviving in Gaza were stripped, crowded and locked up in that Israeli coastal prison.

Handcrafted rockets were pitted against a 21st century military technology for 10 days. The entire world’s media daily quantified the hundreds of rockets launched by the natives but never gave us the number of missiles and bombs dropped by “Israel”. 

“Israel” announced that it was going to step on the gas with its inhumane Dahiya doctrine of maximum devastation and disproportionate force on civilians. It consists of setting the attacked territory “back 20 years”, or even “to the stone age“. This military doctrine is part of the curriculum of Tel Aviv University, with which universities around the world partner rather than boycott. Following this strategy, “Israel” has sought to destroy as much of the infrastructure and economy of the Gaza ghetto as possible. When international donors once again funded the reconstruction of Gaza, the Israeli economy took a cut. Israeli destruction in Gaza included the only COVID laboratory, banks, shops, factories, bookstores, news agency buildings and hospital entrances.

Furthermore, “Israel” has repeated another doctrine started in 2014: intentionally eliminating entire families by bombing the house when the largest number of members are inside. Thus, four generations of the Al Qawlaq family with 21 members, from 90 years old to 6 months old, were exterminated. The survivor Shoukry Al Qawlaq listed his murdered family members for 33 seconds. The families Abu al Auf, Ashkontana, and up to 19 families were exterminated too. 

But unexpectedly within 10 days, Palestinians took over the situation. The Israeli regime thought that the Palestinian “residents” will be “leaving Gaza in complete silence“, to suddenly stopping with a ceasefire. “Israel” could have killed thousands of Palestinians as in 2008 or 2014 without accountability.

The Israeli military gives us the answer by frustratingly acknowledging that the quantity and technology of rockets from Gaza increases inexorably year after year despite the blockade on the strip. The myth of Israeli defenses (Iron Dome) collapsed when the number of rockets launched daily from Gaza quadrupled compared to 2014. Washington’s metropolis came to the rescue of its protectorate with two extra aid packages: one during the battle of $735 million in missiles, and another after the ceasefire of $1 billion to replenish “Israel’s” depleted defense system in just 10 days. Israeli estimates the rocket stockpile in Gaza for several months of continued fighting, with superior models not yet in use. 

Tel Aviv airport was closed for a week, compared to only a few hours in 2014. Eilat airport at more than 200km from Gaza also had to be closed. Israeli industrial facilities and ports were attacked and also closed. Attacks on Israeli cities and the death of 11 civilians instilled terror.

On the other hand, Israeli tanks and soldiers not only did not dare to enter the coastal prison, but did not even dare to approach the wall. A single Israeli soldier was killed by an anti-tank rocket fired from the Gaza ghetto. It was enough of a message for a specialized army in the repression and execution of civilians than in warfare.

Despite this evidence, the Israeli army issued its victory proclamation calling the 67 Palestinian children killed “neutralized terrorists”. But even the extremist Israeli media, which also called the Palestinian babies terrorists, were fearful for the future. Others assumed that the balance of power was shifting. Some media wondered what would happen if Lebanon were to join a joint action with Palestine in the future. The answer came from this Israeli analyst revealing the fear in the military leadership.

The meaning of the Palestinian victory by combining forms of resistance

“Israel” would have liked to be a liberal democracy like Australia or the US after having wiped out the indigenous people. Failing that, its fate will be the same as South Africa’s apartheid regime.

The indigenous demographic superiority (51%) over the settler society (49%) between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean has already been exceeded years ago and is increasing, not counting refugees from abroad, despite the ongoing ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, “Israel’s” 73-year effort to fragment Palestinian identity and territory has failed as the entire native society has been reunified in these two months of resistance.

Around the world there were massive demonstrations of solidarity that reveal the failure of Zionist lobbies and Western governments trying to suppress that support. In Madrid, thousands of people surpassed all expectations

The Palestinian victory on different fronts has generated multiple repercussions.

The price for the apartheid regime

The Israeli army dreams of an operation against Gaza to raze it and send the Palestinians to the Sinai desert. The reality is that this army no longer dares to approach the strip, and furthermore, it is not any more the 1948 era. “Israel” cannot expel or kill two million people. It can only reinforce the inhuman blockade, regularly bombing and killing in order to delay the inevitable fate as long as possible. 

It is the Israeli settler society that has been shocked by the message that its apartheid society and native ghettos have an end date, something its elites already knew. Israeli civilian casualties are “regrettable”, but the settler society must understand that the longer it sustains the regime the higher it will pay the price. The Palestinian defense killed 11 Israeli civilians in one week; in 2014 it was half that number in much longer. Israeli society has never lived under the terror and real death that it has imposed on the societies around it. Damascus and Syrian territory continue to be bombed by “Israel” on a regular basis. Lebanon’s civilians know that price. The new Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, when he was a commander ordered the massacre in 1996 of civilians sheltering in a UN building in the village of Qana, Lebanon. More than a hundred were hacked to death in their sleep, half of them women and children, and Bennett has always been proud of this. Civilians in Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and other countries have also paid a heavy price in the past.

Naftali Bennett was elected leader of the colonial government at the end of this 60-day cycle. For the first time “Israel” has needed to co-opt an indigenous opportunist to emerge from the political crisis  unleashed by rivalry between Zionist political clans. Two indigenous people of the same surname help sustain the crimes and apartheid: one in the Tel Aviv government, Mansour Abbas, and one inside the ghettos, Mahmoud Abbas. Also the South African Bantustan kinglets temporarily helped sustain the apartheid regime in Pretoria. This new government will be a continuation of the previous ones, because the engine is the same: to capture more land with less indigenous people and by whatever means necessary. But it will need more and more violence to achieve less and less results, with a higher and higher price to pay as Afrikaner society paid in South Africa.

The impact on the Western Metropolis

The Western powers are the colonial metropolis of the Israeli artefact. During this time they have recited “Israel’s” right to defend its apartheid regime. They put pressure on the indigenous colonial administration of Mahmoud Abbas (called Palestinian Authority) to suppress the revolts. The new normalizers of the apartheid regime (Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco) played no role in this crisis. The usual regimes (Jordan, Egypt and Qatar) were pressured to cooperate in suffocating protest and resistance. But the West has no options left. The EU has long been making initiatives to try to co-opt Hamas as the PLO did in 1991. Two years ago the EU removed Hamas from the European list of terrorist groups. Somehow the West seeks to bring Hamas to the table to accept a future of ghettos and apartheid in exchange for money. For this reason, a close ally of the US and EU, the Moroccan regime, invited the Hamas leader a few days after the ceasefire.

But the eternally promised and delayed future of ghettos and apartheid that is called the “Palestinian state” no longer exists. The West can continue to recite the leitmotiv of the “two-state solution” in international institutions and media. Palestinian reunification has buried the coffin containing that ancient corpse of two states.

The international impact

Mass demonstrations, articles, statements, direct actions against Israeli companies and the blockade of Israeli ships all over the world have continued to increase solidarity with Palestine.

In 1991, world solidarity with Palestine declined due to several factors: the fall of the USSR and the new world hegemony, the PLO negotiating with the apartheid regime in Tel Aviv while simultaneously the apartheid regime in Pretoria was collapsing, the forced revocation in the UN of its Resolution 3379 declaring Zionism as a racist ideology, the Oslo Accords, the creation of the indigenous colonial administration called Palestinian Authority, etc.

From 2004 and 2005, solidarity began to recover with the sentence of the Hague Court against the apartheid wall and the launching of the international boycott campaign against “Israel”, BDS.

Today, all over the world, the consensus on Israeli apartheid is spreading and its role as the colonizer of Palestine is being restored. “Israel” is losing the social and legal war despite the efforts of Israeli lobbies in many countries to silence criticism and gain legitimacy through repressive law fare.

The ICC proceedings will continue to move forward with only two paths: issue arrest warrants against Israeli leaders, or close the case by demonstrating that it is a Western court to prosecute only those whom the West decides. Both decisions will have many repercussions and both will damage “Israel” in the eyes of the world’s people.

Antonio Guterres deleted from the UN website in 2017 an internal report singling out “Israel” as an apartheid regime, but other reports are beginning to pile up, and even Western governments are timidly beginning to use the term

It will become the norm to describe “Israel” as an apartheid regime with varying degrees of oppression against the native Palestinians, depending on where they are.

In the war dimension, the victory of the Palestinians against the Israeli nuclear regime’s army also has resonances in the region. The vulnerability of settler society has been exposed. It is no coincidence that a few days after the Gaza ghetto victory, and a Palestinian military spokesman’s thanks to Iran, Antony Blinken said that the US will maintain hundreds of sanctions against Iran, regardless of what happens to the Nuclear Deal. In other words, the Nuclear Deal will not survive because Iran will not agree to add new concessions, whether to its missiles or its relationship with its allies.

The impact on Palestinian society

We have already seen some of the meanings of this 60-day process for Palestinian society.

Internationally, the Palestinian Authority has been further exposed as a subordinate Department of Indigenous Affairs of the West and “Israel”. Mahmoud Abbas dares not accuse the apartheid regime of the crime of apartheid. Its main function is to exercise subcontracted repression, with mass arrests or assassination of grassroots activists. The Palestinian Authority leadership operates in the midst of political and economic corruption, and will do anything to perpetuate itself and sustain the colonial structure. In the midst of these 60 days, Abbas cancelled the theatre of a supposed election because of the risk of someone else taking his seat. But his days as the indigenous governor of the ghetto are about to end, and not only because of his age. After his outrageous repression of the Palestinians, the West is hypocritically condemning Abbas while deciding on his replacement. Abbas will not be honored by the West despite having played his mandated role in stifling Palestinian rights. 

At the end of this 60-day period, on June 12, the Palestinian Polling Centre conducted one of its regular polls. 80% of Palestinians said that Gaza had won the confrontation with “Israel”. They rated each focus of insurrection and resistance positively: 89% approved of the actions of Palestinians in “Jerusalem”, 86% supported the protests of Palestinian citizens of “Israel” and 77% supported the armed resistance of Palestinians in Gaza. The tiny number of Palestinians who support the Palestinian Authority (11%) and Abbas (8%) represent the privileged class that lives by it.

The Palestinian writer murdered by “Israel”, Ghassan Kanafani, warned that one of the enemies of the Palestinian people is the indigenous oligarchies.

The Palestinian people have been reunified but have no political subject in the form of a new national liberation movement. The PLO committed suicide in 1991. Next October marks the 30th anniversary of the fateful Madrid Conference that led to the Oslo Accords. Coinciding with that date, a first attempt will be made to launch a new Palestinian national movement to break with Oslo and apartheid: the alternative route, Masar Badil. Sooner or later a new Palestinian movement will be born.

We in the West have forgotten many lessons. One is that when a people is determined to be free it will apply the maximum of its own suffering during its struggle, however unfavorable it may be to the hostility of the oppressor. 

A fraudulent consensus has been installed in the West, by an ego of white saviors, that only the boycott ended apartheid in South Africa. This is coupled with revisionism of Nelson Mandela and other indigenous South African leaders. In the 1960s, the African National Congress decided to respond to the massacres of the Pretoria regime with armed struggle. To this end it created an autonomous armed wing, Umkhonto weSizwe (MK). Indigenous armed self-defense has been indispensable in decolonization struggles, as it was in South Africa. Colonial societies or occupying entities have paid a price in physical insecurity, as in Algeria or Vietnam. Israeli society knows that the price to be paid will be higher and higher.

Palestine solidarity organizations and the boycott movement do not have to try to appease the West or conform to the frameworks of legitimacy that the West designs. In the face of the criminalization of indigenous resistance in any form, declaring the boycott movement terrorist, or armed self-defense, international legality must be remembered. Especially the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or Resolution 3070: “The General Assembly reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples to free themselves from foreign colonial domination by all possible means, including armed struggle”.The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

The Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination under “Israel’s” Colonial Occupation

Visual search query image

July 29, 2021

Source: Al Mayadeen

Afreen Rizvi

From Palestine and South Africa to the Americas and Australia, settler-colonists [have] violently fought to prevent the indigenous people, that were colonised, from fighting for liberation.

Visual search query image

This article explores Palestine’s right to self-determination under “Israel’s” illegal occupation. This paper seeks to demonstrate that since the Balfour Declaration that was issued by the British Government in 1917, there have been politically driven strategies deployed to gradually liquidate the Palestinian people. The indigenous people of Palestine have been faced with systematic persecution, apartheid policies and brutal occupation; as such, it is submitted that the Palestinian people must be able to exercise their right to self-determination. I will begin with a discussion on self-determination as a right before outlining the historical background of the “Israel”-Palestine issue, and the political allyship of each entity apart. 

Self-Determination in International Law

The principle of self-determination, as it is understood today, evolved from a principle to a right, triggering much debate over the years. It denotes the legal right to peoples to decide their own destiny in the context of international order.[1]There are two aspects to self-determination: internal and external. Internal self-determination is the right of the people to govern themselves without any other interference, this includes the independence to freely choose their own political, economic and social system.[2] External self-determination on the other hand is the right for peoples to determine their own status politically – this allows the establishment of an independent state. After the First World War, and specifically after his famous “Fourteen Points” speech, US President Woodrow Wilson declared that, “Peoples may not be dominated and governed only by their own consent. ‘Self-determination’ is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril.”[3] The right of self-determination was introduced to the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in 1960, and subsequently adopted by the UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 in the same year. Additionally, the UN Charter stated that one of the purposes of the United Nations was “respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.”[4] Upon adopting the Declaration of Decolonisation, the UN underlined the necessity of ending colonialism and through this declared, inter alia, that the right to self-determination was not limited. 

It is important to note that the right of self-determination has been cited extensively by the UN assembly, Security Council, and is enshrined in various treaties as well as in decisions made by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The following excerpt from the aforementioned declaration was subsequently introduced in Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) providing a detailed legal definition of self-determination, and this definition is used in various international and national treaties and documents.[5]

“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.” 

It is widely accepted that the right of self-determination is applicable to “peoples” in colonial territories, as well as others who do not fall in the category of being colonised or oppressed, the only difference is they have to exercise their rights internally. The right of self-determination is no longer limited to the conventional colonial independence scenarios, such that various ethnic and cultural groups of people within different states effectively rely on the right of self-determination in order to declare their independence.[6] A common argument often presented against the right of self-determination is that the principle of territorial integrity in relation to states is challenged by the principle of self-determination – as it is the will of the people that fundamentally leads to the legitimacy of a state. This indicates that people are not only free to choose their state but also their territorial boundaries. However, in accordance with the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the United Nations and International Court of Justice demonstrated that there is no contradiction between territorial integrity and the right of self-determination.[7] In that context, it is necessary to add that Koskenneimi argued that “It is doubtful whether the statement of principle was intended to be taken literally… its revolutionary potential was tempered by the Final Acts strong emphasis on territorial integrity.”[8]

In the context of Palestinian self-determination, I submit that “Israel” is a colonial entity that has occupied Palestinian territory; thus, the Palestinian people must be able to exercise this right. It is imperative to note that under international law, only groups categorized as “peoples” have the right to self-determination. The interpretation of “peoples”, however, continues to cause confusion. For example, one may question do all “peoples” need to share one ethnicity or location? If so, where would be the place that gathers people who are a part of multi-ethnic states? With regard to Palestinians, “Israel” has already officially accepted the existence of the “Palestinian peoples” in the Camp David Accords signed with Egypt in the year 1978.[9]

Moreover, it is argued that the right of self-determination can heavily disrupt the essence of peace, such that political communities may resort to force if their demands are not met.[10] Violence was also exhibited in the case of Nigeria after the British authorities recognized three main groups, Igbos, Hausa-Fulani and Yoruba. These groups were legally recognized after seeking independence. These minority groups were effectively excluded from the political sphere and the impact of this devolution caused further ethnic divide and political strife[11]. It is claimed that the violence that erupted between 1965-1967 with Nigerians and Biafrans signified that exercising the right of self-determination leads to political and ethnic turmoil.[12] 

In response to this argument, it is contended that despite self-determination struggles usually portrayed as violent and brutal measures, people should still have the freedom to exercise this fundamental right. It is important to understand that colonial settlers aggressively battled to preserve their right of conquest as their own right to self-determination. Till present day, “Israel” has committed war crimes, most notably in Gaza. From Palestine and South Africa to the Americas and Australia, settler-colonists [have] violently fought to prevent the indigenous people, that were colonised, from fighting for liberation, thus the argument that self-determination leads to violence and brutality does not hold much weight in this context considering it is no different to the measures taken by colonising entities.[13] Further to this, in the past, the UN has failed to sustain peace even with states that exercised their right to self-determination, as noticed with the case of Cyprus.[14] Conflicts among states exist irrespective of self-determination, therefore the premise of this argument is incorrect. It may be more suitable to look beyond the UN paradigm if we ought to find lasting solutions to such conflicts.

The Palestine-Israel Conflict

In order to better understand the Israel-Palestine conflict, it is necessary to present the issue within the historical framework of decolonisation struggles. Historically, the world has witnessed decolonisation struggles beginning with violence as a result of a people being denied independence and liberation by the colonising entity. The Palestinian struggle against the Zionist ethnonationalist entity has lasted since the 20th century; the story of Palestine is on political independence, liberation, and putting an end to the apartheid Israeli regime. Whilst Zionists argue that “Israel” has a historic right to Palestinian land, it is imperative to note that had it not been for the involvement of European imperial powers, most notably Britain, there would have not been any creation of “Israel”. In November 1917, Britain the de facto ruler of Palestine, issued the Balfour Declaration. The eighty-word statement by Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour announced support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. 

In 1922, five years after the Balfour Declaration, the “League of Nations” approved the British Mandate for Palestine and the establishment of a “Jewish homeland.” The decision of the mandate did not consider the will of the Palestinian people or their fundamental rights. Between 1939 and 1949, there were a series of mass protests that took place against Jewish immigration to Palestine as well as armed Zionist groups launching attacks against the indigenous people of Palestine[15]. It is necessary to note that in 1947, the UN adopted Resolution 181, a partition plan for Palestine which was subsequently rejected by the Palestinians. The UN General Assemblies plan was to partition Palestine between the native Palestinians and the Jewish colonial settlers. Throughout 1948-1949, the Palestinians were attacked by Zionist forces. Villages and hotels were bombed near Haifa demonstrating early signs of ethnic cleansing. In April 1948, one month before the State of “Israel” was created, Zionist forces massacred over 100 250 Palestinians in the city of Deir Yassin[16] which is in close proximity to Jerusalem. In December of 1948[17], the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194 which allowed the right of return of Palestinian refugees. This is a brief explanation of how the state of “Israel” came into existence. In 1974, Yasser Arafat, a Palestinian Political leader stated:

“The [UN] General Assembly partitioned what it had no right to divide – an indivisible homeland.”

“Israel” consistently and tactically made use of Occupation Law to further acquire Palestinian land whilst simultaneously arbitrarily arresting and targeting Palestinian people through the use of apartheid policies. It is argued that “Israel” has used UNSC Resolution 242 to justify and legitimate these actions through “political framework shaped by U.S intervention”[18] as mentioned by Noura Erakat, a human rights attorney and Palestinian activist. Erakat claims that the Occupation Law failing to regulate Palestinian territories effectively, is a result of a political, not a legal contest. It is asserted that “Israel’s” argument that the Palestinian territories are simply under their administration, would hold no weight were it not for the political powers involved in the region. 

Furthermore, it is also argued that the United States has favoured “Israel” to such an extent that the US dismisses “Israel’s” violation of international law and allows the state to carry out war crimes without facing any repercussions besides blanket statements. As a result of the Occupation Law that “Israel” takes advantage of, Palestinian territories remain occupied, Palestinian people are systematically being ethnically cleansed[19], and their fundamental rights such as the freedom of movement are infringed.

The Human Rights Watch published a report in April 2021, in which it was made very clear that for the past 54 years, Israeli authorities have transferred Jewish Israeli’s to the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OTP) and “granted them a superior status under the law as compared to Palestinians living in the same territory when it comes to civil rights, access to land, and freedom to move, build, and confer residency rights to close relatives.”[20] In 1970, the General Assembly Resolution 2625 added that “Every state has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provision of the charter.” Therefore, “Israel” and the international community as a whole should not be denying the Palestinians their right to self-determination. Palestine should be able to manage its own affairs without the interference of external and colonial entities. It is important to understand that the Palestinian people have witnessed the occupation of their lands, forced expulsions to neighbouring lands, military bombardment, and erasure of their identity. As such, the struggle for independence and self-determination should be welcomed by all. 

Ali Abunimah, a policy adviser, argues that self-determination “must return to the center of the Palestinian struggle”[21]. To add, Abunimah asserts that the Palestinian right to self-determination can indeed be compatible with the coexistence of Jews. It is claimed that the United States has a long history of deciding the fate of the Palestinian people. For instance, as per the Clinton Parameters, “Israel” would get “Jewish neighbourhoods” and the Palestinians would get “Arab neighbourhoods”. In hindsight, this meant that “Israel” would be allowed to keep the land it has colonised and annexed since 1967, and the people of Palestine would be able to have what is left – which Israeli occupation forces and settlers continue to annex and occupy till today. America’s “peace process” has allowed “Israel” to aggressively maintain their illegal occupation of the Palestinian people.[22] 

Professor Noam Chomsky in his book ‘On Palestine’[23] highlights that “Israel’s” policies are directly connected to the Zionist ideology that “both aim to establish a Jewish state by taking over as much of historical Palestine as possible and leaving in it as few Palestinians as possible.” Chomsky, a Jewish historian and activist, further claims that the international community has “never condemned” the Israeli entity which led to the enormous expulsion of 750,000 people and the destruction of hundreds of villages and towns. In addition to this, Chomsky states that “ethnic cleansing has become the DNA of Israeli Jewish society.” Erasing the Palestinian land and people should be enough of a reason for the remaining people of Palestine to exercise their right to self-determination. There are distinct similarities between Palestine and the apartheid in South Africa. The Israeli Knesset authorises legislation that separates, segregates, and discriminates against the Palestinians. A recent report by Human Rights Watch also backs up this claim:

“Israeli authorities methodically privilege Jewish Israelis and discriminate against Palestinians. Laws, policies, and statements by leading Israeli officials make plain that the objective of maintaining Jewish Israeli control over demographics, political power, and land has long guided government policy.”[24]

The United States of America remains a close ally of “Israel”. The U.S provides financial and military support to “Israel” which has been used criticised by several human rights agencies as this funding is used to perpetrate human rights abuses against the Palestinians, particularly in the Gaza Strip. In the Ten-Year Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and “Israel”, $38 billion has been promised to “Israel” from the U.S beginning in 2016.[25] This includes $3.3 billion in Foreign Military financing and $500 million for missile defence programs. Several U.S politicians declare their support for “Israel” and do not shy away from mentioning “Israel has every right to defend itself” despite the fact that it is “Israel” that is committing heinous crimes against the Palestinian people. As mentioned by Chomsky, as a result of political power and close relationship with the U.S, “Israel” has been able to act with impunity since 1948. The U.S also has a history of blocking UN resolutions[26] against “Israel”. According to UN data, since 1972, the US has vetoed at least 53 United Nations Security Council resolutions that are critical of “Israel”[27]. 

Contrastingly, Palestine does not have such strong allies. Palestinian resistance leaders have announced receiving military and financial support from the Islamic Republic of Iran; however, I submit that as Iran is a sanctioned country, the support offered to Palestine may not be as much as the support offered by the U.S and the UK to “Israel”. The UK has consistently and repeatedly sold arms to “Israel” despite its illegal occupation of Palestine.[28]

In conclusion, the people of Palestine have every right to self-determination, and this can be understood just by investigating the crimes perpetrated by “Israel” against the Palestinians, and the systematic oppression they have faced as a people. Since 1969, the General Assembly has recognised the “inalienable rights of the people of Palestine”[29] In 1974, member states of the UN worked to restore the “Question of Palestine” on the General Assembly agenda, and as such Arab heads of states upheld the “right of the Arab Palestinian people to the return to its homeland and its right to self-determination.”[30] Some weeks later the General Assembly passed resolution 3236 which mentioned “Recognizing that the Palestinian people are entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,” and (a) The right to self-determination without external interference”. It should be noted that the General Assembly condemned governments which failed to recognise the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under “colonial and foreign domination”. For the Palestinians to exercise this right, the Israeli entity must vacate from the occupied areas in order to establish an independent Palestinian state. The United Nations has again affirmed its commitment to the Palestinian right to self-determination. In November 2020, the UN General Assembly endorsed a draft resolution once again recognising “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including their right to an independent State of Palestine.”[31] 163 states voted in favour of this resolution, whilst 5 states voted against this, namely: “Israel”, The United States of America, Micronesia, Nauru, and the Marshal Islands. Tomis Kapitan eloquently argues that legitimate residents of Palestine include all Palestinians irrespective of where they are located in Palestine, including Palestinian refugees outside of the country. He states that “expulsion does not remove ones right of residency… Palestinians also retain residency rights in those territories from which they were expelled.”[32] Kapitan asserts that the Palestinian people, as a collective, have the “entitlement to being self-determining in that region [historic Palestine]… not qua Palestinians, but qua legitimate residents. The force used against them has not erased the fact that they are, and are recognized as being; a legitimate unit entitled to participate in their own self-determination.”[33]

Whilst some may argue that the Palestinian right to self-determination is an anti-Semitic stance, it should be duly noted that a Palestinian state would include Jews, Muslims and Christians. It is in fact the Zionist entity that remains anti-Semitic by expulsing and rejecting Jewish natives from enjoying their rights in Occupied Palestine. It should be remembered that the Palestinian right to self-determination is legal and in accordance with international law. For the state of Palestine to be completely independent, colonial settlers will have to return to the European countries they entered from and respect international law. To end, a group of academics including Palestinians and Israelis issued a One State Declaration in 2007, inspired by the South African Freedom Charter and declared: “The historic land of Palestine belongs to all who live in it and to those who were expelled or exiled from it since 1948, regardless of religion, ethnicity, national origin or current citizenship status; Any system of government must be founded on the principle of equality in civil, political, social and cultural rights for all citizens. Power must be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all people in the diversity of their identities.[34]

sources

[1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self_determination_(international_law)#:~:text=Self%2Ddetermination%20denotes%20the%20legal,destiny%20in%20the%20international%20order.&text=For%20instance%2C%20self%2Ddetermination%20is,right%20of%20%E2%80%9Call%20peoples.%E2%80%9D

[2] Salvatore Senese, ‘External and Internal Self-Determination’ [1989] 16(1) Social Justice <https://www.jstor.org/stable/29766439?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents&gt; accessed 9 May 2021.
[3] Wilson, War Aims of Germany and Austria (1918).
[4] UN Charter, Art 1 (2).
[5] https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf

[6] Quane, Helen. 1998. “The United Nations and the Evolving Right to Self-Determination.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 47(3): 537–572.

[7] Johan D. Van der Vyer, ‘Self-Determination of the Peoples of Quebec under International Law’ [2012] 10(1) Journal of Transnational Law & Policy 38
[8] Martti Koskenniemi, ‘National Self-Determination Today: Problems of Legal Theory and Practice’ [1994] 43(2) The International and Comparative Law Quarterly <https://www.jstor.org/stable/761238&gt; accessed 10 May 2021.
[9] J Massad, ‘Against Self-Determination’ [2018] 9(2) Humanity 161-191
[10] M Evangelista, ‘Paradoxes of Violence and Self-determination’ [2015] 14(5) Formerly Global Review of Ethnopolitics <https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2015.1051811&gt; accessed 3 May 2021.
[11] B Ibhawoh, ‘Testing the Atlantic Charter: linking anticolonialism, self-determination and Universal Human Rights’ [2014] 18(7) International Journal of Human Rights 1-19

[12] Beardsley, Kevin, David E. Cunningham, and Peter B. White. 2015. “Resolving Civil Wars before They Start: The UN Security Council and Conflict Prevention in Self-Determination Disputes.” British Journal of Political Science 47(3): 675–697.
[13] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gaza-latest-palestinian-happening-b1852170.html
[14] Tobias Nowak and Charis Van den berg, ‘Alternative Approaches to Self-Determination Applied to the Cyprus Conflict’ [2020] 15(5) Transboundary Legal Studies <https://research.rug.nl/nl/publications/alternative-approaches-to-self-determination-applied-to-the-cypru&gt; accessed 7 May 2021.
[15] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-role-of-jewish-defense-organizations-in-palestine-1903-1948
[16] M Hogan, ‘The 1948 Massacre at Deir Yassin Revisited’ [2001] 63(2) The Historian <https://www.jstor.org/stable/24450239&gt; accessed 10 May 2021.

[17] https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/palestineremix/timeline_main.html
[18] Noura Erakat, ‘Taking the Land without the People: The 1967 Story as Told by the Law’ [2017] 47(1) Journal of Palestine Studies 18-38 
[19] Lucy Garbett, ‘I live in Sheikh Jarrah for Palestinians, this is not a ‘real estate dispute’’ (The Guardian, 17 May 2021) <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/17/palestinians-sheikh-jarrah-jerusalem-city-identity&gt; accessed 17 May 2021.
[20] https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution
[21]Ali Abunimah, ‘Reclaiming Self-Determination’ ( Shabaka: The Palestinian Policy Network, 21 May) <https://al-shabaka.org/briefs/reclaiming-self-determination/&gt; accessed 10 May 2021.[22]https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/us-role-peace-process-perspective
[23]Noam Chomsky, On Palestine (Penguin Books 2015)

[24] https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution
[25] https://il.usembassy.gov/ten-year-memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-united-states-and-israel/
[26] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/19/a-history-of-the-us-blocking-un-resolutions-against-israel
[27] https://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resguide/scact_veto_table_en.htm
[28] https://caat.org.uk/resources/countries/israel/
[29] https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-196558/
[30] United Nations
[31] https://prc.org.uk/en/news/3213/un-votes-overwhelmingly-in-support-of-palestinian-self-determination
[32] Tomis Kapitan, “Self-Determination,” in Tomis Kapitan and Raja Halwani, The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Philosophical Essays on Self-Determination, Terrorism and the One-State Solution (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), pp. 13-71.
[33] Ibid.
[34] “The One State Declaration,” The Electronic Intifada, 29 November 2007

Related

ما تخافوش

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is %D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%8A.jpg

07-06-2021

خلال الشهر الماضي وما شهدته مدينة القدس والأحياء العربية فيها بصورة خاصة من مواجهات، ظهر أن الشباب الفلسطيني في القدس والأراضي المحتلة عام 48 الذي يُعرف بالجيل الثالث، أي الجيل الذي ولد في ظل الاحتلال، يُسقط الرهان على الأسرلة التي شكلت خياراً عمل عليه الكيان ضمن خطة تذويب القضية الفلسطينية والهوية العربية للسكان الأصليين للمناطق المحتلة، واستثمر الكيان الزمن الفاصل منذ مسيرة التفاوض واتفاق أوسلو لتوفير فرص التغاضي عن خطته والاستفراد بأبناء القدس والمناطق المحتلة عام 48.

الذين نهضوا بالانتفاضة الفلسطينية الجديدة التي أسست لجولة الحرب الأخيرة وعنوانها القدس، هم شباب وصبايا فلسطين الذين ولدوا بعد الانتفاضة الأولى، ورافقوا وهم صغار انتفاضة الأقصى وانتصار جنوب لبنان عام 2000، وواكبوا مسار التفاوض البائس، ومسار التطبيع المشين، وأحداث المنطقة سواء في سورية أو في ظهور محور المقاومة، ومقابله تحالف يجمع حكومات الخليج وكيان الاحتلال تحت عنوان الخطر الإيراني المشترك، فقرّروا ودون امتلاك أدوات حزبيّة، ودون الانتماء للتشكيلات السائدة فلسطينياً، وفي مواجهة دعوات للانضواء تحت سقف اللعبة الداخليّة للكيان، عبر انتخابات الكنيست وقبول هوية «عرب إسرائيل»، كما تفرض حصيلة أية تسوية وفق حلّ الدولتين، ستكون أحياء بعيدة عن القدس تحمل تسمية القدس كعاصمة لها، مثل حي أبو ديس، ولن يكون لأبناء مناطق الـ 48 اي مكان فيها، وشق خيار هذا الجيل طريقه وفرض حضوره، وصار عنوان الحدث.

جوهر سياسة الكيان تجاه هذا الجيل قام على الترغيب ومشروع الدمج والتذويب، وقد فشل فشلاً ذريعاً، فقد تكفلت الطبيعة العنصرية للكيان ومشاريع التهجير والاستيلاء على المنازل والأراضي، والإبعاد عن الوظائف، والتضييق في المعاملات الرسمية، عناصر تذكير مستمرة بالاحتلال، وبالهوية الفلسطينية بالمقابل، بينما ظهر بوضوح فشل أي رهان على حماية أو إنجاز يمكن أن تحققهما المشاركة في الانتخابات، وسقف ما بلغته هذه الانتخابات هو توفير حجر شطرنج يمكن التلاعب به في التحالفات الحكوميّة في الكيان، يتمّ حذفه فور انتهاء ترتيب اللعبة، فقرر هذا الجيل خوض المواجهة في الشارع بالصوت والكلمة، مستفيداً من ثورة المعلوماتيّة والاتصالات، ومن كفاءات ومهارات لغويّة وتواصليّة أتقنها الشباب والصبايا الفلسطينيون يخاطبون العالم على مدار الساعة شارحين قضيّتهم وعدالتها.

جاءت المواجهة الأخيرة لتكشف طبيعة الحرب على الوعي، والمعادلة التي صاغها الجيل الثالث بمواجهة معادلة بن غوريون القائمة على زرع الخوف، هي الكلمة التي قالتها الناشطة منى الكرد التي مثلت رمزاً لشباب حي الشيخ جراح في القدس لحظة اعتقالها، «ما تخافوش»، وبعد حرب الأيام العشرة وإعلان السيد حسن نصرالله أن القدس تعادل حرباً إقليمية، زادت ثقة هذا الجيل بأنه يُمسك مفاتيح الحرب في المنطقة. ومن خلال هذا الإمساك بمفاتيح الحرب، تستنفر واشنطن على مدار الساعة لتتابع كل حدث، ويستنفر بنيامين نتنياهو ومن خلفه المستوطنون والمتطرفون لخوض معركة القدس بتصعيد الاعتقالات والتحضير لمسيرة الأعلام الصهيونية في القدس، أملاً بتفجير المنطقة، وتصير بيد هذا الجيل دفة القيادة على معادلات إقليمية ودولية، لتنتصر معادلة «ما تخافوش».

لا لـ «أسرلة» وعي الأجيال…لا لانتخابات الاستعمار

صابرين دياب

عندما يدور الحديث عن السكان الأصليّين – الفلسطينيين في فلسطين التاريخية – يتبادر الى الذهن القومي العربي الحقيقي، المنتصر الى فلسطين جذرياً، أنّ الفلسطينيين المتجذرين في الجليل والمثلث والنقب والساحل، هم جزء هامّ وأصيل من الحركة الوطنية التحررية الفلسطينية، ولا يتردّد في التعامل معهم على هذا الثابت والأساس المقدّس، بينما يسارع القومي العربي المائع، الى اعتبارهم «عرباً فلسطينيين داخل دولة إسرائيل»، مهما لمّعوا بعبارات بلاستيكية للتغطية على الكلمة البلاء «إسرائيل»! ايّ انّ واقع هؤلاء العرب السياسي، يحتم عليهم الانسجام مع هذا التعريف، وهو تعريف الأحزاب العربية المشاركة في انتخابات كنيست الاستعمار «الإسرائيلي»، والتي حوّلت الصراع مع المستعمر، من صراع على الوجود الى صراع من أجل حقوق مدنية بخسة، واستطاعت هذه الأحزاب أن تميّع النضال الوطني، وخفّضت سقفه الى مستوى لا يتناغم مع حجم الواقع والحقيقة الدامغة، أنّ الجليل والساحل وكلّ الداخل أرض محتلة، وليست أرضاً «إسرائيلية» قائمة الى جانب دولة فلسطين في الضفة وغزة! لولا بعض القوى الوطنية الثورية في الداخل التي تجتهد بكلّ إمكانياتها المحدودة، على حماية الوعي الوطني الفردي والجمعي للجماهير، بضرورة عدم الاستسلام لهذا النهج المتأسرل، الممارس من قبل الأحزاب العربية في الوطن المحتلّ، وذلك بالرغم من هجوم الفلسطينيّين المتأسرلين او المعترفين بالكيان، وبالرغم من تقصير وتآمر بعض الإعلام القومي عليها.

والسؤال الملحّ: ما الذي يدعو بعض الأوساط العربية والقومية، الى التصفيق والتسويق للأحزاب العربية الزاحفة واللاهثة الى شرعنة كنيست المحتلّ وشرعنة وجود دولة الاحتلال، واعتبار الجليل والساحل والنقب والمثلث «أراضي إسرائيلية»!؟

كيف يناهضون التطبيع مع المحتلّ بينما يتعاظم دعمهم المبتذل لتلك الأحزاب الزاحفة نحو «الأسرلة»!؟

كيف ينادون بعودة اللاجئين، وهم يعترفون أنّ أرض البروة، الرويس، الدامون، اقرث، برعم، الشجرة، ميعار، كويكات، خبيزة، اللجون، لوبيا، بيسان، الغابسية وأكثر من 450 قرية مهجّرة، تنتظر أهلها، فضلاً عمن هُجّروا من قراهم ومدنهم التي لم تدمّر في الداخل المحتلّ! هي أراض اسرائيلية! هل يجرؤ أيّ عضو كنيست عربي، أن يقول إنّ بيسان أو البروة هما قريتان فلسطينيتان محتلتان!؟ هل يجرؤ أحدهم على القول إن الجليل محتلّ، وإنّ يافا محتلة!

وما أقلّ هيبة الكاذب والمنافق، حين يتفنن بالتقاط مكبّرات الصوت، ليخطب في الناس عن مفهوم الوطنية، ويبيعهم أوهاماً، أو حين يملأ الشاشات تكاذباً وتحايلاً وميوعة وتهريجاً!

هذا التكاذب والتناقض بين خطابهم المعلن، وبرامجهم السياسية الفعلية، يتطلب وقفة جادة وحازمة، للجم ترسيخ سياستهم ونهجهم «المتأسرل»!

صاحب الأرض الفلسطيني في أراضي الـ 48، ليس مضطراً لأن يعترف بالمستعمر الإسرائيلي، ويشرعن احتلاله لأرضه، كي يحصل على «حقوق» مدنية بخسة!

فالاستعمار على طول مرّ التاريخ، كان ملزماً بتوفير احتياجات الشعوب المحتلة، من طبابة وتعليم وخدمات حياتية ضرورية، وتوفيرها حق وليس منّة من المستعمر أو إنجازاً من معترف به! بل أظهر التاريخ انّ كلّ من يتعاون مع المستعمر ويعترف باغتصابه لأرضه هو خائن!

انظروا الى أين أوصلنا العبث والفوضى الداعمة للمعترفين! يقسمون الولاء لدولة الاحتلال ويجالسون ويصافحون زعماء وجنرالات المحتلّ، ويزاملونهم في وكر «الشرعية الإسرائيلية»، ثم يُنظر اليهم كثوريين!

عندما زار أفيغدور ليبرمان الولايات المتحدة، قبل نحو عشرة أعوام، سألته صحافية أميركية السؤال التالي:

أنت متهم بأنك تمارس سياسة التمييز العنصري، ضدّ «الأقلية العربية في إسرائيل»، فأجابها مع ضحكته المبتذلة: «أدعوك لزيارة الكنيست ذات مرة، لتشاهدي جلسة لها، ستلاحظين بنفسك، أنّ الصوت العربي فيه، أعلى من الصوت اليهودي»، وأنا شخصياً تعرّضت لهجوم عنيف من قبلهم داخل الكنيست وخارجه»!

هذه هي بالضبط، وظيفة أعضاء الكنيست العرب، تجميل الوجه العنصريّ القميء لدولة الاحتلال، وإظهار الكنيست خاصتها «كبرلمان ديمقراطي غير عنصري»! والاحتلال لا يستطيع أن يقدّم الكنيست للعالم، بدون تمثيل لـ «الأقلية العربية» في الوطن المحتلّ، ذلك انّ العالم، يعلم انّ فيه نسبة من السكان الأصليين، تقدّر بمليون ونصف المليون فلسطيني!

وقد أظهرت السنوات الأخيرة، بشكل لا لبس فيه، انّ الحراك الشعبي في الوطن المحتلّ، كان له الفضل الأول والأكبر، بتحصيل الحقوق والمطالب – على سبيل المثال وليس الحصر – تجميد مشروع برافر، وإسقاط مشروع البوابات الالكترونية في المسجد الأقصى، ومواجهة مشاريع هدم المنازل العربية، التي لم تتمكّن صيحات وزعقات الأعضاء العرب في الكنيست من منع هدم بيت عربيّ واحد، والتصدّي الوحيد الفعّال هو الشارع والنضال الميداني.

إنّ مشروع «أسرلة» الجماهير العربية، وإخضاعها لسياسة ونهج «الأمر الواقع»، والعمل على تخفيض السقف النضالي لها، وحصره في عمل ميداني «قانوني مرخّص» من أجل حقوق مدنية، وزعيق في أروقة الكنيست الصهيوني، يتطلب تضافراً لجهود الحركة الوطنية الثورية في الداخل المحتلّ، لا سيما أنها تفتقر لكلّ أشكال الدعم، وعلى رأسها، الدعم الإعلامي، من أجل رفع منسوب الوعي الوطني، والعمل على انخراط السكان الفلسطينيين الأصليين، في عمل نضالي ثوري شامل، يتناسب مع كارثة استعمار الأرض والهوية! أما المدعومون «إسرائيلياً وخليجياً وأوسلوياً و»أنجزياً» (من ngo) وإعلامياً، فقد تمكّنوا من عرقلة المشروع الثوري التحرّري في الداخل المحتلّ.

إنّ أكثر ما تحتاجه الحركة الوطنية في الوطن المحتلّ عام 48، هو المساندة الفكرية والمعنوية والإعلامية، من قبل محيط فلسطين وكلّ الوطن العربي.

بات لزاماً على كلّ القوى القومية والثورية، التعامل مع الداخل المحتلّ، كجزء هامّ انْ لم يكن الجزء الأهمّ من فلسطين المحتلة، قولاً وفعلاً، وألا تجد جهة ما، ايّ مبرّر لدعمها لأيّ طرف في الداخل المحتلّ، يهرّج ويستخفّ بعقول الأجيال الناشئة، ويبيع الأجيال ديباجات من التكاذب والخداع في موسم انتخابات المستعمر، ولا يعتبر أراضي 48 انها أرض محتلة، ويكتفي بفلسطنة أراضي 67! وألا يتركوا هذا الجزء، تحت لواء مشروع «الأسرلة» وأربابه، الذي ابتدأ بالاستسلام لاحتلال واغتصاب الأرض، وصار التصويت للكنيست «الإسرائيلي» ومنحه الشرعية، عملاً وطنياً وثورياً!

الطريق صعب، لكن يبقى الإيمان بانتصار هذا الدرب.. أقوى من كلّ الصعاب.

تحيا فلسطين حرة، من المي للمي…

%d bloggers like this: