Lest We Forget on "A New Option for Confronting Israel"

Tweet

by Antoine E Raffoul

Mr Hasan Abu Nimah wrote a fascinating column in the issue of the Electronic Intifada dated 9 April 2010. It is fascinating because it gives the impression that if the reader follows the historical narrative which his column delivers, the climax of that narrative becomes a new political option with which Israel will be confronted. The truth of the matter is that at the end of this narrative there is neither a climax nor a new political option.

And this is why:

It is suggested that neither war nor an intifada are the only alternative actions for the Palestinians against the cruel occupation of Palestine. The head of the Palestinian Authority expressed opposition to both options if/when contemplated by the Palestinian people. If that is the case, then why is the PA creating a security force by proxy with the help, funding and training of the CIA in the OPT. Why are millions of U.S. dollars being spent on setting up this security apparatus whose individual soldiers dress up and look like any in the foreign legions trained by the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan? They are trained for what and against whom? If these security forces are doing their job, then why does the IDF still arrest, detain without trial and torture innocent Palestinians on a daily basis. - and all this under the nose of the same PA security forces.

We would suggest that, in the absence of a total boycott of Israel, the Palestinian people have the right to resort to any type of struggle available to them in the face of the most inhumane, the most brutal and the longest occupation on this planet. This right has been made manifest by the same 'efforts at peace' which have been claimed by the article to have failed - and failed they did precisely because they were 'unjust, arbitrary and distant from reality'. The time span is 62 years.

Reading on, we nearly reach a climax of hopeful conclusions, only to be let down again by same old story of UN resolution 242 and the return to the pre-Madrid days. We are advised that it is up to the Arab States to 'demand full implementation of Security Council Resolution 242'. A quick scan over historic documents and UN registers will reveal that there were more such calls for a return to the 1967 borders that there were calls to prayers. And these were not from the Arabs States alone, but from western leaders, eastern leaders and all planet leaders. Yet Israel has defied every single one of these calls.

To avoid another such embarrassing call for the implementation of UN Resolution 242, I would suggest that a total boycott of Israel is now the first port of call.

Then onward we move in our reading, and this time about the One-State vs the Two-State option. We nearly get to the climax of the argument only to be let down yet again. It is suggested that 'once the occupation ends and the Palestinians recover their territory [presumably by some simple wave of a magic wand] they have the right then to establish their state on it'. Then we are truly let down as we read about what type of state the Palestinians would end up with. It is suggested that 'a Palestinian state on part of their historic homeland...It is a right Palestinians alone can decide to exercise, if they so choose' (our emphasis). Is it meant here that there is the prospect that Palestinians may choose not to exercise their holy god-given right to their homeland? On part of their homeland? Tell that to the millions of Palestinian refugees who have been living in the mud and rot of their make-shift camps for the last 62 years.

So we beg to differ: The Palestinians have the only right enjoyed by all free people, and that is in a nutshell, the right to return to any part of historic Palestine from which they were driven out. No ifs and no buts. A return not to the 1967 borders. Not to the 1949 Armistice Lines. Not to the Partitioned half of their Palestine handed to them by foreign powers. But a return to the whole of Mandated Palestine. This right has been affirmed by countless UN Resolutions, by great world leaders and by the Geneva Convention itself. We truly tire of repeating this.

We are later warned that 'the Arabs should not withdraw their peace offer [to Israel]', yet at the same time, the Arabs are urged 'to suspend any dealings with Israel until Israel complies with international legality and until justice is realised'. Which way is it: a peace offer to recognise Israel for the return to the 1967 borders? or a peace offer contingent on Israel complying 'with international legality...until justice is realised'. The former being based on a limited territorial reward, the latter on universal justice. The two will not marry by any stretch of the imagination.

As we walk the final leg of this journey, we feel tempted to look back, lest we forget, over the endless miles we have covered during the last 62 years, only to realise that Israel, thirsty and hungry for more, has consistently managed to derail all the peace processes off their beaten tracks. But, despite the painful lessons of the last 62 years of failed peace processes, of mixed sour recipes and of endless carrots and sticks, the Arabs are still urged in the article, to offer Israel yet another choice: '[of] either becoming part of the region by respecting international law and implementing UN resolutions -- which would also guarantee whatever legitimate rights and concerns Israelis have -- or continuing in isolation if it chooses rejection, racism and intransigence'. Legitimate rights? By what legal, international, civilised system is that judged?

It has been said that "you can take a horse to a well, but you can't make him drink".

We offer to change the horse. So, call it a "radical" and "hard line" position, but this horse ain't drinking.

Antoine Raffoul

Co-ordinator

1948.Lest.We.Forget

info@1948.org.uk