I recently read a post by Ibrahim Yusuf about Bibi Netenyahu's speech highlighting the so called lack of preconditions set on the Palestinian state in order to begin the lie that is a peace process. I don't want to discuss the speech, I think our brother here did a very good job in highlighting the falsification of the entire notion of an unconditional negotiation for the settlement of the world’s most unjust conflict. You can say Darfur is worse (a topic that I will discuss in future blogs), or maybe the struggle of the Tamils, but there is one fundamental difference between the I/P conflict and all others. Simply put, Israel is the last remaining colony in the modern world, and it will remain so until Palestine is established. You can come up with all types of arguments to say this is false, the land was promised to the Jews in the Bible, Palestine never existed, and I’ve even heard the argument that the land was uninhabited prior to the establishment of Israel. But no right minded person can agree with any of these claims, after all until a few years ago Kosovo didn't exist, it was a region in a country, much the same way that Palestine was a region in two great empires (the Ottoman and British), no one claimed it didn’t exist then. The fact of the matter is Palestinians lived in Palestine for centuries, maybe it was inhabited by Jews 2000 years ago, but America was inhabited by Indians 200 years ago, what do you think the world would do if those few that are left began reproducing like bunnies, got the backing of China, put the white man into reserves, and claimed they have no rights to the land? Basing a claim on a 2000 year old book is illogical to say the least. You may believe it’s the word of God, but if so surely God would be just to all, not a select few, so again such an argument is rather fallible. a lot of arguments are being made on both sides of this conflict, one side tends to speak logic in the form of human rights and the right to self-determination, the other sticks to one particular argument, any statements against Israel are automatically anti-Semitic, very mature don't you think? But from all these points that are made I’ve rarely heard reference to the most blatantly obvious, the sheer double standard between the rights of both parties. How can you expect Palestine to recognize Israel when Palestine itself is a non-existent entity? The right of recognition is reserved for member nations of this world, the state of Alabama isn’t charged with recognizing Israel, and since Palestine is not a country but an occupied mass of little Islands surrounded by the state that is Israel, how can it be expected to recognize an independent nation? As for the other key claim, Palestinians must renounce violence, my Lord this is the mother of all double standards. Let’s just take a logical approach to this matter, using international law as the set standard. First of all attacks on settlements cannot be considered attacks on civilians according to Israeli laws, they are, according to the Israeli Government, legal occupations and the only way for them to be legal is for them to be military outposts, as is highlighted in Geneva convention article 49. I am Muslim I cannot condone the murder of women, children or the infirmed, it is wrong no matter what the situation, but then again settlers should know they are revoking their right to call themselves civilians when they relocate to a 'legal' outpost. Before anyone says anything regarding this point of view, it is very similar to this, only a great deal more logical considering violent protestors all over the world are fired on with fire hoses and tear gas, not bullets.
Secondly, the rate of civilian deaths is 1 Israeli to every 100 Palestinian during the most recent conflict, which side appears more violent when you look at it from this perspective, especially considering this is 10 times the reprisal ratio ordered by Hitler in Italy (335 for 33 Nazi's killed). Renouncing violence is not something readily acceptable to any occupied populace. Imagine for a second you live in Manchester. The Irish get drunk and decide to have a little fun, they invade England, take over the northwest, force people to live in little enclaves of land and be wholly dependent on them for everything from medical supplies to food; refuse you the right to visit family members in London; constantly harass you, making you feel impotent amongst a variety of different humiliations that the independent press have made common knowledge for anyone willing to search for the truth instead of falling for peter Jennings hook line and sinker. Tell me, what would you do? Would renouncing violence be high on your list of priorities? Why aren't the Tamil Tigers forced to renounce violence by the international community in order to negotiate? Why is Israel subject to one set of rules that are completely contradictory to the laws of the world?
I don’t need to answer these questions because anyone with the slightest will to ask themselves such questions already knows the answers, but for those who don’t answer me these simple questions, who owns all the mainstream media outlets? What do almost all US presidents and the British Royal families have in common? And where does the British Royal families’ ancestry lead to? If you can answer these questions your almost enlightened.
Finally, the right to resist is a right possessed by any occupied or oppressed population, again according to the Geneva Convention. To ask Palestinians to castrate themselves and forgo this right is the greatest possible insult to them, tantamount to advocating genocide as that is what will evidently happen if this right is given away, history has proven that. Granted this right to resist doesn’t extend to the murder of civilians, and for this I condemn Palestinian resistance movements, but it makes no sense to condemn one side and not the other. For example, collective punishment is a crime under international law, yet Gaza is the world’s largest open air prison and Bibi and his cronies can get away with it without so much as a whisper from the international community. The typical hasbara justification, the Gazans voted in terrorists and must therefore face the consequences of their actions. Any Zionist out there please tells me do you all believe the bull that comes out of your mouths? Again I repeat collective punishment is a crime under international law!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Many things about the conflict in Palestine, or indeed any situation, are unique, but this is not one of them:
ReplyDelete'Simply put, Israel is the last remaining colony in the modern world, and it will remain so until Palestine is established.'
Unless we apply double standards ourselves, I think you will find that the Indonesian occupation of West Papua and Aceh; the US occupation of Puerto Rico, Guam, and 'American' Samoa; etc. are also remaining colonies in the modern world.
Furthermore, even in the decidedly implausible scenario of the establishment of a Palestinian state comprising Gaza and all of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the Palestinians living in 'Israel proper' would remain colonised. And that's without considering the 23% of Mandatory Palestine occupied by Israel in the 1948 war beyond the area the UN allocated to the Jewish state in the partition resolution (181) of 1947.
your point relating to puerto rico and guam are logical and correct, I admit my mistake here. although i do differentiate between economic colonies and population colonies, I should have made this distinction. however palestinians in israel proper are citizens of the state. they may not have the same rights as jews as is commonly touted, but non-the-less they are citizens with the right to vote. I agree that palestine wont exist any time soon, its not possible when both sides arent willing to step back and look at the bigger picture, but if they did there will be nothing stopping arab israelis from renouncing their citizenship and relocating to the westbank. they can stay or leave, just like i would expect jews to be given the right to stay in the westbank as palestinian citizens or move back to israel.
ReplyDeleteThis is an argument I keep having to make over on Jews sans Frontières. As I said, every situation is unique and you can certainly find differences between Israeli settler colonialism and other settler colonies, but in my view, they all fit the definition. Australian Aborigines in the here and now can vote and everything but still experience the occupation of their land as colonialism. Even if you want to argue that the actual colonization took place too long ago to be relevant, an argument I reject, Israel is still not sui generis, as the Indonesian government still supports ‘transmigrasi’ of Javanese to their colony in West Papua.
ReplyDeleteIt may interest you to know that your expectation is not that well founded, as the recent OneVoice poll found that 61% of Palestinians surveyed and 69% of Israelis, considered it ‘Unacceptable’ that ‘Settlers can stay in Palestine/a future Palestine if they take up Palestinian citizenship’. http://bureauofcounterpropaganda.blogspot.com/2009/07/agree-to-differ.html
fair point on the colonies, I don't think it was too long ago, after all the Irish fought the British for some 750 years until they gained some form of independence (leaving the north out of the equasion), if that proves anything its that persistence pays off in the end.
ReplyDeleteMy point wasn't whether or not they would want to, but that they should have the right to stay as citizens. I doubt any of them would, but its the gesture that I was pointing towards, not the actual action.
I don't seem to be able to paste a comment here and the navigation keys don't work, either. Do you know what's going on?
ReplyDeleteThat's better.
ReplyDeleteDoubtless you intended it tongue in cheek, but strictly speaking what the Irish independence struggle proves is that persistence MAY pay off in the end.
The question in the OneVoicepoll wasn’t whether the settlers wanted to become Palestinian citizens, but whether respondents in each population would accept it as a condition of any peace deal they negotiated. There was a discussion that touched on this over at the Heathlander a few days ago (http://heathlander.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/global-march-on-gaza/#comments). What I envisage in the unlikely case that Israel withdrew to the Green line with settlers choosing to remain in ‘Judea and Samaria’ receiving Palestinian citizenship is that the vast majority of settlers would accept compensation generously provided by The International Community and resettle in ‘Israel proper. At least several thousand well armed fanatics motivated by religious zeal would remain and make Palestine ungovernable. A more likely scenario is that the remaining settlers would retain Israeli citizenship – after all, it is the state of all the Jewish people. But the whole idea of Israel relinquishing any ‘population centres’ in the OT is so outlandish it hards bears discussing. If nothing else, the military, as Asa pointed out in the thread I linked to, is now dominated by settlers and I couldn’t rule out a coup if the government threatened to do so.