SPHR: Palestine’s right to exist

BY OMAR CHAABAN & DINA EL-KASSABY

CONTRIBUTORS

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1ST, 2009

Original Post: http://ubyssey.ca/ideas/?p=9210

Despite the political manoeuvring of Western leaders, despite their attempts to complicate the issue, the “question of Palestine” is simple: Does Palestine have a right to exist?

Without a doubt, the answer is yes. But it is important to realize that there should never have been a question of Palestine’s right to exist in the first place. Prior to the mass expulsion of roughly 800,000 Palestinians (according to Israeli sources), and before the unilateral declaration of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948, Palestinians made up at least 66 per cent of the population of the region. 90 per cent of the Jewish population was of foreign origin, including tens of thousands of illegal immigrants.

The concept of national self-determination as defined by international law grants Palestinians the right to a sovereign state of their own. Overlooking this basic right, and against the wishes of Palestinians, the international community adopted UN General Assembly Resolution 181. This called for the internationalization of Jerusalem and Bethlehem, the creation of a Jewish state on 56 per cent of Palestine and a Palestinian state comprised of the rest.

The Arabs, understandably and legally, rejected the plan, which contravened the terms of the League of Nations British Class A Mandate. David Ben-Gurion, head of the Jewish Agency, accepted the Partition Plan, but he made it clear that he viewed it as a first step in taking over even more of Palestine for a Jewish state.

The anti-Palestinian narrative maintains that Arabs and Palestinians were at fault for rejecting the Partition Plan. No mention is made of the fact that the UN General Assembly was in the process of shelving the Partition Plan in favour of a UN Trusteeship for Palestine when Ben-Gurion and others declared the Jewish state. It’s not surprising that Palestinians rejected the scheme, which had no legal foundation, in which 56 per cent of their ancestral homeland would be granted to a minority immigrant population.

Sixty-two years have passed since the plan to partition Palestine, and politicians continue to label the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as complicated. But the solution is simple: there is an occupation, and it must end.

Palestinians (including Hamas) and the Arab League have accepted binding UN Security Council Resolution 242, which despite Israel’s contrary claims, calls for Israel’s return to the borders of June 4, 1967 as per the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention, etc.

As declared by the rest of the world and the International Court of Justice, Israel maintains an illegal occupation of East Jerusalem, including its illegally extended boundaries, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip (still occupied under international law) as well as Syria’s Golan Heights and Lebanon’s Sheba’a Farms.

If Israel truly wants peace and recognition, these occupations must end. Furthermore, we should not forget that before the UN General Assembly and the Lausanne Peace Conference in 1949, as a pre-condition for UN admittance, it was accepted that Israel must comply with UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which calls for repatriation of and/or compensation for Palestinians dispossessed during the 1947–49 war.

As for Jerusalem, Palestinians have made it clear that they are willing to share it with Israel as a joint capital. Reiterating that occupation is necessary for the protection of Israeli civilians, that the apartheid wall is being built for “security measures,” or the lie that Palestinians will continue to engage in violent acts even after attaining statehood is counterproductive, and serves no purpose other than to forestall the peace process.

In defiance of the entire world, including the US, Israel continues to construct illegal settlements in occupied lands. At the same time, the apartheid/de facto annexation wall continues to snake through the villages and towns of the occupied West Bank, expropriating land and water resources and creating only misery for Palestinians who must travel for hours to reach their workplaces, farms and schools.

For 62 years, the so-called leaders of the “free world” have looked the other way while Israel has continued to victimize Palestinians. It is time for them to listen to the rapidly increasing numbers of ordinary people everywhere who are demanding that Palestinians be granted their inalienable human rights.

Omar Chaaban is the president of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) and Dina El-Kassaby is SPHR’s VP of public relations.

SPHR: Only free people can negotiate

BY OMAR CHAABAN & DINA EL-KASSABY

CONTRIBUTORS

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12TH, 2009

Original Post: http://ubyssey.ca/ideas/?p=9069

During a recent news conference, Chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erekat declared that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has to “tell his people the truth, that with the continuation of settlement activities, the two-state solution is no longer an option.”

But Erekat, Abbas and his associates in the Palestinian Authority did not consult with the Palestinian people when they first opted to negotiate a “two-state solution.” In fact, the views of the majority of Palestinians in the Diaspora were dismissed and their concerns were ignored.

The Palestinian refugees (who, at around six million, form the largest segment of the Palestinian population) do not wish to continue living in refugee camps as second- or third-class human beings, nor are they interested in resettlement or living in the isolated and segregated ghettos of the Israel-created West Bank.

Nobody can logically assert that an occupied and oppressed people must converse and negotiate with their occupier/oppressor. As the acclaimed South African anti-Apartheid leader Nelson Mandela declared, “Only free men can negotiate,” and the Palestinian people are most certainly not free. For over six decades, they have been subjected to brutal policies of ethnic cleansing, occupation, dehumanization, segregation, land confiscation, collective punishment, mass arrest, systematic torture and house demolition.

Nonetheless, the Palestinian “leadership” ignored Mandela’s principle and decided to negotiate “peace” with their victimizer. In a famous speech given in front of the UN, Yasser Arafat, late chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), said, “Today I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom-fighter’s gun. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat: Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand.”

Arafat was willing to follow the path of non-violence and negotiate peace with the Israel on behalf of his people. It was his first option.

Exploiting the military weakness of the Palestinians and the PLO, Israel conned Arafat and his associates, dragging them from one peace conference to the other in order to demonstrate their “interest in peace.”

In 1991, with the blessing of the US, Arafat went to the Madrid Conference in good faith, only to encounter Israel’s demands that he unconditionally grant unprecedented concessions. In 1993, he succumbed to international pressure and signed the infamous Oslo Accords, which led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority and formalized his 1988 recognition of Israel’s right to exist. In 2000, he was offered considerably less than 50 per cent of the West Bank for a Palestinian state, with Abu Dis (a little town in the suburbs of Jerusalem) as its capital. No mention of UN resolutions, no reference to the Geneva Convention, no consideration of the Palestinian refugees, and absolutely no sovereignty over Muslim and Christian holy sites in historic East Jerusalem.

As salt to the wound, Israel Prime Minister Ehud Barak also demanded that Arafat sign an “end of conflict” clause that would bypass all international legal rulings, UN resolutions and other “inconveniences” in exchange for minor concessions on Israel’s side—Palestinians could have sovereignty over, but not independence in, certain areas of the West Bank and Gaza.

Peace will not be realized because it is being orchestrated outside the realm of international law and contrary to the consensus of the international community. Only by granting the Palestinians their inalienable right to national self-determination and pressuring Israel to adhere to International Humanitarian Law can there be solution. Israel’s conception of peace is based on amoral considerations and, as it has become clear in the past few decades, is doomed to fail.

Omar Chaaban is the president of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) and Dina El-Kassaby is SPHR’s VP of public relations.