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.

Torture

Today I watched a 30-minute report on BBC called “Licence to Torture.” It is mainly an investigative report that attempts to reveal some of the behind-the-scenes actions conducted by the Bush administration. The reporter, Hilary Anderson, interviews various lawyers and military personnel regarding utilizing torture (or as they call it “enhanced interrogation techniques”) and questions the legality of this practice both under international law (as stipulated in the Fourth Geneva Convention and various human rights conventions) and American law. Declassified CIA documents raise many questions regarding who issued the orders to follow these techniques; was it George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney? Or was it just the CIA acting on its own? Or was it just the interrogators being creative?

Under International Law, torture is defined as:

“For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”

So what exactly are these acts? Is Water Boarding considered torture? Cori Crider on a debate on BBC considers this act as an act of torture and objects to the usage of the term “simulated drowning”. She talks about other torture techniques such as extreme sensory deprivation, extreme temperatures, sleep deprivation, playing extremely loud music. David Rivkin does not think that Water Boarding is torture and he contends that opponents of such practices have a problem which is that they tend to consider certain “unpleasant acts” (as he so simplistically puts it) as torture. I do not understand how he could call something horrendous like Water Boarding (where the person being tortured becomes convinced that he/she is being drowned to death) as an unpleasant act.

Check out the debate on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ-F2y_Bzv4

Check the report “Licence to torture”:

While each state has a right to seek the security of its citizens, I find abhorrent the idea that human rights can be suspended claiming that by doing so the nation is more secure. John Yo, a lawyer who apparently sought to justify the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” and wrote memos trying to show its legality under American law, contends that torture and the techniques that he defends made the US more secure because since 9/11 nobody was able to launch any attacks on the US. That clearly is a preposterous claim since most of the time the information that they get from the detainees under those inhumane circumstances are not accurate and cannot be used as intelligence to deter and prevent attacks. It interesting to note that Obama has said that CIA agents who used these harsh interrogation techniques will not be prosecuted.

So all of this made me think of another set of questions; most of which have been under extensive debate in the scholarly arena. Should Human Rights and Civil Liberties be suspended in certain situations such as war? Is the state allowed to breach its own laws for the sake of so-called national security? If yes, then how far is the state allowed to go and who exactly becomes the target when that happens? In a post-9/11 world, Arabs and Muslims became the primary target of many national security agencies in the West; isn’t that prejudice? Do pre-conceived perceptions (or misperceptions) form a sufficient basis that would allow a police officer for example to apprehend somebody because he has a suspiciously long beard?

The Fatah Conference

In an attempt to assert itself as a viable and important national political organization in the Palestine, Fatah is holding its sixth conference in Bethlehem. The implications of such a conference remain elusive and the outcomes are even more elusive. What exactly is Fatah trying to prove? What strategies should its leaders follow in order to solve the internal divisions in the organization? Do they need to amend their charter and render it “friendly” in order to accommodate and please the West? What about Hamas? How does the conference affect Hamas as a rival political organization? How will Abbas and his supporters face the accusations that the PA President was part of a plot to assassinate Arafat put forward by the PLO General Secretary and leader Qaddoumi?

Below are some articles (Both in Arabic and English) that have updates and some interesting analysis:

[Arabic] Fatah’s Conference Hang on to Peace and Resistance:
http://aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DA0C9F59-5C06-46F8-8DDA-23A5BE7FFB71.htm

[English] Abbas Maintains Right to Resistance
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/08/200984101550703229.html

In a speech, Abbas maintains that following the path of peace and negotiations in accordance with International Law does not mean that the Palestinian Authority and Fatah are powerless in front of the destructive violations of the peace process.

[English] Can Fatah reinvent itself?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8183711.stm

“There is no-one like Arafat.”

Many see Fatah as a corrupt and ineffective organization that is willing to compromise the legitimate rights of the Palestinian movement, and attempts to “revive” and “reinvent” it seem futile if the core issues are not addressed in good faith. The International community is observing and waiting for acceptable outcomes; will Fatah abandon the initial goal that Arafat and his comrades set forth 5 decades ago?

[English] Abbas's Party Holds Convention:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/04/AR2009080403114.html

[English] Abbas: Popular resistance to go on:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249275687434&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

[English] End rift, king [Abdullah of Saudi Arabia] tells Palestinians:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=125200&d=5&m=8&y=2009&pix=kingdom.jpg&category=Kingdom

“I frankly tell you that all that the arrogant and lawbreaking enemy could not do to the Palestinian cause over the past long years of continuous aggression the Palestinians themselves have done in a few months. I am telling you the truth, if the whole world jointly strove to establish an independent Palestinian state but the Palestinian house remained divided, nothing would be achieved.”

[English] Peres urges Palestinians towards peace:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249275692138&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Peres calls for peace as he welcomes a US republican delegation. When introducing the group to Peres, Eric Cantor (leader of the delegation) said: "We are here to reconfirm the message that the US Congress stands staunchly behind Israel in its struggle and we are here to strengthen the US-Israel relationship."

[English] 'Fatah has never recognized Israel':
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277865155&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

What is Terrorism???

No argument can be made against the assertion that the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were able to single-handedly change the way we view international order. Appointing itself as an international God Father, the United States did not expect that an attack of such scale could be perpetrated on its soil. Of course, this was proved to be false, and a new enemy to the United States emerged; an enemy that Washington loosely labelled as terrorism. But what exactly is terrorism? Is it possible to come up with a definition for this polemic concept? And what did the so-called terrorism result in? How did it affect the world order? Surely a state has the undisputed right to protect its citizens, but what does this right entail? Does it entail the suspension of individual rights? And do states engage in terrorist activities or is it just an activity attributed to non-state actors such as al-Qaeda? And if they do, how should they be held accountable? How did this turn of events affect state sovereignty?

“Terrorism” is one of the most important and interesting topics for a student of international relations. The questions that I posed above have been the focal point of many of the debates between various scholars. Some go as far as putting forward ridiculous and baseless arguments such as religion is the main source of terrorism and that people who hold “extreme” view of any religion are more likely to become terrorists or supporters of terrorist activities. Some approach the issue with a genuine scholarly purpose and seek to analyze this phenomenon. But so far, I personally have not found an acceptable or sufficient definition of what terrorism is and what makes a terrorist a terrorist. Of course, not so many people share the same view; to them a terrorist is simply what George Bush, Stephen Harper and the RAND corporations define as a terrorist.

In this blog I seek to explore this issue myself. I will explore how this concept shaped the course of events in the international arena and how it affected the concept of state sovereignty (which is pretty much the framework or a mutual understanding between states protected by International Law). I will also try through my reading to understand what makes a terrorist, an insurgent, a freedom fights, a guerrilla fighter and others what they are. I will try to keep this blog as interesting as possible. J