Tag Archives: Palestine

Posted on by

Gaza’s Race Car Students ‘Inspirational’

Stuart Littlewood
Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood

After their little-reported first effort will these resourceful youngsters spin their wheels again at Silverstone?

Gaza’s race car students “inspirational”

“We didn’t give up. As Palestinians, we look for plan B all the time.”

Imagine a handful of engineering students imprisoned in the tiny Gaza enclave taking on the cream of Europe’s technical universities in a competition to build a race car and compete with it.

They did it last year. And they’re planning to do it again this year – at least that’s what their students’ union tells me, and I’ve been trying to get confirmation.
Continue reading →

Posted on by

One State in Palestine, a State of All of its citizens.

A State of ALL its Citizens
The One-State Vision and Foundational Principles of a Republic in Historic Palestine

Preamble

I. We, the undersigned, Palestinians and Israelis, believe that the historic land of Palestine should be shared by all those who now live in it and its natives who have been expelled or exiled from it since 1948, and their descendants, regardless of religion, ethnicity, national origin or current citizenship status. Cognizant of the great changes in the Middle East including the recent Arab uprisings, we conceive of our movement as part of the drive towards democracy, accountability, transparency, equality and economic and social justice in the region. We intend to build a model state in the region, rooted in equal citizenship, popular democracy and institutional justice.

II. We, Palestinians and Israelis, united and enriched in our diversity, fully recognize the historic injustices inflicted on the indigenous Palestinian population, including the ethnic cleansing of the 1948 Nakba; support all those who are working to build a democratic, pluralistic, secular state (based on the separation of religion and state), that encompasses all of historic Palestine (currently the political entities of the State of Israel and the post-1967 Israeli-occupied Palestinian Territories); and honor all those who suffered for justice, equality and freedom in our land.

III. We reject the tragic 1947 UN Partition Plan, dividing the country into two entities, and the terrible damage it has wrought on the country; this Resolution was used by the Zionist leadership as an excuse for the forced expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians from their homes in the Nakba of 1948. Since then Israel has prevented the refugees from returning to their homes, and the international community has failed to enable their return.

IV. We recognize that for decades efforts to bring about a two-state solution based on a partition of the land of Palestine into a Palestinian entity in 22 percent of historic Palestine, and an Israeli one in 78 percent, have failed because they fell short of providing elementary justice. Based on a policy of separation, fragmentation and inequality, the two-state solution ignores the physical and political realities on the ground, and presumes a false symmetry of power and moral claims between an indigenous, colonized and occupied people on the one hand, and a colonizing state and military occupier on the other. Indeed, ever since 1967, Israel has acted to make a two-state solution impossible by a range of illegal activities, chiefly the building of illegal settlements, confiscation of land, brutal repression of the Palestinian population, and the building of the Apartheid Wall. Moreover, Israel’s ongoing systematic discrimination against Palestinians, which includes practices such as forced transfer, settler-colonialism of the areas occupied in 1967, as well as in areas of Palestine after 1948, segregation, ghettoisation, and the separation wall (declared illegal by the International Court of Justice in 2004), denial of citizenship and basic human rights and freedoms, is consistent with the crime of Apartheid as defined by the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid; http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/cspca/cspca.html) and the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

V. Seeking and working for a better future of security, equality and justice and equal opportunity for all, we believe in popular, non-violent resistance and support the creation of a movement committed to the establishment of the future Republic of Palestine that can serve and meet the aspirations and hopes of all of its citizens. This will be achieved in conjunction with the international campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against the apartheid Israeli state, and has the potential to bring substantial pressure to bear on Israel and its supporters.

VI. Our new one-state movement brings together Palestinians and Israelis in partnership, supported by a global solidarity movement based on the principles and programme outlined below. We call on all those who cherish freedom, liberty, justice, equality, and democracy and reject racism and segregation to join us in building our movement. We believe this movement will change the face and future of the Middle East, and finally bring peace and security for the people in the Middle East, and for people around the world.

Founding Principles and Political Programme

We call for a Constitution for the Republic of Palestine based on the following principles:

1. Constitution and a Bill of Rights: The people of Palestine, Palestinians and Israelis, through their freely elected representatives, will adopt a Constitution and a Bill of Rights as the supreme law of the Republic of Palestine.

2. Supremacy of Constitution: The Constitution will be the supreme law of the Republic, guaranteeing separation of powers (executive, legislative and judicial), and guaranteeing the rights of citizens vis-a-vis the state. The Constitution will be voted on by the citizens of the Republic of Palestine and adopted by a two-thirds majority, with constitutional amendments meeting the same requirements.

3. Bill of Rights and Citizens’ Charter: The Bill of Rights with its Citizens’ Charter will guarantee the rights and freedoms of all individuals in the state. Basic citizens’ rights include, among others, housing, health, education, employment, social and legal protection, freedom of movement, a ban on racial, religious and gender discrimination, and equal opportunity for all.

4. Truth and Reconciliation Commission: The Constitution will seek to redress the devastating effects of settler-colonial Zionism on the indigenous Palestinians, and other oppressed groups, such as Mizrahi Jews (“Arab Jews”), and to address the structural injustices, inequalities and divisions of the past. Inspired by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of post-apartheid South Africa, it will promote truth and reconciliation between all the diverse peoples of Palestine.

5. Jerusalem/Al-Quds: The City of Jerusalem will be the Capital of the Republic of Palestine and will be one city, open to and equally shared by all.

6. The Right of Return: The implementation of the Right of Return and reparations for Palestinian refugees in accordance with UN Resolution 194 is a fundamental pillar of peace based on justice and the benchmark of human dignity, liberty and equality. Palestinian self-determination will be addressed through full democratic rights and equality in a unitary state. The Constitution will establish the legal and institutional frameworks for justice, reconciliation and integration of the Palestinian returnees.

7. Fundamental Universal Rights: The Republic of Palestine will be founded on the principles of human dignity, human rights, equality and equal rights, freedoms and equal opportunities; supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law, universal adult suffrage, parliamentary democracy, freedoms of expression, religion, language, movement, residence and assembly, regular elections, democratically structured institutions, a multi-party system of democratic, non-racist, non-sexist government and the fundamental rights and freedoms as articulated and enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and United Nations Covenants.

8. Equality and Citizenship: The Constitution will be founded on the principle that all people who live in historic Palestine as well as Palestinian refugees who realise their right of return will have equality of citizenship and equality of stake. Equal citizenship will have the result that the existing apartheid-based and discriminatory laws and demographic racism will be abrogated, together with the whole institutional system of Zionism. Our Constitution will ensure a state founded on the principles of equality of citizenship, equality between women and men and non-domination and equality in civil, political, social and cultural rights for all citizens and a fully integrated society based on democratic values, economic and social justice and fundamental human rights; lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law. All citizens will be equally entitled to the rights and benefits of citizenship; and equally subject to the duties and responsibilities of citizenship. All organs of the state, including the courts, police and administration of justice shall represent all the people of the land and shall defend, protect, and preserve the principles of equality and democracy. The laws of the state shall provide all citizens with equal access to security, housing, work, welfare, public lands, education, health care, leisure, cultural expression and all the basic requirements for living in dignity and freedom.

9. Cultural Diversity and Multiculturalism: The Constitution will recognise and celebrate the diversity of religion and culture of the new society, and the distinct linguistic and historical traditions of the country, consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

10. Public Land: The public land of the state shall belong to all its citizens, who shall have equal access to it and benefits from its use. The owners of private property expropriated from Palestinian refugees, and Palestinian citizens of Israel and Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza shall be given the choice of the restoration of their property or reparations for themselves or their descendants. Consistent with the principles of the Constitution and international law, the Jewish National Fund shall be disbanded and assets held by this entity or the Israel Land Authority returned to its rightful owners, and what is left will be held in common, or distributed thorough fair and agreed mechanisms.

11. Economic Justice and Affirmative Action: In the new state, economic and social justice requires addressing unfair distribution of resources that resulted from a long history of inequality and racism. Subject to universal equality under the law, remedial economic measures (including affirmative action) shall be undertaken to redress past injustices, remove segregation and allow equal opportunity. Such programmes would ensure social harmony and remove the possibility of maintaining unfair privileges by one group acquired through historical segregation and monopolies on use of land, water and others resources

12. Separation of Religion and State: The Constitution will establish a non-sectarian democratic state based on the principle of separation of religion and state, its governing institutions based on the principle of “one-person, one-vote”. There will be no specific privileges or privileged rights accorded to any ethnic or religious group or individual. Ethnic, religious, cultural or national minorities shall be protected by law, but not assigned any specific rights.

13. Religious Freedom and Religious Sites: The right to religious practice shall be guaranteed by the state. Religious institutions shall be voluntary, totally separate and independent from the state, and shall receive no financial support from it. All residents of the state shall be free to practice their religion and to worship at sacred sites without impediment or discrimination. The state shall ensure that all religions enjoy equal standing before the law, and that no religion impedes or has supremacy over the other.

14. Civil Marriage and Family Law: The civil law of the state shall reign supreme and shall be the ultimate reference in any disputes arising between citizens and between citizens and religious institutions. The state shall require the registration of all religious and civil marriages and civil unions under principles of law that are non-discriminatory as between marriage and civil partners, irrespective of gender, religion, ethnicity, or any other aspect of identity. The state will permit adjudication by religious authorities (including courts) of disputes between partners who agree to such adjudication. The state itself will be guided in matters of family law by the fundamental principles of equality under the Constitution. The state constitutional court shall be the final arbiter for all legal issues arising out of family law, marriages, divorces and inheritance.

15. United Nations Charter: The Constitution will promote the quality of life and welfare of all citizens and free the potential of each person; build a united and democratic Palestine able to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations and as a member of the United Nations. The state shall uphold international law, and at all times seek the peaceful resolution of conflicts through negotiation and with regard to collective security in accordance with the United Nations Charter.

16. Official Languages: The Constitution shall recognise the distinct historical, linguistic and cultural traditions of Palestine. The official languages of the Republic will be Arabic, Hebrew and English. Recognising the status of the official languages of our people, the Republic must take practical and positive measures to advance the use of these languages and support a mutli-lingual educational system.

17. State Education: The state shall guarantee free primary and secondary education for all children. Schools and curricula shall teach pupils the historical heritage of their country and region, so that they may grasp, respect and appreciate the origins and historical experience of their fellow citizens, strongly reject racism and doctrines of segregation, honour human rights, protect human freedoms, and guard the peace, rights and security of all the people in the country and the world. Education and vocational training shall not be segregated in any way that impedes equal access of all citizens to employment and other opportunities to fulfill their talents and hopes.

18. Abolition of Capital Punishment and Outlaw of Torture: Within one year of the creation of the new state laws will be passed outlawing capital punishment and prohibiting torture in any form.

19. Immigration Policy: The state shall operate a transparent and non-discriminatory immigration policy, and provide a refuge for those seeking asylum from persecution, especially racial or ethnic persecution.

20. Nuclear-free Zone in the Middle East: The state shall seek and actively contribute to the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East that shall also be free of all weapons of mass destruction. Israel’s weapons of mass destruction, including but not limited to its arsenal of nuclear weapons, inherited by the Republic of Palestine shall be dismantled or destroyed under the auspices of the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) within one year of the creation of the new state. The state through its Constitution shall include and incorporate limitations on the state to engage in wars and conflicts outside its borders.

Drafting Committee (in individual capacity)

  • Dr Oren Ben-Dor, University of Southampton, Southampton
  • Prof. George Bisharat, UC Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco
  • Prof. Haim Bresheeth, University of East London, London
  • Dr Ghada Karmi, European Centre for Palestine Studies, Exeter University, Exeter
  • Mr Sami Jamil Jadallah, International business consultant, Fairfax, VA
  • Prof. Nur Masalha, SOAS, University of London, London
  • Prof. Mazin Qumsiyeh, University Bethlehem, Bethlehem

Posted on by

Corruption vs Dignity in Palestine

Mazin Qumsiyeh

A friend asked how activists keep going when so many people engage in corruption, stealing, lying, cheating, and harming others.  Here in Palestine, there are plenty of people who do these things and they are both Israelis and Palestinians.  Occasionally we also have the visiting Western politicians but that only adds marginally to these negative acidic waves that are destroying lives and livelihoods in their wake.  We could write books about all these negative things.  We could tell stories of humanitarian aid that ends in pockets of corrupt individuals (in both governmental and non-governmental settings).  I was sad once to even find out that money we raised for medical relief was used for promoting an individual political ambition. I was sad to find that one of the highest ranking Palestinian officials worked hard to destroy the will of resistance and then claimed that the absence of resistance is a validation of endless negotiations (begging and pleading for crumbs).  There are few books written about these things.  One for example is “Globalized Palestine: The National Sell-Out of a Homeland” By Khalil Nakhleh which is now out in English.* I read the Arabic version of this when it came out and I think it is a must read for everyone who want to understand how the Oslo accords and what followed sold out Palestine for money, corporations and made some Palestinians very wealthy with villas, fancy cars etc. The book also touches on how this system corrupted many Palestinians.  This subject needs deeper exploration and many more books but a few brief comments here are warranted.

Continue reading →

Posted on by

Sneak preview: song lyrics of ‘Right of Return’!

Right of Return

Those of you who follow Doc Jazz are already aware that – after more than one year of musical silence – there is a new song on the way! This song covers one of the most central topics of the Palestinian struggle: the Right of Return. Since the song is already recorded, and is now in its final stages of mixing, it has been decided to already publicize the lyrics. It is unknown yet when the song will really be released, but it should be some time soon! For now, read on to get to the lyrics.

Continue at Doc Jazz’s website

Posted on by

Honored to be a “Freedom Rider”

Mazin Qumsiyeh
Mazin Qumsiyeh
I was honored to be a freedom rider and it was team effort at its best (those who rode and the many who worked behind the scenes).  Two other Palestinians were also arrested with us who were there as a reporters/observers not participants. All eight of us were released eventually pending potential trials. Fajr kindly gave us a ride to the edge of Beit Sahour from Ramallah (we were released at Qalandia checkpoint) where my wife met us there with my car and then she and I gave a ride to Nadim and Badi’ to Hebron.  I thus arrived home at 1:30 AM and the phones started ringing again at 7 AM.  I am extremely tired and with a headache but wanted to send you a brief report and links to stories about this amazing and inspiring experience. While released, we are still charged with “illegal entry to Jerusalem” and with “obstructing police business” pending potential trial.
This was one of the most heavily covered media events I ever participated in.  It was also streamed live on the internet and nearly 100,000 people signed a petition of support for us freedom riders

Posted on by

Are we about to betray the Palestinians… again?

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood

Russell Tribunal comes gunning for the international community

Media reports suggest that Britain will again betray the Palestinian people in the UN vote tomorrow on whether to recognise the Palestinian territories as an independent state.

The Guardian, for example, says that Britain will join forces with two other EU allies on the Security Council, France and Portugal, to abstain. Germany, the third EU member of the Council, is also likely to abstain. [report] “The UK had considered voting in favour of statehood but is planning to abstain because it wants to forge a common front with its EU partners. Government sources say the EU – the single biggest donor to the Palestinian authority – is playing an increasingly influential role in the Middle East. It is feared this could be put at risk if the EU fails to act collectively.” Continue reading →

Posted on by

Doc Jazz: ‘The heart of our cause is the Right to Return’ – interview with Oh My Gaza

221052_3990

The wonderfully active and comprehensive blog ‘Oh My Gaza‘ has done an interview with Doc Jazz about the Musical Intifada. Also discussed are Zionism in the Netherlands, and thoughts about global activism for Palestinian rights. It is republished here, but the original can be read at Oh My Gaza here.

—

I am honored to introduce you to Doc Jazz, a proud Palestinian who is reshaping how to get awareness and solidarity out into the world in regard to the cause and struggle of Palestine.


What inspired you to become a surgeon?

I come from a family with a lot of medical doctors; my own mother is a general practitioner. I am sure that somehow she inspired me to pursue a medical career, although I knew from early on that I wanted to be in surgery more than in any other medical profession. And after having been a surgeon for over ten years now, I still have never regretted it one moment. This is what I feel best doing.

How did being born and raised in the Netherlands effect your view
of Palestine?

I think that since the Netherlands is a country with an extremely pro-’Israel’ population, growing up there has made me more determined to look for ways to promote the Palestinian cause. When I was a young child, there were barely any pro-Palestinian voices in the country. But I was raised to be proud of my Palestinian heritage, and stood my ground in defending who we are, and what our aspirations are.

 

When you are a migrant, there is that eternal question: “Where are you from?” Answering that you are Palestinian is never without direct consequences in the Netherlands. It affects your relationships with friends at school, with teachers at school and at university, and even your position in your working environment. In the Netherlands people like to believe that they are fair and open-minded, but when it comes to Palestinians – or even Muslims in general nowadays – this is nothing but a wishful fantasy that exists in their own thoughts.

As for my view of Palestine, maybe these experiences made me more determined to dig deeply into the history of our cause, and to make sure I know everything about it that I need to know. I even ended up being the media spokesperson for the board of the Palestinian Community in the Netherlands (PGN) for nearly 5 years. I guess I took the pro-Israeli brainwash of the majority of the Dutch people as a challenge.


What is Musical Intifada about?

When the struggle against Apartheid was coming close to reaching its climax in the eighties, the role of music in propagating that struggle for equal rights was tremendous. Even artists that barely had any political interests wanted to join in; it was ‘in’, it was ‘hip’, to have a song against racism.

 

In the end of the year 2000, I wrote my first truly political song, ‘Intifada’, and put it online. I set up a website and published it there, and shared it with the online community ‘Ramallah Online’, which still exists by the way (http://wwww.ramallahonline.com). It received such positive responses there, and also through my website, which I named the ‘Musical Intifada’, that I decided to focus on making songs for the struggle. And when I did that, I had a dream in my mind that some day, the world will sing for Palestine the way they did for South Africa.

Well, we still aren’t there. But perhaps it just takes more perseverance, more determination, more time. This is still where I want things to go, and nowadays I am far from the only one. You all know the tremendous successes of artists like Lowkey, OneWorld, Shadia Mansour, D.A.M. and many others. There is definitely something going on, and we should just go on and on until it happens. These efforts are the Musical Intifada.

 

 

How do you think your music impacts the cause for Palestine?

 

 

The straightforward most honest answer is: it doesn’t! Not yet, at least. If you ask me whether it has the potential to make difference however, then yes I believe it does. For that to happen though, I need a bigger audience, especially in the Western World. The vast majority of my lyrics are in English, so it’s really made to reach out to all corners of the globe. At the moment, about 65 – 70 % of my fans are Palestinian. This is of course a wonderful thing, but they are not the ones who need to be convinced of the justness of the Palestinian struggle.

I like to believe that the combination of my lyrics, rhythms and melodies has the potential to draw people in who have Western and other backgrounds. Only one week ago, my music received a ‘Music Blog Award’ from Clickitticket.com, a mainstream American website. I think this is a positive development. It shows that mainstream minds can be opened by my music.

How optimistic are you about freedom and justice for Palestine?

 

 

It depends on whether you mean in the long run, or in the short term. I think there are many things to worry about in the near future. The articles I wrote on my website give you an idea of where my thoughts are on those subjects. But in the long run, I believe the Zionist project they call ‘Israel’ is doomed to fail. The lunacy of racism will be its downfall. Not only do I believe that racism is evil, I also happen to believe that it is an unsustainable ideology. And since racism is at the very core of the foundations of the Zionist state, I believe they have planted the seed of self-destruction in its very heart when they founded it.

What steps do you think need to be taken in order for Palestine to
be free?

 

I believe that one of the most important things that we must do as Palestinians, is to hold on to our cause. Justice is our strongest weapon, and we have it entirely on our side. There is no case to be made for ‘Israel’ outside of the ‘logic’ of power. I will never recognize that colonialist state, because I believe racism deserves no recognition. What we need to do as Palestinians is to protect our cause, and the heart of our cause is our Right to Return. If we succeed in passing this determination on to the next generations, we have done the most important thing we can do for Palestine, and for the Palestinian cause.

We have to remain clear about this towards all the nations of the world, and we should never forget that the world already recognizes this Right of Return, even if the international community is failing to take the steps that are necessary to put it into practice. We must therefore continue our support for the calls of PACBI for a sustained economic, cultural and academic boycott of ‘Israel’.

As a part of this strategy, we must also put a lot of energy in working against normalization. Normalization has the dangerous potential to take all the energy out of BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) activities. We must continue to call for the dismantlement of the Zionist state, and the resurrection of a one-state Palestine that is a nation for all of its people regardless of religion or ‘race’. These are the steps, and we must hang on to them with classical Palestinian determination.


Any final thoughts you would like to share with us today?

 

 

I would like to extend my hand in solidarity, gratitude and admiration to all those who are working for Palestinian rights worldwide. There are so many more who feel the same as they do, and who simply lack the courage to speak out. The ones who do have that courage can play an important role in activating these ‘silent sympathizers’. Imagine if all those would speak out loud – the noise of their rejection of Israeli Apartheid would be deafening. So give them a hand, pass them my songs to encourage them. That’s what I made them for!

Posted on by

Anti-normalization: a necessary part of BDS-campaigning

Nonormalization

Nonormalization
by Doc Jazz – Some people have been wondering why the word ‘normalization’ is being used by pro-Palestine movements more and more frequently. Many seem to be puzzled by this word, not knowing exactly what is meant by it. What probably strikes them the most is that this expression, based on the word ‘normal’ which ordinarily has a positive connotation, is used in this context as something that is looked down upon or even despised. It therefore seems important to clarify what it means, why it is seen as negative, and what its role is in the oppression and dispossession of the Palestinian people.

 

 

Definition and forms of normalization


 

‘Normalization’ in the Palestinian context means: treating the Zionist state as if it is a ‘normal’ country like any other, instead of an illegitimate settler colony built on stolen land. It is mostly applied when Arab states, nations or people engage in social, economic, cultural or political relationships with ‘Israel’. The negative context of this word is based on the fact that it is a widely held view in the Arab world that this colonialist and racist state should be boycotted, isolated and pressured, instead of allowing it to prosper in an environment of normality. In Arabic, this expression is called ‘ta6bee3′.

We are living in a time when normalization is rampant, as can be illustrated by various examples. Political normalization is most obvious in the case of Egypt and Jordan, which are the only two Arab countries to have signed a peace treaty with the Zionist state and which openly engage in political and economic interactions. In some of the other Arab nations there are examples where normalization happens more covertly or less outspokenly, and mainly takes the form of economic and strategic ties.

 

 

These two types of normalization are tied in with geopolitics, and take place on the level of governments. However, the other types are a matter for ordinary people and their societal organizations. In this context one can think of performing arts, collaboration between universities, sports, academic interactions and exchanges, and other situations in which the involvement of Israeli citizens is deemed acceptable.

 

 

Who are the ‘normalizers’?


 

With the globalization of the call for the boycott of the Zionist state, and the increasing effort of people in many countries around the world to popularize BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions), the word ‘normalization’ has been finding its way to debates and discussions held outside of the Arab world. The difference outside of the Middle East is mainly that the governments of most of those nations have already long ‘normalized’ their relations with ‘Israel’. Because of this, the word loses some of its meaning in the international context, but not necessarily all.

In our modern times, the Western World is home to an increasing number of Muslims and people of Arab descent. From their background, they are expected to have more knowledge about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and to have an automatic solidarity with the Palestinians living under occupation and persecution. This usually makes sense, because unlike the indigenous populations of the West who are brainwashed by their own media, they cannot claim ignorance of the Palestinian ordeal as a pretext for ignoring their tragedy. The same goes for some Arab publicists who live in the Arab world, but use English mainly to propagate their ideas, thus engaging a Western audience with their views. When these people express acceptance of Zionism or Zionists, they also earn themselves a qualification as ‘normalizers’.

 

 

 

Also, as the BDS-movement continues to grow, aiming to create a worldwide boycott of the Zionist state in the same fashion as that which brought down South African Apartheid in the eighties, the expression can be applied to any world citizens who distance themselves from BDS and continue to legitimize Israel in a variety of venues, like that of the arts, that of academic cooperation, or on a level of trade and business.

 

 

Not always black and white


 

One should be careful not to label things as ‘normalization’ too indiscriminately. There are situations in which there is an almost inevitable necessity for engagement with the Zionist oppressor. A good example of this exists among Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories who would suffer unemployment unless they worked for Israeli companies, a situation which is also a direct result of the occupation. It also doesn’t seem fair to use the word ‘normalization’ when it comes to Palestinians who carry Israeli citizenship. There is a credible argument to be made that their only choice in counteracting the ongoing policy of institutionalized Israeli discrimination against them, is by participating as fully in society as possible.

 

 

However, when the possibility for boycotting and isolating does exist, and is deliberately shunned, the label of ‘normalization’ is in order. Is there, for instance, a specific necessity for a university in the West Bank to engage in exchange programs with an Israeli university? Is there an absolute and irreplaceable need for an Arab performing artist to schedule performances in the state of ‘Israel’, and try to gain popularity among its citizens? Is it necessary for migrant organizations in the Western world to forge ties and cooperations with Zionist representatives of the Jewish communities there? In all these examples, the obvious answer is ‘no’. These are therefore examples of normalization, and can easily become subjects for heated inter-Arab discussion.

 

 

Motivations


 

When you engage in discussions with those who engage in normalization, there is a variety of responses. There are die-hard opportunists among them; being pro-Israel happens to be lucrative in a world that is dominated by a Western-oriented market. Based on this, you will for instance find journalists adapting their writing and their reporting to Zionist interests. You will find travel agencies adapting their maps and portraying the West Bank and Gaza as parts of the Zionist state. You will find artists of Arab origin organizing concert performances in Tel Aviv. There are also seemingly more innocent examples: thus, you will sometimes find Palestinians living in the West announcing on their Facebook profile that they went to visit their family in ‘Israel’.

 

 

But there are also those who simply do not believe in the potential effectiveness of BDS, including the academic and cultural boycott. They often contend that they are ‘bridge-builders’ who have the power to defuse tensions between peoples, and thereby can contribute to an atmosphere of ‘mutual understanding and respect’. In many cases these people have little knowledge of the political situation, and tend to underestimate the true nature of the Zionist project. They underestimate its racism, and its inherently violent behavior. Despite well over 60 years of the hard evidence of their continuous acts of oppression, expulsion and expansionism, in the views of these people the Zionists are apparently still perceived as if they were having the best of intentions.

 

 

Dangers of normalization


 

In both styles of normalization that are described above, those who engage in it tend to downplay the negative role they are playing when they act this way. BDS is a vital and essential part of Palestinian non-violent resistance. Since it is hardly thinkable that those who engage in normalization would advocate armed struggle against ‘Israel’, by positioning themselves in opposition to BDS, the message they are sending is that Palestinians should not be resisting at all.

In fact, normalization is even worse than only this. While the BDS movement is trying to build pressure upon ‘Israel’ to end its ongoing practices of land theft, racism and ethnic cleansing, normalizers are providing them with breathing space that helps them to withstand this pressure. It is therefore no wonder that the Zionist state usually treasures the normalizers, and treats them with the utmost respect. Acts of normalization, whether on the political, economical, cultural, social or academic level, each in their own way undermine the tireless efforts of the BDS movement.

 

 

 

 

How to deal with it

 

In order for boycott strategies to be effective, serious efforts must therefore also be put in to counter normalization. In some cases, this can be done by reasoning, and convincing normalizers that their actions are a form of aiding and sustaining the occupation. We have to realize that some of these acts are given in by the misguided belief that ‘reaching out to the other side’ is an act of ‘peace’. Those who think this way, fail to see that this way of thinking only makes sense in a situation where the two opposing parties are of comparable strength, and are not applicable when the reality is that one of the two overwhelms the other by a massive advantage in military force, economic relations and political clout with the world’s superpowers. On top of this, this way of thinking nullifies the value of justice by treating both sides as equally guilty, a thought which in itself defies the very principles of common sense and international law.

 

 

 

 

If reasoning and convincing fails to yield results, ‘naming and shaming’ becomes a necessity. As long as normalizers don’t feel any heat from their actions, they will continue to bask in the financial and other advantages of pleasing the powerful. The fact that mass media usually promotes them heavily means that their noxious effect also receives disproportionately large exposure, which in turn has a negative educational effect upon the masses, further obstructing efforts to popularize BDS campaigns, and reducing their success.

 

Hopefully, it has been illustrated in the above that no BDS campaign can be truly complete without its necessary anti-normalization efforts. Although this task has the quite unpleasant aspect of being aimed mainly at those standing at one’s own side of the fence, one would be ‘mopping while the faucets are open’ as a saying in the Dutch language has it, if these efforts would be omitted. It is therefore upon all of us to help create awareness about normalization, and to make sure that it becomes a part of the vocabulary and understanding of all those who are active in the struggle for Palestinian liberation and independence.

 

Doc JazzDoc Jazz is a Palestinian surgeon and musician living in the Arab Gulf, known for his funky style of jazz-pop and his inspiring song lyrics. He has songs in English, Arabic and also a few in Dutch, since he was born and raised in the Netherlands. Most of his songs deal with the Palestinian cause. This website features his songs (almost 100 of them), his lyrics, his music videos (almost 40 of them) and many of his articles. The site also regularly features posts about anything related to music and Palestine. The Musical Intifada has been online since 2001, but has undergone many updates and changes since.

Stay informed, entertained and active : http://www.docjazz.com/

Posted on by

The one-sided US veto

Palestine Flag

The US, arguing that unilateralism is misguided, hypocritically plans to veto Palestinian statehood at the UN.

Neve Gordon and Yinon Cohen

 

US President Barack Obama’s decision to use the US’ veto prerogative if the United Nations votes to recognise a Palestinian state will constitute a blow to those seeking peace in the Middle East.

His administration’s claim that peace can only be achieved through dialogue and consent rather than through unilateral moves ignores the complex power relations that constitute peace-making between Israelis and Palestinians. History teaches that peace is achieved only when the conflicting sides believe that they have too much to lose by sustaining the conflict. And, at this point in history, the price Israel is paying for continuing the occupation is extremely small.

But if, for the sake of argument, one were to accept the view expressed by President Obama – that unilateralism is a flawed political approach – then one should survey the history of unilateral moves within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and examine the US response towards them.

A logical place to begin is 1991, when Israelis and Palestinians met for the first time in Madrid to negotiate a peace agreement. United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338, which call for Israel’s withdrawal from the land it occupied during the 1967 War in exchange for peace, served as the basis for the Madrid Conference.

Ever since that conference, Israel has carried out numerous unilateral moves that have undermined efforts to reach a peace agreement based on land for peace. These include the confiscation of Palestinian land, the construction of settlements and the transfer of Jewish citizenry to occupied territories, actions that every US administration regarded as an obstruction to the peace process.

Settlement expansion

Consider, for example, the Jewish settler population. At the end of 1991, there were 132,000 Jewish settlers in East Jerusalem and 89,800 settlers in the West Bank. Two decades later, the numbers of settlers in East Jerusalem has increased by about 40 per cent, while the settlers in the West Bank, according to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, have increased by over 300 per cent. Currently, there are about half a million Jewish settlers.

If Israel had arrested its unilateral transfer of Jewish citizens to Palestinian land in 1991 once it had embarked upon a peace process based on the return of occupied territory, the number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank would have been less than 50 per cent of what it is today.

Indeed, estimations based on the natural growth rate of the West Bank settler population suggest that this population would have been less than 150,000 people in 2011, while today it is actually over 300,000.

An analysis of settler movement to the West Bank also reveals that settler population growth has not been substantially different when left-of-centre parties have been in power. During periods in which the Labour Party formed the governing coalition, the numbers have been just as high, if not higher, than periods during which Likud or Kadima have been in power. This, in turn, underscores the fact that all Israeli governments have unilaterally populated the contested West Bank with more Jewish settlers while simultaneously carrying out negotiations based on land for peace.

Seeing that the settlers are undermining any future two-state solution, the Palestinians have decided not to wait any longer and are asking the United Nations to recognise a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. This, they intimate, is their last attempt to salvage the two-state route before abandoning it to the dustbin of history.

Their argument is straightforward: If the idea behind a two-state solution is dividing land among the two peoples, how can Israel unilaterally continue to settle the contested land while carrying out negotiations? Israeli unilateralism, in other words, has driven the Palestinians to choose the unilateral path. The only difference is that the latter’s unilateralism is aimed at advancing a peace agreement, while the former’s is aimed at destroying it.

One-sided US veto

The US has never considered using its veto power to stop Israel from carrying out unilateral moves aimed at undermining peace.

Instead, the US has frequently used its veto to prevent the condemnation of Israeli policies that breach international law. Now the Obama Administration wants to use the veto again, with the moral justification that unilateralism is misguided. But the real question is: Why is unilateralism bad when it attempts to advance a solution, yet warrants no response when unilateralism threatens to undermine a solution?

President Obama should keep in mind that the Palestinian appeal to the international community might very well be the last chance for salvaging the two-state solution.

If the Palestinian demand for recognition falls through due to a US veto, then the necessary conditions for a paradigm shift will be in place: The two-state solution will be even less feasible, and the one-state formula will emerge as the only alternative.

First published in Al Jazeera

Neve Gordon is the author of Israel’s Occupation and can be reached through his website www.israelsoccupation.info

Yinon Cohen is Yerushalmi Professor of Israel and Jewish Studies, Department of Sociology, Columbia University, New York.

Posted on by

Support the Palestinian Initiative in the UN for Statehood

Photo courtesy of Palestine Solidarity Project

 

William James Martin

Virginia Tilley, writing in the Electronic Intifada, under the title, ‘Bantustans and the unilateral declaration of statehood’ has argued that the Palestinian Authority’s move toward a UN resolution declaring statehood is destructive of Palestinian aspiration for statehood.

Unfortunately, Ms Tilley’s grasp of the Palestinian situation is distorted by her experience with South Africa. Ms Tilley is herself South African. She fails to appreciate the significant difference between the South African proposal establishing Bantustans for South Africa’s black residents and the Palestinian proposal at the United Nations for statehood.

Ms Tilley says:

“But Israeli protests could also be disingenuous. One tactic could be persuading worried Palestinian patriots that a unilateral declaration of statehood might not be in Israel’s interest in order to allay that very suspicion.”

Thus, in Ms Tilley’s view, Israel’s protest, the diplomatic missions of Israeli diplomats visiting capitals to try to dissuade UN member from supporting the Palestinian initiative, the effort of the US Congress to intimidate the Palestinians by threatening to cut off funding to the PA, Netanyahu’s impassioned threats to annex much of what remains of Palestine, the commitment of the Obama administration to veto such a resolution if it reaches the UN Security Council, and the recent last minute effort of the Obama administration to derail the effort are all Burr rabbit in the briar patch like tricks to achieve the opposite result.

The main difference, which Ms Tilley completely fails to recognize or address, is that the South African government proposed a series of disconnected Bantustans-islands completely isolated from one another  each surrounded by the state of South Africa, with highly attenuated sovereignty, for the exclusive residence of the countries black majority, whereas the Palestinian proposal is for the very same state to which Arafat and the PLO agreed in 1988, that is, a continuously connected state on the West Bank with East Jerusalem as its capital and the Gaza Strip connected by a corridor and with control of its borders, water resources and airspace. Netanyahu opposes any such UN resolution because it provides international legitimacy for the right of a Palestinian state to exists in Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital, enjoying the full rights of any nation, with control of its borders, its international relations, with embassies abroad and the right to bring legal matters before the United nations, including torts brought before the UN Criminal Court for Israel’s violations of human rights.

The Bantustan concept in which a Palestinian state would lack “any meaningful sovereignty over borders, natural resources, trade, security, foreign policy, water, …” is a concept which Arafat specifically rejected at Camp David in 2000 and does not comport with any reasonable concept of statehood, nor would it be the intention or understanding of the members of the UN Security Council voting for the Palestinian initiative, nor does it resemble anything the Palestinian Authority is seeking. The South African Bantustan was soundly rejected by the international community when it was proposed by the South African government.

But what is the alternative to this resolution?

The alternative would be a continuation of the present process which is no more than a cover to the continuous expropriation by Israel of all of Palestine, an expropriation which we are witnessing every day as Palestinians are constantly being displaced by Israeli expansion and their resources taken. Netanyahu argues that the expansion of Israel into East Jerusalem and the West Bank, which occurred in the context of the ’67 War, was legitimate and the West Bank and East Jerusalem is “disputed territory” in which Israel’s claim is as good as anyone else’s.

A UN resolution that East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, along with the Gaza Strip are properly part of a unified Palestinian state would undermine Mr Netanyahu’s argument and directly contradict it, and especially the centrality of his determination of ethnically cleansing all of Jerusalem which he has especially coveted for all of his adult political life, as have the members of the Lukud coalition, heirs to the Revisionist wing of Zionism.  Revisionism, which advocated the ‘revising’ the British Mandate for Palestine to include the east bank of the Jordan, is Netanyahu’s ideological underpinning. Some strains of the Revisionists were committed to the creation of a Jewish State extending from the Nile to the Euphrates.

We must not underestimate Mr Netanyahu’s fanatic dedication to Zionist Revisionism, or at least one content, for the present, with the capture of all of Palestine west of the Jordan, the so called land of Judea and Samaria.

According to historian Avi Shlaim, in his recent book, Israel and Palestine,

“The day that the Knesset endorsed Oslo II by a majority of one, thousands of demonstrators gathered in Zion Square in Jerusalem , Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the Likud, was on the grandstand, while the demonstrators displayed an effigy of Rabin in SS uniform. Netanyahu set the tone with an inflammatory speech, He called Oslo II a surrender agreement and accused Rabin of ‘causing national humiliation by accepting the dictates of the terrorist Arafat.’ A month later, on November 1995, Rabin was assassinated by a religious-nationalist Jewish fanatic with the explicit aim of derailing the peace process. Rabin’s demise, as his murderer expected, dealt a serious body blow to the entire peace process.”

Netanyahu contributed energy, emotional and rhetorical, that contributed to the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Rabin.

Shlaim continues:

“Netanyahu spent his two and a half years in power in a relentless attempt to arrest, freeze, and subvert the Oslo Accords. He kept preaching reciprocity while acting unilaterally in demolishing Arab houses, imposing curfews, confiscating Arab land, building new Jewish settlements and opening an archaeological tunnel near the Muslim holy places of the Old City of Jerusalem. Whereas the Oslo Accords left Jerusalem to the final stage of the negotiations, Netanyahu made it the centerpiece of his program in order to block progress on any other issue. His government waged an economic and political war of attrition against the Palestinians.”

This argument, by the way, that the territories occupied in the ’67 War are merely ‘disputed territories’ has never been opposed by Obama or by recent US administrations. Carter may have been the last US President to have explicitly rejected this self serving and false claim on the part of Israel. One has to think back a long way to even remember any mention by the American government of UN Resolution 242 which was written by the US government and passed by the Security Council in the aftermath of the ’67 War. UNR 242 includes the clause, the illegitimacy of territory captured by military force.

We should all be clear on the Likud’s plans for the West Bank and E Jerusalem and their program for negotiations with the Palestinians. These policies were outlined, most likely inadvertently, in a singular outburst of honesty by former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir upon his electoral loss in 1992 after having served for longer than any Israeli prime minister with the exception of David Ben Gurion. He said:

”I would have carried on autonomy talks for ten years, and meanwhile, we would have reached half a million people in Judea and Samaria.”

Mr Shamir would be happy to learn that his policies have been continued by his successors, including Mr Netanyahu, and there are now half a million Jewish settlers living in ‘Judea and Samaria.’

In fact, a UN Resolution declaring the legitimacy and existence of  Palestinian state,  even if passed only by the General Assembly, would establish a legitimacy on the par with, or even greater than that provided by General Assembly Resolution 181, which Israel claims provided its initial international legitimacy and is incorporated into the Israeli Declaration of Independence. UN SC Resolution 181 was only a recommendation  for the partition of Palestine into two states, of roughly equal land area, one for Jews and one Arabs, with Jerusalem set aside to be administered internationally. Such a UN resolution, as sought by the PA, would be a stronger one than UNSC 181 which Israel claims as the origin of it legitimacy. Mr Netanyahu’s opposition to such a UN resolution has an urgency which Ms Tilley completely fails to grasp. Among other features, it would deny to Israel any legitimacy for the takeover of East Jerusalem and would be fatal to the argument that the occupied territories are merely disputed.

Like the 29 standing ovations which the US Congress gave the Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu would take a rejection of the Palestinian proposal in the United Nations as another imprimatur, this time provided by the world community, for the continuation of his present policies of grabbing  a piece of Palestinian land every day.

Personally, I favor, like Ms Tilley, one unified state with equal rights for all its citizens regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity. But the more immediate and urgent problem is to halt the continual expansion of Israel and the dispossession of the Palestinians and to discredit Netanyahu’s argument that the occupied territories are ‘disputed territories’ rather than ‘illegally occupied’ territories.

  • William James Martin taught at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. He contributed this article to RamallahOnline. Contact him at: wjm20@caa.columbia.edu.