Monday, April 15, 2013

One State: Equal, Secular and Democratic- A New Strategy for Palestinian-Israeli Peace

By: Katie Huerter    April 15, 2013




Today, it is evident that two decades of Oslo peace process have brought Palestinians and Israel no closer to establishing a viable peace.  Palestinians have remained internally displaced within the state of Israel since 1948. Israel now controls over 62% of the West Bank and has ignored all international calls and laws to stop its colonization process through its settlement expansion. Israel has sanctioned, funded and encouraged the growth of the settler population in the West Bank.  It built 85% of the separation barrier on occupied West Bank land. The siege of the Gaza Strip has exacerbated the social and national distance between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and its continued colonization campaign based on religious and nationalist ideology has accelerated the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, further damaging any future hopes of a secure, independent Palestinian state. 

“The call for two states is really a call for the separation of two populations based on ethno-national homogeneity. The proposal has failed, not just because of a lack of accountability, but because it is fundamentally flawed. Like prescribing aspirin to deal with cancer, Oslo offered truncated self-rule as a prescription for Jewish-Israeli settler-colonialism and domination” (Erakat, Noura. “Rethinking Israel-Palestine: Beyond Bantustans, Beyond Reservations” New York Times. March 21, 2013).
            
Today’s Israel-Palestine is impossible to divide and is demonstrably one state.  But, it is a discriminatory single state operating an apartheid-style system against the Palestinians with impunity.  The Zionist colonization project is at the very core of the refugee crisis and the marginalization of Palestinian Arabs at the time of the British Mandate, and remains to be the at the very core of the continued marginalization of Palestinian Arabs today.  Every Palestinian displaced beyond the borders of the mandate territory of Palestine is thus a success for the apartheid regime, and any successful return of a displaced Palestinian is a threat to the regime in its totality. The denial of refugee return is not simply one aspect of Israeli apartheid; it is the cornerstone of the Israeli colonial-apartheid project as a whole. Additionally, the issue of settlements must be addressed head on.  Israel is making the establishment of a Palestinian state impossible through its settlement expansion, the erection of the separation barrier in the West Bank and the hundreds of roadblocks and checkpoints that obstruct the movement of Palestinians.  Israeli settlements, illegal under international law, pose an obstacle to peace and will continue to deny the Palestinians a viable, contiguous state.

Therefore, a new Palestinian-Israeli strategy aimed at a single, democratic secular state is needed for a just and lasting peace to occur.  The goal of the single, democratic secular state should be to dismantle the institutions that provide any type of legal or social privilege to any particular ethnic, religious or national group.  In addition to the removal of all discriminatory laws and practices, rehabilitative policies must be included in order to achieve a lasting just peace for all who call Israel and Palestine their home.

Historical Overview


It is important to note, that although a series of laws have been passed by Israel that privilege its Jewish populations and continue to marginalize and dispossess its non-Jewish indigenous population, two laws are particularly relevant: “The citizenship Law (1952) bifurcated Jewish nationality from Israeli citizenship and denationalized the Palestinian population.  In doing so, the state instantly created a two-tiered system of rights: one available for Jews, who could be both nationals and citizens, and one for non-Jews, who could be citizens only.  The Law of Return (1950) extended the right to Israeli citizenship and associated state benefits to any Jewish person, now a Jewish national as well, anywhere in the world. These laws not only helped to solidify Israel’s Jewish demographic majority, but in addition to instituting multiple similar laws, it also solidified Jewish political, social and economic privilege” (Erakat, Noura. “Rethinking Israel-Palestine: Beyond Bantustans, Beyond Reservations” New York Times. March 21, 2013). 

The Palestinian refugee crisis began when Israel was created as a state in 1948.  During the ensuing Arab-Israeli war, 750,000 indigenous Palestinians, whose families had lived in Palestine for hundreds of years, were forcibly expelled by, or fled in terror of, the powerful militias that would soon become the army of the State of Israel. Palestinians call this the "Nakba," Arabic for "catastrophe" or "disaster."  In December 1948, following Israel's establishment and the attendant displacement of approximately 750,000 Palestinians from areas that fell within its control, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194, which states, "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.” parties (FACT SHEET: The Right of Return & Palestinian Refugees. IMEU, NOV 5, 2012. http://imeu.net/news/article0023194.shtml).

Throughout the years of 1947- 1949, approximately 750,000 Palestinian refugees were displaced and more than 500 Palestinian villages were depopulated and later destroyed to prevent the return of the refugees.  In the districts of Jaffa, Ramla and Bir Saba not one Palestinian village was left standing.  150,000 Palestinians remained in the areas of Palestine that became the state of Israel.  Around 40,000 of these were internally displaced.  Israel refuged to allow these internally displaced Palestinians to return to their homes and villages.  Ongoing displacement of Palestinians continued from 1948-1966.  According to Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights, Israeli officials transferred Palestinians from one village to another within the borders of the state in order to facilitate colonization of these areas and enacted multiple military laws aimed to displace Palestinians and confiscate their land. The consequences of the 1967 War resulted in the expulsion of over 400,000 Palestinians approximately 35% of the Palestinian population of the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.  Villages in Latroun and Jerusalem were destroyed, as well as several refugee camps.  Almost half of those expelled were Palestinian refugees from 1948 (Palestinian Refugees and IDPs: The Right of Return. Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights. May 2011).

The right of the law of return is part of international law, and Palestinians are specifically guaranteed that right by UN Resolution 194 of December 1948, which states that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return.”  In addition, other international laws and conventions including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and several regional conventions all support the right for refugees to return and compensation.

Furthermore, under international law, all refugees have a right to return to areas from which they have fled or were forced, to receive compensation for damages, and to either regain their properties or receive compensation and support for voluntary resettlement. This right derives from a number of legal sources, including customary international law, international humanitarian law governing rights of civilians during war, and human rights law. The United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 13(2) that "everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his own country." This is an individual right and cannot be unilaterally abrogated by third parties. (FACT SHEET: The Right of Return & Palestinian Refugees. IMEU, NOV 5, 2012. http://imeu.net/news/article0023194.shtml).

In the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, more Palestinians have been displaced as a result of war, house demolition, revocation of residency rights in Jerusalem and construction of illegal Jewish settlements, as well as the Wall and its associated regime.  Over 105,000 internally displaced Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza strip before Operation Cast Lead.  In 2008, approximately 265,000 Palestinians in West Bank communities facing imminent displacement. The majority of Palestinian refugees live within a 100-mile radius of their original homes and villages.  Of the 3.8 million refugees registered by the UN, 33% live in 59 overcrowded and under-resourced camps administered by the UN throughout the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.  The other 67% are scattered throughout the Middle East and other countries around the world (FACT SHEET: The Right of Return & Palestinian Refugees. IMEU, NOV 5, 2012. http://imeu.net/news/article0023194.shtml).

Palestinian refugees are the largest and longest standing single group of refugees in the world.  Almost two in five refugees worldwide are Palestinian.  In total, the Palestinian refugee population comprises approximately three-quarters of the entire Palestinian population worldwide, numbered today at some 9.8 million.  The Palestinian right of return has been confirmed repeatedly by the UN General Assembly, including through Resolution 3236, which "Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return."  Despite international law and specific UN resolutions, Israel has not allowed Palestinian refugees to return.  This is in spite of the fact that Israel’s admission to the UN in 1949 was conditioned on its willingness to abide by General Assembly resolution 194 calling for repatriation and compensation.  Today, Israel maintains that allowing the Palestinian refugees to return would change its demographic balance, more than doubling Israel’s current 19% Palestinian population.  Israel also claims that there is no space to accommodate Palestinian refugees seeking to return to their homes (FACT SHEET: The Right of Return & Palestinian Refugees. IMEU, NOV 5, 2012. http://imeu.net/news/article0023194.shtml).

“The expulsion of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine during Israel's establishment was not an unintended consequence of war, but rather a preconceived strategy of "transfer." The blueprint for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was Plan Dalet, which was developed and implemented under the leadership of Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, and the forerunner of the Israeli army, the Haganah.  Two months prior to Israel's declaring independence, on March 10, 1948, the Zionist leadership under Ben-Gurion adopted Plan Dalet, which laid out in detail a plan for the forcible depopulation and destruction of Palestinian towns and villages. Amongst other things, it called for: 
'Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.” (FACT SHEET: The Right of Return & Palestinian Refugees. IMEU, NOV 5, 2012. http://imeu.net/news/article0023194.shtml).

Multiple Israeli leaders have voiced opinions and concerns regarding the transfer of Palestinians and the problem of Palestinian refugees for Israel.  In 1895, The father of modern Zionism, Theodor Herzl, wrote, “We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country...expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly” (Benny Morris. “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited.” 2004).  More recently, Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel from 2001-2006, said, "It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." (Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998).

In the Gaza strip, “Two out of three Palestinian residents of Gaza - more than a million people – identify themselves as refugees; the majority of these are 1948, and not 1967, refugees - that is, they fled to the Strip in the “ethnic cleansing” of 1948 and not the Six Day War and subsequent occupation of 1967” (Ten Things You Need to Know About Gaza.15/11/2012 20:09 http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/gaza-10-things-you-need-to-know_b_2139356.html?view=print&comm_ref=false).  The Gaza strip is one of the most crowded and impoverished communities in the world.  The Gaza strip is an area twenty-five miles long and is home to 1.6 million Palestinians.  Since 2007, Israel has imposed an almost total blockade on the movement of people and good in or out of Gaza and currently controls Gaza’s airspace and territorial waters.  The U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation states, “Israel’s blockade of the Palestinian Gaza Strip is an illegal act of collective punishment in violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.  According to the Geneva Conventions, Israel is legally responsible for providing the basic needs of Palestinians who are forced to live under its military occupation” (http://www.endtheoccupation.org/downloads/gazasiegetps.pdf). 

According to a March 2011 UN report entitled, “Easing the Blockade: Assessing the Humanitarian Impact on the Population of the Gaza Strip,” international law does allow Israel to restrict the access of people and goods to and from Gaza for legitimate security concerns; however, when doing so, it must balance these concerns with the rights and needs of Gaza's population. In any case, Israel must absolutely refrain from imposing restrictions that are detrimental to these rights and needs and are not strictly required by legitimate security needs. Policies and practices in contravention to this norm may amount to collective punishment, which is prohibited under any circumstances. (Easing the Blockade: Assessing the Humanitarian Impact on the Population of the Gaza Strip. March 2011 UN Report).

Recent Developments

In the wake of the Arab Spring, multiple events and changes continue to sweep across the region including: a brief war in Gaza, a vote in the United Nations granting observer statehood to Palestine, Netanyahu’s announcement of plans to build 3,400 additional homes for settlers in the occupied West Bank, and an election in Israel.  In mid-March of this year (2013), Netanyahu unveiled his new coalition dominated by the hawkish Likud-Beitenu and its new national-religious ally Jewish Home, a far-right faction that is the party of choice for settlers. 

Following the recent Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip last November (2012), popular resistance movements have been spreading throughout the West Bank and continuously building momentum.  In late November 2012, Netanyahu announced plans to build 3,400 settlement units in an area known as E1, effectively cutting off Jerusalem form the West Bank.  Popular resistance activists responded by erecting a tent “village” called Bab al-Shams in E1, symbolically appropriating the methods of land confiscation employed by settlers.  Although the tent demonstration only lasted two days before the activists were evicted by direct orders from Netanyahu, momentum has continued to build and the popular resistance movement has continued to spread.  

This year alone, thousands of Palestinians have joined the popular resistance movementand have protested throughout the West Bank, “first in solidarity with Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike demanding an end to the indefinite detention of Palestinians without trial, later in outrage at the death of a 30-year old prisoner named Arafat Jaradat.  Once again, the words “third intifada” were buzzing through the press” (Ehrenreich, Ben. “Is This Where The Third Intifada Will Start?” New York Times. March 15, 2013). 

In early January (2013), following the United Nations’ conferral of nonmember state status on Palestine last November (2012), the Palestinian foreign minister, Riad Malki, warned that if Israel persisted in its plans to expand its settlements throughout the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Palestinian leadership will be taking Israel to the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.).  

The I.C.C. could prosecute major international crimes committed on Palestinian soil anytime after the court’s founding on July 1st, 2002.  Furthermore, the upgraded status at the United Nations enables the Palestinian leadership to advance the cause of Palestinian freedom from Israeli occupation for Palestinians living the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip within the framework of human rights and international law.  Although an upgraded status to an observer state for Palestine has multiple advantages for the Palestinian people, the upgraded status still fails to address the right of return under international law for Palestinians, which is vital for a just peace process.  “The initiative will not, in and of itself, achieve justice for Palestinian refugees because it will not ensure they can exercise their right of return to their homes in what is today Israel. Nor will the initiative, in and of itself, achieve equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel.  Both justice for Palestinian refugees and equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel are necessary for the establishment of a just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace and for reconciliation between Palestinians and Jewish Israelis” (http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=3022).  

Recent international support and solidarity with the Palestinians’ struggle for equality and freedom has been building as well.   

On April 7th, 2013, the Teachers Union of Ireland (TUI) voted unanimously to support the request for an academic boycott that has been made by a broad coalition of Palestinian civil society. The union has called on its members to “cease all cultural and academic collaboration with Israel, including the exchange of scientists, students and academic personalities, as well as all cooperation in research programmes”.  The motion refers to Israel as an “apartheid state” and called on the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) to build on its previous work and to “step up its campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against the apartheid state of Israel until it lifts its illegal siege of Gaza and its illegal occupation of the West Bank, and agrees to abide by International law and all UN resolutions against it”  (http://www.ipsc.ie/press-releases/palestinian-academics-teachers-and-writers-welcome-tui-boycott-israel-call).

Policy Recommendations


Ongoing events in the region have the potential to have grave effects on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process- including: the recent elections in Israel, polls in Jordan and the start of the US President Obama's second term.  This is not a time for any concerned party to remain idle on the peace process.  The future of the Palestinian struggle must include a cohesive strategy aimed at a one-state with equal rights within what is now a unitary state ruled by Israel. 

Politically, the Palestinians remain just as divided as the Israelis, torn between Abbas’s Fatah leadership, which controls the West Bank, and the militant Hamas which rules the Gaza Strip.  “Any moves to resume the peace talks will by necessity have to involve some kind of reconciliation with Hamas, both with the Palestinians and with the international community,” argued Khaled Elgindy, a former adviser to the Palestinian leadership on the negotiations with Israel.  Furthermore, the new Palestinian strategy must either dismantle the Palestinian Authority (PA) as it is currently constituted as a result of the Oslo Accords, or change the direction of the Palestinian leadership.  “The PA’s role as a buffer between the occupier and the occupied should end, along with the illusion of s spurious Palestinian autonomy it has fostered.  This has not only shielded Israel from facing its legal obligations as an occupying power, but it has created a false equivalence between the occupier and occupied” (Karmi, Ghada. “Palestinians need a one-state solution.” The Guardian).  The PA’s new role in its relationship to Israel should be pursuing the rights of its occupied people, including the right to political resistance. 

It is vital that the Palestinian leadership fulfills their responsibilities in ensuring justice and redress for Palestinian victims of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law by seeking justice through the international courts. Palestinian leadership have a responsibility to sign the Rome Statute and other international treaties in order to provide protection for the Palestinian people, due to Palestine’s recognition of non-member observer status to the United Nations on November 29th, 2012.  The I.C.C. is the primary institution through which they may seek to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of crimes against the Palestinian people, and achieve accountability for the countless Palestinian victims who have been denied access to justice for so long.

“If the choice is between a Palestinian legal intifada, in which arguments are hashed out in court, and an actual intifada, in which blood flows in the streets, the global community should encourage the former.  Indeed, Palestinians would be doing themselves, Israelis and the global community a favor by invoking I.C.C. jurisdiction. Ending Israel’s impunity for its clear violations of legal norms would both promote peace in the Middle East and help uphold the integrity of international law.” (Bisharat, George. “Why Palestine Should Take Israel to Court in the Hague.” The New York Times. 29 January, 2013.)  

Additionally, the new Palestinian strategy should continue to intensify its international efforts at Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) in concert with Palestinian internal resistance against Zionist colonization and apartheid policies.  Similar strategies have proved to helped end white rule in South Africa, with former apartheid officials themselves testifying to the impact of BDS on their ability to obtain international loans and the cultural impact of South Africa’s isolation in international arenas.

Today’s Israel-Palestine is impossible to divide and is demonstrably one state.  But, it is a discriminatory single state operating an apartheid-style system against the Palestinians with impunity.  The Zionist colonization project is at the very core of the refugee crisis and the marginalization of Palestinian Arabs at the time of the British Mandate, and remains to be the at the very core of the continued marginalization of Palestinian Arabs today.  Therefore, a new Palestinian-Israeli strategy aimed at a single, democratic secular state is needed for a just and lasting peace to occur.  The goal of the single, democratic secular state should be to dismantle the institutions that provide any type of legal or social privilege to any particular ethnic, religious or national group.  In addition to the removal of all discriminatory laws and practices, rehabilitative policies must be included in order to achieve a lasting just peace for all who call Israel and Palestine their home.
           






Work Cited

Ali, Zarefa. “Right of Return for Palestinians.”  The Huffington Post. April 05, 2013. < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zarefa-ali/post_4596_b_3024339.html>.

Bisharat, George. “Why Palestine Should Take Israel to Court in the Hague.” The New York Times. 29 Janurary, 2013.

Ehrenreich, Ben. “Is This Where The Third Intifada Will Start?” New York Times. March 15, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/magazine/is-this-where-the-third-intifada-will-start.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Erakat, Noura. “Rethinking Israel-Palestine: Beyond Bantustans, Beyond Reservations” New York Times. March 21, 2013.

Khalidi, Rashid. “Is Any Hope Left for Mideast Peace?” The New York Times. March 13, 2013. < http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/opinion/obama-in-jerusalem.html?ref=opinion&_r=0>.

“FACT SHEET: The Right of Return & Palestinian Refugees.” IMEU, NOV 5, 2012. http://imeu.net/news/article0023194.shtml

“Palestinian Refugees and IDPs: The Right of Return.” Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residence

Benny Morris. “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited.” (2004).

Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.



“Easing the Blockade: Assessing the Humanitarian Impact on the Population of the Gaza Strip. March 2011 UN Report.”

“Operation Cast Lead 2.0.”  Hussein Ibish.Foreign Policy (Opinion). November 14, 2012.http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/14/operation_cast_lead_20
“PNA rejects Israeli threats to annul Oslo Accords.” Xinhua.November 14, 2012. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-11/14/c_131974674.htm

“Self-defense or provocation: Israel's history of breaking ceasefires.” IMEU, MAR15, 2012. http://imeu.net/news/article0022250.shtml







3 comments:

  1. By accepting and propagating the mantra of “Equal rights, One State, Two People”, offered as the 'best' formula and ideal model of solution rather than other successful models of Liberation, such as Algeria for example, means -knowingly or not- that we participate in whitewashing and rewarding the century-ongoing Zionist crimes, such paradigm gives a lee-way to the thriving of an illegal genocidal expansionist racist entity.

    Such solution simply means giving our blessing to the EXPANSION of “Israel” and granting the Zionist occupier a comprehensive and “peaceful” take over, and unrestricted control over our land and our lives.

    Like North America, South Africa was conquered and subsequently ruled by white Europeans several centuries ago, i.e. BEFORE International Law adopted through the Nuremberg Principles right after WW2, explicitly prohibited land acquisition through military conquest, and clearly defined Crimes Against Humanity, amidst them Wars of Aggression and Conquest , Genocide and Instigation of Wars & Crimes against peace, and War crimes to be the worst categories of crimes. All the latter Crimes having been, and still are in even worse manner, perpetrated by Jewish Israelis.

    This “one-state, two people” approach fully ignores the unbalanced premise of the reality on the ground, and the implication such proposal would have – namely the finalization of the aims of the racist, expansionist and exclusionary Jewish Nationalist experiment called “Israel”.

    It would de facto annex all residual Palestinian post-1967 Bantustans, and attach them to what would inevitably be “Israel” no matter what convoluted name would be attached to. Because indeed, there is no need to be a rocket scientist to know full well who would keep the arsenal, who would keep the apparatus of power, judicial, military, executive, financial, etc.

    All the while the demand granting equal rights to all, includes supremacists and invaders who have no historic or legal rights to the land, who are still flocking to Palestine as we speak, armed to the teeth by their support networks in US-America, in other words, these are active dangerous psychopathic criminals.

    Zionist Jews did not come to Palestine with olive branches to begin with, they did not come with peaceful intentions of co-existence with the indigenous population. They gushed in like savages, terrorizing unarmed peaceful farmers and land tenders, they tortured and imprisoned, they came to destroy, “cleanse”, conquer and dominate.

    A century on, their racist ideology, their use of terror, and their abominable psychopathic behaviour has only intensified, and drastically. The vast majority of that artificial “society” -and for very specific supremacist ideological reasons- are unwilling/ incapable of viewing the “other” as equal and over the passing of time they have shown to be unwilling to become modest or peaceful , let alone remain peaceful.

    Would any decent human-being force a mother to marry the murderer of her child?

    Would any decent human-being find it acceptable to force a child to live with his paedophile abuser?

    Would any decent human-being accuse these people, child and mother of “immorality” or call them “unrealistic” for refusing to tie their future with their abusers?

    Through the delusional “Equal Rights, One State, Two People” proposal, the FACTS ON THE GROUNDS would remain unchanged, and probably aggravated, since these FACTS, stock and barrel, would remain in the hands of SUPREMACISTS.

    This is NOT a solution.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Such approach is fatally flawed from its inception. For it equates between AGGRESSORS and VICTIMS. It ABSOLVES the CRIMINALS from being PROSECUTED by LAWS of JUSTICE, and it ABSOLVE them from GIVING BACK REAL ASSETS of LAND and PROPERTY.
    Thus it is detrimental to the rights of Palestinians, including ownership rights.

    Make no mistake, the fate of Palestine will be the forbearing sign indicating the shape of the future of International Relationships. By failing to liberate Palestine, we forfeit International Law, and that unambiguously opens the gates to an abyss. Any predatory group equipped with some military, would be vindicated to conquer and destroy whatever they want, wherever they want, on the primitive basis of military force. Basically a staggering regression back into the Stone Age methodology, expanded globally by contemporaneous weaponry’s range and effect, which is biocidal,and instantaneous .

    In conclusion, in this war-ridden era it has become a matter of acute urgency and prime importance, that Nations reconvene as a Community, to fulfill its responsibility to Restore International Law, as well as to affirm universal principles of ethics, in order to stop the bloodshed and destruction of our beautiful planet, by stopping predators and warmongers by all means necessary.


    ReplyDelete
  3. The following are the aims of most Palestinians,

    FULL LIBERATION of Historic Palestine. The Holy Land must be free from racists committing atrocities. A way must be found, to bring reason to the Holy Land, and there is no other way than to evict foreign criminals. Keep in mind that before the invasion by Jewish foreigners, Palestine was characterized by the harmonious coexistence between respectively a Palestinian Muslim majority, a Palestinian Christian minority and a Palestinian Jewish minority. To restore this harmonious cohesive fabric is the only way forward.

    FULL SOVEREIGNTY of the Palestinian Nation over their ancestral country: Palestine, with a constitution and a political system of their own independent choice. For the sake of International Peace and Security.

    PROSECUTION OF WAR CRIMINALS, plans of which should start without delay, A Palestinian JUDICIAL and IMMIGRATION System, will respectively prosecute former “Israeli” criminals and their associates, and/or grant or decline on an individual basis, a Right to Remain, based on criteria solely to be defined by said Immigration and Integration Services. Anyone who can prove non-participation in the ex-Israeli occupation apparatus, and who has demonstrated ability and willingness to a respectable and law-abiding conduct, will probably obtain a chance to gain unrestricted Palestinian citizenship, with equal rights.

    RETURN, RESTITUTION and COMPENSATIONS: Palestinian refugees have the unconditional Right of Return. Palestine and the Palestinian Nation at large, are entitled to full and unconditional Restitution of their land and property whenever possible, assorted with appropriate Compensation for more than seven decades of deprivation and slow genocide, Cultural destruction, and a whole array of atrocities and usurpation. .

    Now, the question is:

    Would any Jewish “Israeli” be interested to join us in our struggle for LIBERATION as one of us, as an EX-”Israeli” and a future Palestinian?

    ReplyDelete