Palestinian Independence is a very urgent need
By Yuval Halperin
Netanyahu`s success in convincing the world that the debate over the Palestinians is “not urgent” has also led activists to prefer the One State Solution, so as to take care of the Human Rights of the Palestinians. That is a mistake. Human Rights are important, but ending the occupation is more urgent.
`If we withdraw from The Territories, we will die,` cried out demagogue Netanyahu during his tenure as Israel`s Ambassador to the UN. While serving under Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Netanyahu was committed to a direct and blatant denial of the Palestinians` right to independence, an outright rejection of ending the occupation. Netanyahu succeeded in this, not because of being “a wizard” but because this approach is in fact not different from the prevailing policy among Israel`s `allies` - that is, the patrons on which Israel depends.
For many years, all the Western European Heads of State gave a verbal support to creating the State of Palestine, but firmly opposed taking concrete steps against the occupation. That is, national self-determination is not taken as a fundamental right of every single people, but as a gesture dependant on the occupier’s good will (or lack thereof). During Trump`s term, an enormous pressure was applied to the Arab states dependent on the United States to adopt a similar approach. Unfortunately, this pressure was effective in producing the United Arab Emirates` shameful move.
The `New Anti-Semitism` propaganda also had its part in pushing the Palestinian issue into the `non-urgent` corner. This campaign aims to deny the right of activists to focus on the Palestinian issue and concentrate an effort to free the Palestinians from occupation. By the `New Anti-Semitism` nonsense, we must give equal time to criticizing any Human Rights violation in any part of the world before being `allowed` to address the occupation which the Israeli army is forcing on the Palestinians.
The issue of `anti-Semitism` is nothing but false propaganda. The focus on the Palestinian struggle does not stem from the fact that the occupiers are Jews, but from the basic principle that that decolonization precedes democratization. The struggle for independence of a people living under foreign occupation rule had always been given priority over the issue of the political regime in the new state to be - and rightly so. National liberation is a matter for the international arena, while the political regime is first and foremost an internal matter for the people concerned, in their own country. An attempt to `impose` or `export` democracy means in effect a return to foreign rule.
In addition, not in every situation and in every condition the best solution for a people is a mechanical adoption of parliamentary democracy – a form of government which has developed in specific industrialized countries as a result of their specific circumstances and specific history. Foreign rule of one country over the people of another country, however, is always wrong and action must be taken to end it immediately - in a categorical manner and by Issuing an ultimatum to the occupier.
The `New Anti-Semitism` campaigners` use of the term `Human Rights` is cynical and lacks any shadow of integrity, as they do not truly care for Human Rights at all. However, their propaganda is successful in effecting also the community of activists and free radicals. Having worked diligently for years to expose Israeli crimes and condemn Human Rights violations within the framework of the occupation, they have now gotten `stuck` in seeing the whole issue through the human rights prism, while ignoring the national basis of the Palestinian struggle.
Absolute adherence to Human Rights deprives a national struggle the urgency, because getting an independent state does not necessary mean respect for Human Rights. Having an independent state is a precondition for respecting Human Rights - and moreover, it is the fulfillment of the aspirations of millions of people, an aspiration that is no less important, and often much more urgent, than the issue of Human Rights.
This is what caused the drift, among communities of activists and free radicals, towards the “One State” position with its various variants. To say “One State” means that it is not urgent to free more than five million Palestinians from the yoke of military occupation, because a single egalitarian state in a territory inhabited by to two rival national groups is not realistically feasible.
Completing the process of turning the Palestinian Authority into a state is a far more realistic move, because creating a new state in an Occupied Territory is one of the most common phenomena in the recent decades of human history. The number of settlers in the West Bank is a technical issue which can be dealt with. Getting two peoples to give up having a national state, expressing their national identity, is much more of a far-reaching idea – and therefore, much more cut off from concrete reality.
Making the Palestinian state into an urgent matter requires a minimum program. In the case of Palestine it is not enough to say “matter” – you must say “urgent matter”. There is needed a simple, “compact” demand, which would encapsulate the widest and most irreversible change within the most immediate time.
Outwardly, the government of Israel speaks of “solving the conflict by negotiations” – and Israel’s allies, on which Israel is in fact dependent, agree to it. Behind this line of propagandist misdirection is the assumption that freeing the Palestinians from occupation is a matter depending on Israel’s consent. Therefore, there is in Israel a frequent use of the expression “The dream of a Palestinian state” – instead of talking of the Palestinians’ unconditional right to an independent state, which does not require the consent of Israel or of anyone else, The message should be “State of Palestine – Now!”, with negotiations held only with the precondition that they be negotiations between two sovereign states with equal status and equal rights. That should the basis of any campaign of solidarity with the Palestinian People – wherever it is held, throughout the world, towards any government and any other interested party.
Israel is very much afraid of more and more countries recognizing the State of Palestine. Israel is using all available means – propaganda and deception, bribes and intimidation – to prevent it. In this Israel is usually getting a full American backing – not only during Trump’s term. Most countries in the world do recognize Palestine as a state – but unfortunately, this recognition is not enough to tilt the balance of forces. Exactly the countries on which Israel is dependent do not recognize Palestine – and thereby, they create the situation that the Palestinians are the only people in the world whose national liberation is dependent on the consent of their occupier.
In this way, the Netanyahu Doctrine permanently prevents the ending of the occupation/ The larger part of the Israeli political spectrum, including the current main opposition party, oppose the creation of the State of Palestine not out of security apprehensions and distrust of the Palestinians, but out of an ideological support for conquering the entire country with all its parts. Therefore, campaigns of public pressure should be launched, using all available means. Members of the Arab League should be pressure not to join the normalization with Israel, as long as the independent Palestine has not arisen. The countries of East and South Asia, Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe must be pressured to turn their formal recognition of Palestine into a consideration influencing the level and volume of their relations with Israel. The countries of Western Europe, North America and Oceania should be pressured to recognize unilaterally the State of Palestine in the 1967 borders; they should cease regarding a Palestinian state as a matter subject to Israel’s consent and supposedly coming out of endless futile negotiations.
All these countries should be made accountable for the continuation of the occupation, regardless of their internal political regime. For they are independent out of the principle of Self-Determination, and no regime can be a justification for abolishing their state’s independence.
|