RSS Feeds
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil,    but because of the people who don't do anything about it    
Occupation magazine - Commentary

Home page  back Print  Send To friend

Palestinian Independence is a very urgent need
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.


Links to the latest articles in this section

Is there still a chance to break the cycle of revenge and bloodshed?
Israelis Against Apartheid Statement Following ICJ Hearing
Three weeks into the Gaza War - a somber and sober assessment, with some historical perspectives