Democratic Palestine : 39 (ص 30)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 39 (ص 30)
- المحتوى
-
WH
backing down from their position con-
cerning the right to return to clear the
way for proposed US-sponsored
«peace talks» with Israel. Although
promoted as «realistic,» this position is
anything but that, ignoring as it does
the plight of exiles and refugees who
have played a crucial role in the Pales-
tinian revolution.
Moving to the issue of Palestinians
inside the green line, he emphasized
that all Palestinians - refugees, exiles,
residents of the 1967 occupied ter-
ritories - «belong to one nation and
one homeland», and have a linked
political destiny. In turn, their destiny
is linked with that of Jews in Israel. It
is on this basis that Abna Al Balad
calls for the building of a democratic
secular state in all of Palestine for both
Arabs and Jews.
Although prevented from attend-
ing the conference by the occupation
authorities, Maha Nassar’s speech was
read by Les Levidow, a member of the
Return group. Ms. Nassar’s speech put
forth the right to return as a consensus
in the Palestinian community, and
emphasized the unity of Palestinians
inside and outside their homeland
through the intifada. One of the goals
of the intifada is the right to return,
the acute necessity of which is experi-
enced particularly by the refugees, who
bear the brunt of Israeli repression.
Ms. Nassar criticized the Israeli
democratic forces whose position on
the Palestinian state and the right to
return is unclear. She outlined Palesti-
nian rights as the right to return, self-
determination and the establishment of
an independent state. These rights
necessitate increased international
pressure on Israel to achieve them.
As two of the scheduled speakers
were not in attendance, a few mem-
bers of the audience were asked to
make short presentations. The first of
these was Prof. Norton Mozvinsky of
North Connecticut University. Prof.
Mozvinsky addressed the issue of
religious fanaticism and the need to
criticize ultraorthodox racism. He
pointed out that recent comments by
various religious authorities in Israel
that the lives of non-Jews are less val-
uable than Jewish lives should be vie-
wed as a clear political position. These
statements underlie others issued by
30
ultraorthodox leaders that Israel
should return part of the 1967
occupied territories. Although cheered
by some for their seemingly liberal
bent, these statements are based on
the view that the failure of the Israeli
army to crush the intifada endangers
Jewish lives, and it is only because of
this that Israel should withdraw.
Clearly racist in nature, these state-
ments should be recognized and con-
demned as such.
Mohammad Hawari of Matzpen
took the floor next, his words focusing
on the process of political change now
going on in Palestine. He reiterated
the point made by others that an inde-
pendent state in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip would not meet the aspira-
tions of the refugees, nor would it
accomodate them physically. In con-
nection with this, he said that the
question of return is alive in the hearts
and minds of Palestinians inside the
green line too. And although they
reject the idea, even Jewish Israelis
know the importance of return to
Palestinians. Given this, he outlined
the need to present Israelis with an
alternative political framework so they
can accept the idea of return. This
would entail raising the consciousness
of more Israelis, especially young ones,
about the contradiction between the
idea of a Jewish state and a democratic
one. Mr. Hawari emphasized the need
to bring the abstract concept of return
into specific reality in political praxis.
To do this he proposed activists taking
up the cases of specific villages whose
indigenous inhabitants were driven
out, and discussing how they can prac-
tically return to or be compensated for
their land.
The last of these speakers was Udi
Adiv, a former Israeli political pris-
oner. Mr. Adiv also drew a fundamen-
tal link between the Palestinian right
to return and solving the conflict. He
criticized the Israeli left for failing to
deal with this issue, and asserted the
need for what he termed «Palestinian
democracy,» free of the constraints of
both Jewish and Arab nationalism. In
his view, nationalism of these sorts
work in opposition to democracy, and
relinquishing them would trigger a
metamorphis leading to a democratic
state in Palestine.
Concluding remarks were made by
Mohammad AI Khalil speaking on
behalf of Abu Ali Mustafa, member of
the PLO Executive Committee and
head of the Department for the Affairs
of the Returnees. In his remarks, Mr.
Al Khalil reviewed the _ historical
experience of Palestinians under
Zionism, emphasizing its racist, settler
colonialist nature. Citing the failed his-
tory of settler colonialism in this cen-
tury, he noted that this does not bode
well for the two remaining bastions of
this phenomenon: Israel and South
Africa.
Touching on the historical falsity
perpetrated by Zionists that they
purchased 78% of the land gained in
Palestine, in actuality the purchase
figure was only 6%, with the rest being
gained through aggression. Racist iso-
lation, expulsion and massacres were
employed against the indigenous
inhabitants to remove them to accomo-
date Jewish immigrants. A corollary to
this tactic was aggression of various
sorts against Jews in other countries to
«encourage» them to immigrate to
Israel.
The present day reality descended
from this history is one defined by
seemingly endless concessions
extracted from Palestinians, including
the demand that the oppressed recog-
nize their oppressors. But the question
put on a strategic level cedes the con-
clusion that the present situation .is
untenable, and the only kind of inde-
pendent state feasible is a secular,
democratic one for both Jews and
Arabs.
Obviously, the PLO has a central
role to play in achieving this goal. One
of the aims of this national liberation
movement is to secure the right to
return, for without this no comprehen-
sive peace can be attained. This not
only entails securing this right for
Palestinians, but taking steps to curtail
the threat Soviet Jewish immigration
poses to the goal of peace and sec-
urity. For it is clear that one group
cannot enjoy human rights at the
expense of another.
In defining the second PLO aim of
self-determination, Mr. Al _ Khali!
pointed out that many accept this
notion on a theoretical level, but in
practice they reject it. What this means - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 39
- تاريخ
- يونيو ١٩٩٠
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed