Democratic Palestine : 40 (ص 25)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 40 (ص 25)
- المحتوى
-
THY
the UN resolutions confirming this as their right. Israel
Shahak, chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil
Rights, explains this when he says: «People who were born,
and lived most of their life in Jerusalem are not allowed to
come back and to settle in their own city, if they are not
Jews; of course, if a Dutchman converts to Judaism tomor-
row he will not only be allowed to do so at once, he will
also get an apartment in Ramat Eschol (an all-Jewish suburb
of Jerusalem) built on Arab land conquered and exprop-
riated in 1967»(«What are my Opinions?», Middle East
International, May 1975). Is there a more racist law any
where in the world? Undoubtedly, Israel’s aim is to preempt
any attempt to realize the rights of the Palestinian people,
foremost among them the rights to return to and self-deter-
mination in their own land. The long-term objective was and
remains the elimination of the Palestinians as a people with
national rights.
Immigration and peace
Facts leave no room for doubt that the ongoing mass
influx of Jews from the Soviet Union is being used to pursue
far-reaching plans, namely the creation of «Greater Israel,»
to retain its grip on the occupied Arab lands and to assert
its predominance in the region. In addition to changing the
demography of the occupied territories, the new waves of
immigrants will guarantee a perpetuation of the Palestinian-
Israeli conflict, which means more war and instability. This
influx, the biggest since the founding of Israel, will also
serve to bolster the military establishment with new recruits.
As well, many of the Soviet Jews are trained scientists,
engineers and technicians whose expertise will certainly be
put to military use. The possibility of achieving any kind of
peace was dispelled with the coming of the Soviet Jews to
Palestine, for the Israeli leadership is exploiting this influx
to maintain their occupation of the Palestinian territories.
Shamir’s statement about needing a «big Israel» to absorb
these immigrants is an obvious indication of this.
Day after day it becomes clearer that Israel has not
changed its determination to maintain sovereignty over the
occupied territories. Israel is not a state of peace, nor is it
capable of making peace; while continuing to talk about
«peace» in the region, it has been pursuing a relentless prog-
ram of settling new immigrants in the occupied territories.
Israel’s intention is to «create facts» by changing the demog-
raphic, historical, natural and legal status of the Arab ter-
ritories. By doing so, Israel violates international laws and
conventions and the authority of the UN, meanwhile creat-
ing new obstacles to the peace process.
One of the major hinderances which impedes resolution
of the Palestinian question is Israel’s settlement policy and
its refusal to withdraw from the occupied territories, which
is the focal point now of the Middle East conflict. The two
main Israeli parties assert that they are unwilling to accept
Kiryat Arba settlement, occupied West Bank
aes 4x ee age
picig 3 aie AR
1 ae oe
Se
~
re
Democratic Palestine, July-August 1990
total withdrawal from the Arab lands occupied in the June
aggression of 1967, or to recognize the rights of the Pales-
tinian people. They are not interested in reaching a peaceful
settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Their «ultimate
aim,» Shamir said in March 1984, «is the same as it was 40
years ago - to fight to put the Land of Israel completely in
our hands and to free all its parts of foreigners, that is, of
Arabs»(quoted in Zionism: Enemy of Peace and Social
Progress, issue 5, 1988, p.156).
This is the reality of Israel and its Zionist rulers, with
practically no difference between one figure and another.
They differ only in details, or in the tactics they use to
achieve the same principle aims. If the Likud leaders believe
in the sovereignty of the Jews over the whole of «Eretz
Israel,» so does the Labor Party. «There is no argument in
Israel about our historic rights in the Land of Israel. The
past is immutable and the Bible is the decisive document in
determining the fate of our land,» said Shimon Peres(quoted
by The Arab League, op. cit., p.346). Peres’ willingness to
accept a «territorial compromise» is aimed at «freeing»
Israel of an unwanted Arab population that «would eventu-
ally endanger the Jewish character of Israel»(ibid.). Thus
the difference is only in the rhetoric they use to describe
their tactics to gain a political advantage. Shamir described
himself as one of the defenders of «Greater Israel»; Peres
did also, but in another way. «Even if we have to cut our
standard of living, we will absorb the immigrants,» he said.
«This is Our most important job, to save Jews and give the
state greater capabilities...Together, we shall bring them
over here and make this country stronger»(Associated Press,
January 9th). It is not strange, then, that Palestinians see no
essential difference between the basic views of Labor and
Likud on the immigration issue.
Shamir declared that Israel would have to keep the
occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip in order to accomodate
the hundreds of thousands of Soviet Jews. Peres said that
immigrants could go and settle wherever they choose,
including the occupied lands. Both of them express the same
ideology - Zionism. In this regard, the author Noam
Chomsky said, «Contrary to illusions fostered here [in the
US], the two major political groupings in Israel do not differ
in a fundamental way with regard to the occupied ter-
ritories. Both agree that Israel should effectively control
them; both insistently reject any expression of Palestinian
national rights west of the Jordan, though the Labor Align-
ment contains a margin of dissidents» (quoted by The Arab
League, op.cit., p.247).
From this brief survey of the Zionists’ racist policy, one
comes to the conclusion that Zionist allegations about peace
are no more than a camouflage for their sinister scheme to
Judaize all the occupied territories through the expulsion of
the Palestinians and their replacement with the newcomers.
Israel’s Zionist leaders have their own definition of «peace».
For them, peace means Palestinian acceptance of all their
terms, including surrendering any right to the land and pre-
ferably evacuating it. Anything less than total surrender is
unacceptable to them, as Shamir put it saying that, «who-
ever fights against immigration cannot be for peace with
Israel» (Associated Press, January 24th). Shamir wants
Palestinians to accept immigration with the dangers it poses
to their existence and rights.
This is the true face of Israeli policy-makers who view
the West Bank and Gaza Strip as an integral part of Israel
and have recently begun suggesting that the need to settle
arriving Soviet immigrants is a reason to keep the occupied
territories. Israeli planners are, in fact, aware of the impor- >
25 - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 40
- تاريخ
- أغسطس ١٩٩٠
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed