Democratic Palestine : 40 (ص 26)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 40 (ص 26)
- المحتوى
-
tant and decisive role that immigration could play in per-
petuating the Zionist occupation and giving it some form of
legitimization. Based on this awareness, they proceed to
issue statements that immigrants are free to settle anywhere,
even in the occupied territories, thereby ignoring the tension
and dangers this issue represents to the whole region.
A corollary to this is the policy of «creeping transfer»
that is now being enacted. This entails the immigration of
many Palestinians to the West or other Arab countries;
being unable to bear the harsh living conditions under occu-
pation, they «choose» to emigrate to seek a better life for
themselves and their children. Another aspect of this policy
targets women and children and involves deporting them to
Jordan on the pretext that they were in Palestine «illegally,»
although many have been born there. In this way hundreds
of families have been separated in the past year alone.
In view of these developments, it is no mistake to
regard immigration as a war on the Palestinians and their
basic rights. More Israeli settlements and fortifications are
being constructed at a very rapid rate. More land is being
confiscated from its rightful owners to make room for
Jewish immigrants. In addition to perpetuating the Israeli
military occupation, this immigration war is intended as an
assertion of Israeli sovereignty over the occupied lands and
is, therefore, an attack on Palestinian sovereignty and their
right to a homeland. Jewish immigration is a threat to the
legal and civil rights of the Palestinians, in as much as the
real possibility exists that the territories will be annexed and
their inhabitants expelled.
There can be no peace without the recognition that the
land the Palestinians inhabit belongs to them; but Israel
refuses to accept such a peace. Its refusal is derived from
Zionist ideology which is based on racism and expansionism.
Israel has not only refused to withdraw from the occupied
territories, but has even rejected American efforts aimed at
starting a dialogue between Palestinians and Israeli officials.
Although these proposals are far from recognizing Palesti-
nian national rights, Tel Aviv’s rejection of even this
minimalist effort only underscores its intransigence regard-
ing the peace process. For their part, the «peace» plans
drawn up by Israeli leaders don’t take into consideration the
elements necessary for true peace, namely the end of
Israel’s occupation of Arab lands and the restoration of
Palestinian rights to self-determination and the establish-
ment of an independent Palestinian state on the soil of
Palestine. It is evident that any settlement of the Middle
East problem promoted by Israel is, in fact, a mere man-
euver aimed at diverting the world’s attention from the new
Israeli expansionist plan.
It is clear that Israel is not a peace-loving state, and
does not work for or want peace. The aggressive wars of
expansion it started in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1982, the offi-
cial declarations made by those in power about annexing the
occupied territories and its refusal to carry out UN resolu-
tions 242 and 338 prove that Israel does not want peace but
is bent on aggression and expansion. Its objective is to use
the immigration issue as a means of foiling any political sol-
ution that does not concede full Israeli sovereignty over the
occupied territories. Israel is saying through its immigration
policy, in effect, that it will accept nothing less than Pales-
tinian surrender, even though it insists on calling this surren-
der «peace.»
The US role
The US decision to close its doors to Jews arriving from
the USSR may seem unusual; but a careful study of rela-
26
=n ee ae ewe oes ae oe es soe + lose Oe ele
ap eS ee eel ee ee eee eee eee eee eo ie
tions between Israel and the US since the establishment of
the Zionist state shows that the US government has consis-
tently helped Israel, in spite of the fact that Israel has fol-
lowed a policy of expansion and aggression. The US
response to Shamir’s remarks about «Greater Israel» that
they were «not helpful» had no effect on the generous
American economic and military aid Israel receives which
finances such expansionist plans. Instead of showing good
intentions to the Palestinians and exerting some form of
pressure on Israel to take a more moderate attitude,
America has repeatedly engaged in a double-faced policy of
preaching one thing and practicing another. «Our position is
clear,» State Department Spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler
stated on January 17th, «we do not think that building set-
tlements or putting more settlers in the (occupied) territories
promotes the cause of peace» (Al Fajr, Jan. 22nd). Months
before this statement, the US government had called on the
Israeli government to nid itself of the dream of «Greater
Israel.» Yet, in spite of their fully realizing Israel’s intention
to settle the new immigrants in the occupied territories, the
US severely restricted the quota for immigrants coming from
the Soviet Union, forcing the Jewish immigrants to go to
Israel instead. In addition, the US continues to apply pres-
sure on the Soviet Union to allow direct flights between
Moscow and Tel Aviv.
Delving into what has been said historically about the
US-Israeli relationship confirms that the US is a full partner
in the occupation of Arab lands as the main supporter of
Israel, providing it with the means to tighten its grip on
these territories. A description of this relationship was given
by former US President Jimmy Carter in Jerusalem in 1979:
«Seven presidents have believed and demonstrated that
America’s relationship with Israel is more than just a special
relationship. It has been and it is a unique relationship. And
it is a relationship that is indestructible, because it is rooted
in the consciousness and the morals and the religion and the
beliefs of the American people themselves...Israel and the
United States were shaped by pioneers - my nation is also
a nation of immigrants and refugees - by peoples gathered
in both nations from many lands...We share the heritage of
the Bible...» (quoted by The Arab League, op.cit., pp.357-
58). Before he became president, Ronald Reagan pointed
out that the US position «would be weaker without the
political and military assets Israel provides,» adding that
Israel’s value, after the fall of the Shah of Iran, had
increased «as perhaps the only remaining strategic asset in
the region on which the United States can truly rely» (In-
ternational Herald Tribune, Aug.17, 1979).
Calling for providing Israel with additional funds to
help settle Soviet Jews, US Senator Arlen Specter of
Pennsylvania said, «We are cutting off the opportunities to
come to the United States, so if Israel is willing to take
these immigrants, it is something which is very helpful to US
policy» (Associated Press, Jan.18th).
In the final analysis, without US pressure to change its
hardline stand, Israel will not make any moves towards a
just and lasting peace. The result of this is more time for
Israel to crush the intifada. In other words, America and
Israel are opening another front against the Palestinians and
the Arabs at large in response to the intifada. In Shamir’s
words, «They [the Palestinians] feel defeated, because they
see that the uprising...is powerless to stop the great, authen-
tic, natural flow of people of Israel to their land...That is
what they are trying to prevent» (Associated Press, Jan.
16th). e
Democratic Palestine, July-August 1990 - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 40
- تاريخ
- أغسطس ١٩٩٠
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed