Democratic Palestine : 45 (ص 6)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 45 (ص 6)
- المحتوى
-
Israel who proceeded to reduce it to a
powerless, one — day conference with the
sole function of paving the way for more
humiliating versions of the Camp David
accords.
In the final analysis, the revived
Baker — Shamir proposals are part of a
Zionist —imperialist plan intended to
liquidate the Palestinian cause and
subjugate the Arab states. Washington
chose precisely this time to push its plans
because it believes that the regional
conditions are ripe for enforcing such
proposals, presenting a _ favorable
opportunity for decisive destruction of
the Palestinian and Arab masses’ will to
resist and fight for liberation. Yet, in
spite of the changes sweeping the area,
the ongoing US «peace» efforts, the
numerous shuttles, meetings, statements
and counterstatements, there is no
reason to believe that the Arab — Israeli
conflict is heading towards «a just and
comprehensive solution,» in view of the
nature of the US _ proposals and
intentions, and the Israeli position which
defies the world community,
international law, the UN Charter and
resolutions and even the US.
Israel’s concept of peace
It is not true that Israel is against
settling the Arab—Israeli conflict.
Under the new conditions that resulted
from the Gulf War, Israel would be the
main regional beneficiary from resolving
the conflict, especially if the Arab
regimes continue giving concession after
concession.Israel would benefit from an
end to the war of attrition which saps its
human, economic and_ military
resources. Solving the conflict also holds
out the prospects of economic expansion
whereby Israel could benefit from access
to the markets of the region. A new
situation would be created wherein Israel
could attain the leading regional position
capable of influencing developments on
the military, economic and political
levels. Since the Palestinian people are
the antithesis of Zionism’s existence in
Palestine, the only way to resolve the
conflict from the Israeli point of view is
to liquidate the Palestinian cause and
eliminate its influence in the region.
From this angle, one can understand
Israel’s objection to independent
Palestinian participation in the proposed
regional conference. While Israel seeks a
settlement of the conflict in order to
fulfill its Zionist aims, which essentially
contradict the concept of peace, it seeks
the liquidation of the Palestinians’
legitimate rights and national cause. The
apparent contradiction between peace
and liquidation is not a contradiction at
all in Zionist terms. If there is any
contradiction involved, it is the one
6
between Israel’s calls tor peace and
normalization with the Arab states on
the one hand, and the essence of
Zionism’s inherent expansionism on the
other.
The big question remains: Does
Israel intend to withdraw from the
occupied territories in order to
contribute to a peaceful settlement? The
decisive answer has been given by many
Israeli officials who, time and again,
have said that they will not yield any
portion, not even one inch of the West
Bank, Gaza Strip or Golan Heights. In
answer to a question about the
possibilities of trading land for peace,
Shamir clarified: «I do not believe in
territorial compromise. Our country is
very small.» He added, «I believe with
all my heart and soul that we are
eternally tied to this homeland. Peace
and security go together. Security, anda
territory, a homeland — it all goes
together. That is our belief, that is the
belief of the party I belong to and in my
opinion, that is the feeling of a large
majority of the Jewish nation»
(International Herald Tribune, July
25th).
Although Shamir’s statement is
nothing new, it confirms Israel’s
position that the pre-June 1967 frontiers
no longer exist. If the Arab side demands
Israeli withdrawal to these frontiers,
Israel will not discuss anything because,
in Shamir’s eyes, Israel is not occupying
any territory and the «land of Israel» is a
single territorial unit. In other words,
Shamir demands that the Arabs
surrender and recognize Israel’s «right»
to have both occupied land and peace.
Guided by the same position, Israel
opposed the convening of an
international peace conference and even
UN involvement in the _ proposed
regional conference, claiming that the
UN is biased and not deserving of
confidence, despite the fact that Israeli
statehood was declared on the basis of a
UN resolution and the international
body immediately recognized the new
State.
israel, in fact, realizes the falsity of
its arguments about: the UN. Its
accusations aim to delegitimize the UN
as a party to peace talks, and to block
any move towards a comprehensive
settlement based on Security Council
resolutions 242 and 338, which demand
Israeli withdrawal from the 1967
occupied territories. In addition to being
an attempt to escape implementation of
the UN resolutions concerned, Israel’s
objection is also a real insult to the UN.
Aiming to block any territorial
concessions, Israeli Housing Minister
Ariel Sharon criticized Shamir for his
cooperation with the US «peace»
efforts, and called for expanding
settlement activity in the occupied
territories, as the best way to rule out
Israeli concessions in «peace» talks. In
Sharon’s words: «We have to fight
against this loss of direction and create
facts that are the Zionist answer... We
will continue to settle, we will continue
to build» (Associated Press, July 26th).
In fact, Shamir and Sharon concur
totally on the importance of settlement
activity as the way to create facts that
will in turn dictate the terms of any
negotiations. When President Husni
Mubarak of Egypt proposed suspending
the Arab boycott in exchange for a halt
to settlement activity in the occupied
territories, a statement issued by
Shamir’s office rejected the idea out of
hand, saying there was «no connection
between the two things» (Associated
Press, July 18th).
The official Arab position
As a result, it seems that what the US
administration and the Arab states are
calling a solution based on the principle
of «land for peace» is in reality based on
the Zionist logic of «peace for peace.»
Moreover, in the prevailing conditions,
the so—called regional conference is no
more than a regional reconciliation with
the sole function of legitimizing the
Zionist state (in its expanded form) and
normalizing relations between it and the
Arab states. There are two main reasons
for evaluating the nature of the proposed
conference in this way: The first is
deterioration of the official Arab.
position, and the second is the US role in
the «peace» process.
In the light of successive Arab
concessions, there is no doubt that the
Arab — Israeli conflict is entering a very
critical stage. If not confronted, the
dangers of this stage can have
catastrophic effects on the future of the
Palestinian and Arab people’s struggle
for national independence and social
progress. These dangers basically stem
from the fact that there is a sea change in
Arab attitudes not only towards the US,
but also towards Israel, whose
encroachments have been resisted by the
Arab masses since its establishment. It is
a serious and unprecedented
phenomenon to see the majority of the
Arab states backing the US plan, the
essence of which is liquidating the
Palestinian cause and subjugating the
Arab masses. This is the first time that so
many Arab states take such a dangerous
step towards accepting the Zionist entity
and normalizing relations with it. If one
has to give a precise description of this
change, on can only say that it is a
turnabout in Arab political concepts.
This turnabout inevitably leads to
Democratic Palestine, August 1991 - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 45
- تاريخ
- أغسطس ١٩٩١
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed