Green Party pres’l candidate misses crucial political opportunity by not talking up democracy in Israel/Palestine

MondoWeiss
Phillip Weiss

The following letter to Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for president, was shared with us by Justine McCabe and Joel Kovel, two of its authors. The other signatories, also associated with the Green Party, are Lenni Brenner, Stan Heller and David Schwartzman. Links to documents appear at the end of the letter.

We publish the letter below in response to Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein’s latest press release (10/8) on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, issued on the occasion of the recent Russell Tribunal on Palestine in NYC.  We gladly acknowledge the positive movement represented by this press release and receive it as her attempt to address the critique we made to her previous statements, an earlier (9/26) version of this “open letter” to her campaign.

However, we regret that Jill’s statement is still lacking.

First, it still misrepresents the central and distinctive features of the GPUS Platform on this subject: our Party’s support for One Democratic State in Israel-Palestine; and for the non-violent means toward that goal--immediate end to all aid to Israel and support for the Palestinian Civil Society call for boycotts, divestments and sanctions to stop the institutionalized privilege of Jews over non-Jews in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, a racism that is intrinsic to a Zionist Israel’s formation and existence.  The colonialism and racism on which Israel was founded cannot be ended--nor can sustainable peace be achieved--by the “two-state solution” which your statement supports in its praise for the Zionist Israeli Meretz party. This confuses the issue by diverting attention from the urgency of the One Democratic State proposal. (“Dr. Stein further applauded the actions of the Israeli political party Meretz in committing for the first time to support for a return to 1967 borders, including a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, and for supporting the 2002 Arab Peace Proposal.”)

The GPUS platform does not support a “two-state” solution that even many Israeli Jews acknowledge as a dead end and distraction.

Second, Jill’s statement does not respond to our request that she actively raise this important issue while she’s on the campaign trail.  

In rebutting Jill’s press releases on the subject, we neither wish to derail her campaign nor cause conflict within the Green Party of the United States whose formation we have all worked hard for more than a decade.  Instead, we believe we uphold the work and integrity of our party as a real opposition party to the status quo.  This can only be done by respecting the actual proposals of the Party’s Platform. It is Jill Stein’s disavowal of the Party Platform that sows the seeds of intra-party conflict.

In sum, our analysis is that the Stein Campaign obscures the GPUS Platform on the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an issue of vital importance to US foreign policy and world peace, and has missed an excellent opportunity to provide the public with an understanding of the conflict’s origins and ongoing consequences--an understanding that is quite different from that presented by the US media and the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.    

OPEN LETTER TO JILL STEIN:

MAKE ISRAEL-PALESTINE A CAMPAIGN ISSUE

Dear Jill and the Green Party “Stein for President” Campaign,

We acknowledge and appreciate the sacrifice and enormous effort you make representing the Green Party of the United States.  Indeed, we have supported your presidential campaign by donating our time and money.

We write now to continue to challenge you attend to a significant foreign policy issue: the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Do you fully support the excellent GPUS Platform on Israel and Palestine? Do you acknowledge more than just its rectitude, which means forcefully speaking out on the issue and making your voice unmistakably heard?

We’re writing from two concerns:

First, your three public statements on the conflict—a May 15 press release, an earlier Truthout interview (1/29/12), and October 8 press release—do not represent the intent of the GPUS Platform, and neglect a chance to educate the public about the conflict’s cause and the negative impact of US Palestine-Israel policy on the security of Americans as well as those in the Middle East.

Second, failing to assert this issue on the stump— which is different from defensively responding to our push--misses a strategic opportunity to mobilize a significant portion of the voting population who do not support the Republican and Democratic policies toward Israel and would support GPUS’ distinguishing foreign policy on this.  Moreover, by asserting this, you would enhance the seriousness of your campaign for president, especially in light of the recent and growing anti-American sentiment in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

1. GPUS policies on this issue developed thoughtfully, over a decade. The two key points of this platform are support for the right of Palestinian refugees to return home and the One Democratic State solution. The concrete, nonviolent actions to achieve these goals are immediately ending all US aid to Israel and supporting the international boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.  

Unlike your earlier statements, we’re pleased that your latest press release (10/8) does mention BDS as “boycotts and divestment,” and our long-standing support for the Palestinian right of return.  However, you still do not place these Platform planks in context: Why BDS? How, why did Palestinian refugees leave their native land?  Why will Israel not allow them to return?

Similarly, while your recent press release paraphrases a statement from the GPUS Platform, which “specifically recognizes the rights of self-determination of all peoples in Israel-Palestine,” it omits a crucial phrase from that Platform, “which precludes the self-determination of one at the expense of the other.”  How can ongoing settler-colonization and occupation of Palestinian land by Zionist Israelis be “self- determination”?  How can it not be seen as precluding the self-determination of one at the expense of the other?

Most significantly, as in the earlier press release and interview, your recent press release does not mention our support for the “One State Solution,” which in addition to calling for an immediate end to US aid to Israel, support for the right of return and BDS, are positions that clearly distinguish our party from others and actually address the conflict’s source.

Why Land Day still matters

Haaretz
Sam Bahour and Fida Jiryis

Land Day Martyrs

Today, with no resolution in sight to the historic injustices inflicted upon them, Palestinians in Israel and elsewhere use this day to remember and redouble their efforts for emancipation.

Every year since 1976, on March 30, Palestinians around the world have commemorated Land Day. Though it may sound like an environmental celebration, Land Day marks a bloody day in Israel when security forces gunned down six Palestinians, as they protested Israeli expropriation of Arab-owned land in the country’s north to build Jewish-only settlements.

The Land Day victims were not Palestinians from the occupied territories, but citizens of the state, a group that now numbers over 1.6 million people, or 20.5 percent of the population. They are inferior citizens in a state that defines itself as Jewish and democratic, but in reality is neither.

On that dreadful day 36 years ago, in response to Israel’s announcement of a plan to expropriate thousands of acres of Palestinian land for “security and settlement purposes,” a general strike and marches were organized in Palestinian towns within Israel, from the Galilee to the Negev. The night before, in a last-ditch attempt to block the planned protests, the government imposed a curfew on the Palestinian villages of Sakhnin, Arraba, Deir Hanna, Tur’an, Tamra and Kabul, in the Western Galilee. The curfew failed; citizens took to the streets. Palestinian communities in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as those in the refugee communities across the Middle East, joined in solidarity demonstrations.

In the ensuing confrontations with the Israeli army and police, six Palestinian citizens of Israel were killed, about 100 wounded, and hundreds arrested. The day lives on, fresh in the Palestinian memory, since today, as in 1976, the conflict is not limited to Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but is ever-present in the country’s treatment of its own Palestinian Arab citizens.

Israel Should Forget the Idea of a Jewish State

 

Hisham Al-Bastawisi

Egyptian Presidential Candidate, Judge Hisham Al-Bastawisi, 59, said during a meeting with the Egyptian community in Austria held at the Modul hotel in Vienna that Israel must become a democratic, civil and civilized state. According to him, “everyone born in Israel has the right to enjoy the same rights, and Israel should forget the idea of a religious jewish state”.

He added: “What is required from the international community, the western countries, which do not allow the establishment of a religious state in their countries, is to neither accept nor approve the racist idea of a religious jewish state in Israel, which threatens the whole region”.


He said: “Let’s agree that all states must be laicistic. Why should then we exclude Israel from this? The exclusion of Israel from precepts which all other countries accept, to give her the “right” to be a racist and religious state, is unacceptable”. Judge Al-Bastawisi visited Austria in order to communicate with the Egyptian community, to discuss with them his candidacy platform and to listen to their views and answer their questions.

udge Al-Bastawisi

The meeting was attended by representatives of several diplomatic missions in Vienna, as well as by hundreds of Egyptians and members of other Arab communities, who al received and welcomed him warmly. The dialogue was moderated by Mr. Mustafa Abbas, president of the Association of Arab Culture in Vienna. (Click on the picture to make it bigger).

Judge Al-Bastawisi is a well known leader of the protest by Egypt’s judges against the Mubarak regime’s misuse of the judiciary. He was a fighter against corruption under the former regime. He suffered lots due the former regimes harassment, which tried several times to involve him in immoral issues and implanted spying equipment in his house.

Mr. Hesham Mohamed Othman Al-Bastawisi, with 30 years of working in the field of law, is an Egyptian judge and Vice-President of the Court of Cassation. He received a Bachelor of Laws in 1976 from Cairo University. He is married to Ms. Olfat Salah al-Sahli and has three sons, Mohammed, a graduate of Engineering, Ahmed, a student of law in France in his third year, and Mustafa, who also studies law in France, in his first year.

At the beginning of his speech, judge Al-Bastawisi said that Egypt had lost justice during the regime of former President Hosni Mubarak. This makes them needy for justice in all fields. Al-Bastawisi sees that justice is the basis of governance and that Egyptians miss freedom and democracy and were not satisfied with the level of hypocrisy and corruption of the former dictatorial regime. He also pointed out that his platform is based on improving conditions for the farmers and the agricultural sector, and solving the problem of the Nile water, indicating that 51% of Egypt’s water is wasted in the Mediterranean.

The audience at Hotel Modul included a hot dialogue with Judge Al-Bastawisi. Many of the attendees expressed their resentment for the policies of the Egyptian military council which rules Egypt now. With its unclear and blurry policy, the council does not respond to the inquiries of the Egyptian revolutionists. The Egyptian questions about the elections and the long due day for ending the rule of the military receive no answers, and the council is very slow in achieving the demands of the Egyptian revolution.

I asked the judge about his program on foreign relations and international law and his position on the crimes against humanity committed and abetted by the former Egyptian regime, especially the blockade on the Gaza Strip and starving the Palestinians to appease Israel and to comply to the American pressure, which links continued financial support to Egypt to the extent of Egypt’s commitment to achieving the demands of Israel, which are all against local and international laws, specifically the Israeli demands with regard to the Palestinian cause. I asked how he would deal with this issue if he elected as a president of Egypt.

Judge Al-Bastawisi said that the Egyptian regime committed crimes against humanity in Gaza, which are punishable under international laws and against international treaties, and acknowledged that what the former regime did was a crime in the field of international law, stating that there are many treaties saying that states must not close the borders for humanitarian assistance to their neighboring countries.

He said: “in my opinion and in the opinion of the candidacy platform, dealing with the Palestinian issue will be on the grounds that the Palestine issue is not an issue of Palestinians only, but is an issue of the whole Middle East and we can only deal with this issue through cooperation with the other Arab countries”. He added: “in order to know how to deal with the Palestine issue, we must first know what are our priorities, our interests and our security? We should know from where to start and where to end”.

He said: “Let’s talk about land for peace. My question is, which party will give the land? Which party will lead the peace?” He continued: “thinking about the answer to this question, I find that we are the part who gave the land, and gave the peace and everything else, and that Israel gave us nothing in return while international law talks about the return of Israel to the 1967 borders”. He added: “In order that I recognize Israel, I think that Israel should recognize me and return to the borders of 1967 which they occupied during the war”.

The judge asked: “If I am only the part who will give Israel the land, normalization of relations, peace and security … etc., then what Israel will give me?” He said: “We are not assaulting Israel, but Israel is continuing to assault us. We are the party that really is in need for security. So which is the security that Israel wants from us?”

He said that we should think in the same way of Israel, and in order to solve our problem with Israel, we must clarify that our problem with Israel is a problem of identity and struggle for civilization and culture: Our identity, culture and civilization are threatened by Israel.

He gave an example to illustrate his opinion. He said: “When the state of France realized the increase in the phenomenon of wearing the “Islamic Hijab” on its territory, they initiated laws that prohibit it in order to preserve its identity, civilization and culture. In my view France was within its rights with all the adopted resolutions on this issue, and this example should apply to Israel, which threatens not only the identity and security of Palestine, but of the whole Middle East”.

Get rid of Zionism

American Task Force on Palestine

The 45th year of occupation is now beginning. The depth of the entanglement, from which there is apparently no way out without bloodshed, is as great as the obedience of the intelligentsia: Just as European colonialism was collapsing once and for all, the local intelligentsia found a way to collaborate with the claims of Israel's governments, leaving us today with both a right-wing coalition and a right-wing opposition.

Few people understood at the time that remaining in the territories in any fashion would give rise to a desire for control. The astute ones were Pinhas Lavon during his last lucid hours, Yitzhak Ben-Aharon momentarily, and Yeshayahu Leibowitz.

There were of course a handful of political parties - Rakah, the New Israeli Left and Matzpen. But in the center of the political map, those who argued in favor of withdrawal from all the territories came down to Prof. Jacob Talmon, Prof. Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, writer Amoz Oz and a few others. The vast majority of the intelligentsia trailed along behind the generals and the politicians. That's how it is: Intellectuals work at honing the government's arguments. Few of them dare to oppose it.

As a rule, arguments don't play a central role in politics; they merely help the government implant itself in its citizens' language. For example, the claim that Israel faced an existential threat in 1967 was a propaganda lie. It would have been possible to unravel the complicated situation caused by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, but Israel and the United States decided to exploit the Egyptian mistake.

Today, these things can be discussed in academic discourse. But political discourse, aided by the intelligentsia of that period, is exempt from questions - even about those thousands of graves from the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Moreover, the politicians and the intellectuals claimed that Israel, as a "victim of aggression," had the right to alter its borders. But the main aggressor in that narrative was Egypt, and it got back all its land, up to the last grain of sand, in the peace treaty that followed the 1973 war. The legal argument was shelved.

There were also military arguments about "strategic borders," and those were nonsense, too: No Israel Defense Forces general, either from that General Staff or those that followed, really believed in them, because the Yom Kippur War dealt Israel a harsh blow despite "defensible borders." This truth also applies on the Golan Heights, to this very day.

So we are left with the West Bank, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to lead us with his dual rationale: This is the land of our forefathers, and also, Hamas will attack Ben-Gurion Airport. There is no connection between these two arguments. As a rule, dual arguments serve as props to bolster each other's weakness. But the mixture of strategy and messianism explains the power Israeli politics has to drug its subjects.

The "Land of Israel" is a phantasm. Withdrawing from "parts of it" is presented as a "concession" even by supporters of the move. But the only concession we needed to make, even back in 1967, was giving up the messianic claim that this is our land, from the Bible, and therefore we have a right to it. In comparison with this claim, the Serbs, with their preoccupation over the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, are rational, secular people.

Life is in no need of "ancestral rights." Most of us were born here. That has no connection with the Bible, which for the most part is a very nice book. It has no connection with the prayers of the religious. We don't need religion, either as a menu in a restaurant or as a strategic analysis.

Had masses of Israelis had the sense to say that on the morning after the occupation, instead of choosing that of all moments - with the help of professors, poets and writers - to "discover our undivided country," we would be in a different situation today. Liberation from Zionism is not a dirty word. In any case, what lies behind Zionism nowadays are interests related to water, real estate, strategic relations with the U.S. and a huge army hungering to justify its existence.

If our fathers erred in their use of myth, we should part from it, for the sake of our sons and daughters. We don't have to leave this place or give up our lives. But for their sake, we have to get rid of Zionism.

Jewish Voice for Peace? Really??

Intifada Palestine
Nahida Izzat

It appears that, yet again, Anti-zionist Jewish organizations are trying to silence Palestine’s supporters, to frame the debate, to secure the future of their brethren in occupied Palestine and to steer the course of Liberation of our Homeland

I would invite people to hear a Palestinian voice, here:

A strategy of liberation requires emancipation

* No decent human-being would demand to live on STOLEN land and still claims to have a fiber of morality.

* No decent human-being could claim that the perpetrator should have the same rights as the victim while claiming to be a humanist.

* Palestinians are under no obligation to hold back their march for freedom, to curtail their aims or to smother their rights for the sake of accommodating and not offending their Jewish supporters.

* Palestinians are always grateful and appreciative of the hard work and dedication of all their supporters whomever they are, however, Palestinians have NO obligation to adopt the aims and objectives of the anti-zionist Jewish supporters instead of their own.

* Dismissing the Palestinian voice as radical, reactionary, intolerant, or unreasonable, and requiring instead the Jewish-anti-zionist stamp of approval to have legitimacy to speak for Palestine, is preposterous and contradicts basic concepts of human rights and does not do justice to Palestinians.

* Palestinians have the ultimate right to choose their vision for their future, of a FREE and sovereign Palestine including the type of government, the writing of constitution, the construction and implementation of their legal and juristic system, which stems from and corresponds to their ethics and reflects and protects their culture.

* Palestinians have the ultimate right to make the final decision on who is allowed to stay in liberated Palestine and who is not, using the legal procedure of their own choice.

* The future of the Palestinian struggle and the aim of liberation of Palestine should not be designed to shield the occupier from paying the full price of his crimes; including the punishment of all those who participated in transgression, and the deportation of the illegitimate Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants who colonized Palestine forcefully and were engaged in acts of aggression against Palestinians including serving in the IOF.

* All refugee and their descendents have the unconditional right to come back home, they as the rightful indigenous owners are also entitled to the reinstatement of ALL confiscated (stolen) land and property, compensation for all their losses over the many years of exile and they are also entitled to Palestinian citizenship wherever they are.

* The aims and aspirations of most Palestinians are not confined to the change of zionist regime or the vacuous declaration of abandonment of zionism by the Jewish-zionist occupiers, but rather to the FULL Liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all their rights.

* It is the privilege of Palestinians to decide who should stay in their homeland and who not.

* After a century of terror, theft and crimes; had the Zionist shown any signs of remorse, respect or willingness to be decent guests, had they embraced with open arms the hospitable people of Palestine rather than destroying them with fire-arms; they might have had a chance to be accepted and forgiven. Not any more, as far as I am concerned. They have lost that opportunity.

As a Palestinian, I see the role of any “Jewish voice for peace” who sincerely desire to contribute to the Liberation of Palestine and justice for Palestinians, and who desire to be identified through their contributions “as Jews”, then their role ought to be focused on cleaning their own house before sorting other people’s houses; i.e. that is to exclude any major role in influencing, leading or directing the Solidarity and/or Liberation Movement of Palestine.

Through taking a leading role in campaigning to blacklist organizations and publications, label intellectuals and limit the spectrum of debate by censoring topics which they deem “controversial”; by framing the debate they act against intellectual integrity, box Palestinians and their supporters mentally and knowingly or not act as gatekeepers. They force people to self-censorship to avoid been accused of antisemitism; hence preventing them from acquiring, sharing or discussing information freely that would allow them to make their own informed decisions.

Palestinians’ grievances against the zionist theft of their land do by no means justify antisemitism accusations, Palestinians and their supporters are no lesser human beings, they are well capable to sieve through information and make their own evaluation, henceforth it is completely unacceptable that some of our anti-zionist Jewish supporters try to dictate to Palestinians:
who they should accept as a supporter and who should they boycott;
what speaker to invite and whose lecture to avoid;

who they should consider progressive and who can be labeled reactionary;
what religion and religious group are above all criticism and what faith is deemed to
be “backward looking and inherently unable to deliver progress”;

what books should be read, and which articles should be thrown away;

what narrative of events should be adopted as “reasonable” and which should be considered a “conspiracy theory”;

what chapter of history should be seen as a “dogmatic unquestionable religion”; and which one should be seen as “hoax” or as a “useless hateful rumors”;

what course of action should be taken and which one should be dismissed a “distraction”;
Furthermore, when censorship is practiced, when some books become forbidden and certain speakers are silenced, it appears to any self-respecting free-thinker that their brain, their ability to analyze and evaluate are being demeaned and patronized.

Rather than wasting their energy campaigning to ostracize or silence some of the most outspoken allies and honest supporters of Palestine, they should rather direct their efforts towards their OWN communities where the rot is anchored and festering: where supremacist ideologies reign supreme, chauvinistic anti-humanist beliefs flourish, delusional concepts entrenched and fostered, and criminal Mossadic activities thrive, and where mossers are ostracized and sayanim are promoted.
This ought to be our Jewish allies’ battlefield.

It is only in this specifically Jewish frame of activity, that separate organizations identified as exclusively Jewish can affect significant change and eventually their claim to speak in the name of their Jewishness be vindicated.

On the contrary, when specifically Jewish organizations or activists ubiquitously claim to be the true representative of Jewish people, or the voice of Judaism, whereas they are but a tiny, minute, insignificant and ineffective minority, and what is more an ostracized and despised minority amidst their larger Jewish communities, then these Jewish organizations by making their false claim of representing Jews or Judaism as they bravely expose Israeli crimes, are projecting nothing less than a smoke screen deflecting from the sinister racist ideology which has produced Zionism in the first place.

Since it is quite obvious that the Jewish members of organizations who claim to be Anti-Zionist, rarely are -if ever, active members of their local Jewish communities and when they try to reach out, they are generally rejected;

since they pretend that exposing the ideologies and activities of their community is a “distraction”;
since they accuse of being “anti-semite” whomever questions the thriving racism and the powerful lobby within the Jewish communities and since they fail to infiltrate the nefarious Judeo-Zionist network in order to affect real change from within:

therefore the claim that they speak for the Jewish people or Judaism is invalid, and the only reasonable consequence is to dissolve their separate “Jewish only” Anti-Zionist or Pro-Palestinian organizations, in order to become an integral part of the Solidarity Movement.

______________________________

 
Nahida Izzat is a Jerusalem-born Palestinian refugee who has lived in exile for over forty two years, after being forced to leave her homeland at the tender age of seven in 1967, during the six-day war. She has a degree in mathematics, but art is one of her favorite pastimes. She loves hand-made things and so makes dolls, cards, and most of her own clothing. She also writes poetry, participates in written dialogues and believes in building bridges, not walls.

Back to square one for Israel-Palestine talks

Israeli right wing activists protest outside the US embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel, Sunday, May 22, 2011

Israel admits it covertly canceled residency status of 140,000 Palestinians

Haaretz
By Akiva Eldar

Document obtained by Haaretz reveals that between 1967 and 1994 many Palestinians traveling abroad were stripped of residency status, allegedly without warning.

Israel has used a covert procedure to cancel the residency status of 140,000 West Bank Palestinians between 1967 and 1994, the legal advisor for the Judea and Samaria Justice Ministry's office admits, in a new document obtained by Haaretz. The document was written after the Center for the Defense of the Individual filed a request under the Freedom of Information Law.

The document states that the procedure was used on Palestinian residents of the West Bank who traveled abroad between 1967 and 1994. From the occupation of the West Bank until the signing of the Oslo Accords, Palestinians who wished to travel abroad via Jordan were ordered to leave their ID cards at the Allenby Bridge border crossing.

They exchanged their ID cards for a card allowing them to cross. The card was valid for three years and could be renewed three times, each time adding another year.

If a Palestinian did not return within six months of the card's expiration, their documents would be sent to the regional census supervisor. Residents who failed to return on time were registered as NLRs - no longer residents. The document makes no mention of any warning or information that the Palestinians received about the process.

Palestinians could still return in the first six months after their cards expired, or appeal to an exemptions committee.

The Center for the Defense of the Individual said yesterday it knew that a clear procedure was in place, but the details and the number of Palestinians denied their right to return remained classified. A former head of the Civil Administration in the 1990s was surprised to hear of the procedure when contacted by Haaretz.

Meanwhile, Maj. Gen. (res. ) Danny Rothschild, who served as coordinator of government activities in the territories from 1991 to 1995, said he was completely unaware of the procedure, even though it was in use during his term. "If even I wasn't told of the procedure, one may infer that neither were residents of the occupied territories," he said.

The Central Bureau of Statistics says the West Bank's Palestinian population amounted to 1.05 million in 1994, which means the population would have been greater by about 14 percent if it weren't for the procedure.

By contrast, Palestinians who immigrated from the West Bank after the Palestinian Authority was set up retained residency rights even if they did not return for years.

Today, a similar procedure is still in place for residents of East Jerusalem who hold Israeli ID cards; they lose their right to return if they have been abroad for seven years.

Palestinians who found themselves "no longer residents" include students who graduated from foreign universities, businessmen and laborers who left for work in the Gulf. Over the years, many of them have started families, so the number of these Palestinians and their descendants is probably in the hundreds of thousands, even if some have died.

Also, several thousands Palestinians with close links to the Palestinian Authority were allowed to return over the years, as did a number of Palestinians whose cases were upheld by the joint committee for restoration of Palestinian ID cards. As of today, 130,000 Palestinians are listed as "no longer residents."

Among them is the brother of the Palestinians' chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat. Erekat's brother left for studies in the United States and was not allowed to come back; he still lives in California.

Erekat told Haaretz he had learned from his brother's experience, and when he himself left for studies abroad, he made sure to visit home from time to time so as not to lose his right to return.

The regulation's existence was discovered by the Center for the Defense of the Individual by pure chance, while it was looking into the case of a West Bank resident imprisoned in Israel.

The Civil Administration told the prisoner's family his ID card was "inactive." After a request for a clarification, Israel's legal adviser for Judea and Samaria said this was a misapplication of a certain policy by the census supervisor in the occupied territories.

The adviser added that three residents were mistakenly defined as no longer residents while in prison or in detention, and that their residency had now been restored. He wrote that their status had been changed not because of a policy but because of a technical error, without any connection to their imprisonment.

The Center for the Defense of the Individual said that "mass withdrawal of residency rights from tens of thousands of West Bank residents, tantamount to permanent exile from their homeland, remains an illegitimate demographic policy and a grave violation of international law."

It noted that an unknown number of Gaza residents had lost residency rights in a similar manner, but that the exact number was still a secret the center vowed to uncover. "The State of Israel should fix the ongoing wrong at once, restore residency rights to all affected Palestinians and allow them and their families to return to their homeland," the center said.

Sheikh Raed Salah: The "Jewish state" and us

A study published in "The Jewish state and the Palestinians inside" - the Centre for Contemporary Studies

Israel was founded as a political entity on the basis of Zionism; it was not originally predicated upon the principle of a Jewish state according to the religious understanding of the concept. On the contrary, it is a product of colonial forces and Zionist backers with financial muscle.

Many of the founders, theorists and supporters of the Zionist project were atheists with a secular outlook; they tended to stress how remote Zionism is from religion in order to manufacture a degree of legitimacy. This was particularly the case in Europe where many priests and rabbis gave the Zionist project their backing in order to attract Jewry in the European Diaspora.
It was clear that the Zionist establishment sought a specific type of Jew to fulfil the aims of this project, those who would be able to create a secure political entity. This can be inferred from a letter by Golda Meir in 1958 when, as Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, she wrote to Israel's ambassador to Poland: "We cannot continue to take in the ill and the disabled." This discussion obviously referred to Jewish migrants to Israel; as such, this letter reveals the real thinking behind Israel's preference despite claiming that it is a state for all Jewish people. This scenario was repeated with the Jews of Yemen whose testimonies remain concealed to this day.

There are those who do not recognise the ethnic basis for a Jewish people. A lecturer at the University of Tel Aviv, Professor Shlomo Sand wrote "The invention of the Jewish people"; it is considered to be one of the most important books dealing with this subject. Sand holds that "the Jewish people are a retroactively created fiction and a myth promoted by the state of Israel." He also asserts that "the state of Israel was born through an act of violence against the indigenous citizens in 1948." In "The Myths of Zionism", John Rose writes, "Zionism is the problem which threatens peace in the Middle East. No, rather it threatens the future of Judaism with demise. The basic condition for the return of peace is possibly in its elimination."

This begs us to ask what pushes the Zionist establishment to beat its drums day and night in order to remind us of the Jewish nature of the state and demand that everyone recognises its Jewishness. In discussing this issue, we should take into account the following:

1. The failure of this establishment to convince Israelis to stay in Israel. The pervasive corruption within Zionist circles constitutes one of the key reasons for this. The Israeli organisation Sderot for Social Affairs suggests that 67% of Israelis believe that the level of corruption within the country is "high to very high"; only 28% of young Russian immigrants are confident about staying in Israel. The American international lawyer, Franklin Lamb, a CNN report dealing with the reality in Israel which predicted the following:
   
   a.     The migration of millions of Israelis to the United States over the next 15 years.
   b.     The return of 1.5 million Russian Jews to Russia or elsewhere in Europe.
   c.     Half a million Israelis will carry US passports and others will carry European passports.
   d.     According to statements made by a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Immigration and Settlement, Ms Mithal Nawi, the number of immigrants to Israel will equal the number of migrants.
   
2. Yoni Golstein, a Jewish community leader in Canada, revealed that 85% of Jews in Montreal are actually migrants from Israel.
3. Israel's failure to attract new immigrants to the extent that some have called for the dissolution of the Jewish Agency. This rejection has led to demands for the dissolution of the Nateef section. There are also demands from the leadership of the French Jewish      community to abandon the displacement of France's 700,000 Jews. There are similar demands being made by the Jewish leadership in the US where the Jewish population is 6 million. According to Israeli statistics, Israel's population has increased by 125,000 individuals; 21,000 as a result of population growth and only 14,000 as a result of migration.

Israel is, therefore, stripped of its internal sense of invulnerability. According to Police Inspector David Cohen, the spectre of corruption and organised crime constitutes a strategic threat to Israel. Avi Zamir, the head of Israeli army recruitment, has revealed that the number of men dodging compulsory military service rose from 18.1% in 1991 to 25% in 2008; among women the figure went from 32% in 1991 to 44% in 2008.

"Jewish text books prevent the achievement of peace with the Arabs," wrote Dr Eli Budya, a lecturer at the University of Haifa. Russian journalist Dmitri Sumakov, who specialises in international drugs control, claims that "Israel is one of the most important world centres for the drugs trade and this trade is linked to senior Israeli officials". During an academic conference held in Kiev, Ukrainian academics accused Israeli companies of kidnapping 25,000 Ukrainians for their organs.

For many international institutions, Israel's crimes in Gaza were the straw that broke the camel's back with regard to their relationship with the Zionist state and the favouritism with which it has been treated. Malcolm Smart, director of Amnesty International in the Middle East, says unequivocally: "According to international law, the siege of Gaza is collective punishment." Garrett Porto, the US author and political analyst claimed: "Israel fabricated documents published by the British newspaper, the Times, on Iran's atomic bomb." A study of the strategic consequences of recent international reports related to Israel have revealed that Israel is in an unenviable international position as these reports - chaired by Goldstone and Falk respectively  -  destroyed "the image it had created for itself over many decades and which cost it significant diplomatic, political, financial media effort as well as the efforts made by Jewish lobbies across the world; its moral image and the image of it as an ethical  state and army have fallen to such an extent that it is now compared on international forums to Apartheid in South Africa."

Despite the mild tone used in the UN's Goldstone Report, it revealed that Israel's "very moral" army used civilians as human shields and bombed civilian government buildings and mosques. As a result of these policies, Hampshire University in American withdrew its investment in six Israeli companies it had dealings with.

As a result of far-right, bordering on fascist Israeli policies, international rights organisations have started to pursue military and political elements within Israel deemed to bear responsibility for the Gaza war. Gabi Ashkenazi, the former IDF Chief of Staff, was forced to postpone travel arrangements to Brussels for a meeting between NATO leaders for fear of being arrested on war crimes charges. The Minister of Strategic Affairs, Moshe Yaalon, announced that he was prepared to give up visiting European capitals for the same reason. Former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is wanted in more than one country for her role in such crimes. The matter has become so serious that the global climate summit held in Denmark refused permission for two Israeli delegates to take part; such is Israel's image on the world stage.

Many Israeli strategists fear for the future of the country, and according to a report prepared by America's Central Intelligence Agency the collapse of Israel is predicted within the next 20 years. The Director of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs considers that Israel's future depends on its occupation of the West Bank: "The occupation of the West Bank is what will destroy Israel from within."

It is well known that the majority of psychological studies dealing with violence in Israel linked it to the actions of those responsible for violence in the territories occupied in 1967 in that they create the reactionary processes in the Israeli media and on the street. As such, Israel's future as a whole is linked to the situation that they live in and the state of internal disintegration which affects all aspects of life in Israel.

Intelligence officer Mitai Steinberg wrote in "Standing before their Fate", in which he warns of the foolishness of Israeli intransigence with regard to making peace with the Arabs and Palestinians, "Israel's evasion or failure to pay the price demanded by the settlement [i.e. Withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders] involves risk to the existence of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state which is several times greater than ceding the region." The third study from the Ofa Institute entitled "The burden of the Israel-Palestine Conflict", edited by Professor Shlomo Sibirsky, deals with the burden of the conflict in eleven economic, social and military areas. It concludes that Israel has become a state subject to condemnation, ostracism and boycotts by many countries. Alongside all of this, we find that in his book called "Blood and religion", the British author and supporter of Israel, Jonathan Cook, says that Israel faces a future similar to that of South Africa.

The cries coming from the likes of Avraham Burg, Shulamit Aloni and Judge Barak warn of an evil reality that will engulf Israel which, since the moment it was established, considered us Palestinians a demographic threat. The secular documents have exposed the magnitude of this lie which continues to deceive large numbers and constitutes the ideological grounds for dealing with them. How do we pose a demographic threat when Israel exists in an Arab and Islamic region, and Palestinians with Israeli citizenship number just 1.3 million along with 5.5 million Jews. However, we only form a part of the total number of Palestinians in a diaspora of more than 10.5 million.

It is within this context that the idea of a two state-solution exists so that the reality of the illegal settlements is no hindrance. In any case, Israel has never negotiated with the Palestinians; rather it has always nurtured conflict with the Palestinians and the Arabs and the two-state solution is nothing more than a scattering of ash in the eye. Proposals of the two-state solution which cannot be implemented alongside discussions of the state is a form of strategic thinking. Discussions about the Jewishness of the state vis-a-vis the context of the strategic vision of such a  state necessitates that one of its most important components is the purity of the Jewish Ashkenazi people, of East European stock; the expulsion of Palestinians is a key aim.

In conclusion:

1. The project of the Jewish state has similar beginnings to colonialism and colonised states.
2. The project of the Jewish state was imposed on us, the Palestinians.
3. There is complete understanding among Zionists about our removal from our own land.
4. The Palestinians may be allowed a quasi mini-state with enough to ensure that we don't grow too strong, but that we don't starve.
5. The numbers of Jews in the state is equal to the number of Palestinians in historic Palestine but they are the minority to Palestinians in historic Palestine and the diaspora, who have a legal right to return to their country.
6. The aim is to transfer us from our land; that is, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
7. The clear indications are that the Zionist project of Israel is bound to implode, sooner or later.

George Galloway Destroys Zionist Argument In One Swipe. Palestine Exists Forever. There Is No Israel

NO POLITICIAN WITH AN “ANTI-ZIONIST MINDSET” COULD EVER DREAM OF LIVING IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Prof. Naseer Aruri

by: Kourosh Ziabari

Naseer Aruri is Chancellor Professor (emeritus) of Political Science, University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. He is president of Trans-Arab Research Institute in Boston. Prof. Aruri is the a contributor to the book “Iraq Under Siege: The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War” by the South End Press and the author of the book “Palestinian Refugees: The Right of Return” published by the University of British Columbia Press in 2001. Prof. Aruri is on the Advisory Board of the Council for Palestinian Restitution and Repatriation.

Aruri has also written the book “The Obstruction of Peace: The U.S., Israel and the Palestinians.” Amazon.com has described this book “a Palestinian perspective on the peace process in his Middle Eastern region which provides a different view for the reasons behind Palestinian-Israeli impasses.”
According to Wikipedia, Aruri contributed to the foundation of the Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR) in 1983. From 1984-1990, Aruri was elected to three consecutive terms on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International, USA, and served on the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch/Middle East from 1990 to 1992.

What follows is the complete text of my exclusive interview with Prof. Naseer Aruri in which we discussed a variety of topics including the prospect of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the role of the United States in the solving the crisis in Palestine and the performance of PLO as the defacto representative of the Palestinian nation in the international level.


Kourosh Ziabari: Dear Prof. Aruri; there are various interpretations regarding the truth behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides of the conflict cite claims over the land which is known as the Land of Israel. So, from an impartial and objective point of view, which side is the righteous? Which of them tells the truth?

Naseer Aruri: This is not a conflict between two equal claims. The Palestinian population is the indigenous party living on the land since the days of the Cananites. Their presence as the dominant party was interrupted by the Crusades but it was restored by the Islamic conquest of the 7th century A.D. When the Zionists received the Balfour Declaration from Britain in 1917 the Jewish population constituted less than 7% of the population. It was an unauthorized promise made by an imperial power to a colonial settler movement at the expense of the Majority (the indigenous Palestinians). By World War II the Jewish population had increased to one-third mainly as a result of colonial settlement. This minority was in possession of less than 6% of the land. Today it controls all of historic Palestine through the force of arms, an illegal phenomenon under international law.

KZ: You’re said to be an outspoken critic of the Oslo Accords and described it a cover for territorial conquest. Would you please explain for us the reasons you oppose Oslo Peace Process? Given that the Declaration called for the withdrawal of Israel Defense Forces from parts of Gaza Strip and West Bank and facilitated the creation of a Palestinian National Authority, what are your reasons for contesting the Oslo Accords?

NA: The Oslo Accords constituted an act of surrender by Yaser Arafat, whose movement was facing economic, diplomatic and leadership crises, and having recognized Israel in 1988, it took the easy way out by concluding an unauthorized deal with Israel in 1993 in which Israel did not cede any bit of sovereignty whatsoever not only in historic Palestine but even in the West Bank, which constitutes 22% of historic Palestine. The phrase “external security” was the corner stone of the document and it served as a euphemism for sovereignty, which remained in the hands of Israel. Oslo has also negated the culture of the Intifada, which was based on voluntary maxims and associational values In brief,

Oslo created a facade of equality when Israel was an occupant within the meaning of International law, while the Palestinians were occupied rather than co-equal. Under such a cover, Israel was given license to expand its territorial conquest even farther and this added territory was acquired under presumed “peaceful conditions.” Colonial settlements in the occupied territories have more than doubled since 1993 and they continue to constitute the single most intractable obstacle to a diplomatic settlement until this day. Technically, Oslo was an agreement to reach agreement, but better yet, an agreement to obfuscate an equal settlement and an honorable and principled compromise.

KZ: Although the Palestine Liberation Organization has recognized Israel’s right to exist, accepted UNSC resolutions 242 and 338 and made several concessions during its interactions with the State of Israel, the United States still considers it a terrorist organization. What’s your viewpoint regarding the performance of PLO? Has it succeeded in representing the Palestinian people and defending their demands? Recently leaked documents show that the PLO under Mahmoud Abbas had agreed to Israel’s sovereignty over nearly all Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem. What’s your take on that?

NA: I think that the answer to your question is embedded in the question itself. Moreover, the PLO should have never accepted the stipulation that it is a terrorist organization which must “renounce” and not “denounce” as Arafat had attempted unsuccessfully and reminded about the crucial difference between the two concepts. The assumption that the US was a judge and jury while at the same time a chief armed supplier, bank roller, and diplomatic backer was unfortunately accepted by the PLO leadership since the 1980s  and should not have been a surprise when the so-called Palestine papers were released and leaked out quite recently. Under both Arafat and Abbas, the PLO concessions were bottomless and these concessions had only encouraged Israel to throw more obstacles to peace and to encourage Washington to act as a “Dishonest Broker.”

KZ: Some commentators refer to Israel as an artificial state and believe that it was created through the efforts of politicians and leaders who wanted to sympathize with and satisfy the expansionistic demands of the Zionists in Europe; however, there are a group of thinkers who believe that to the extent that Israel is an artificial state, countries such as United Arab Emirates or Kosovo should be considered artificial as well, because they lack a historical background as independent nations. What’s your estimation of these viewpoints?


NA: It serves no useful purpose to debate the moot issue of whether Israel, UAE, and Kosovo are artificial states. The important thing is that they are defacto states which through admission to the UN become de jure states.

Irrespective of who wins the argument, Israel is a state, but the important thing is what kind of a state? A state of its own citizens? a state of all Jews in the world? A state of the Jewish people in historic Palestine? What are the boundaries of this state? Is it not an apartheid state as it exists at the present? These questions are far more important than whether Israel is artificial or natural?

KZ: The Stance of President Bush Sr. on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had convinced many international observers that the pro-Israeli era of Ronald Reagan was over. On May 22, 1989, Secretary of State James Baker had told an AIPAC audience that Israel should abandon its expansionist policies. On his part, George H. Bush had indicated that he was under the pressure of Zionist lobby by saying to reporters on the sidelines of an AIPAC summit that “I’m one lonely little guy” up against “some powerful political forces” made up of “a thousand lobbyists on the Hill.” He was forced to apologize consequently; however, he was opposed to grant a $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel as long as Israel continued building homes on the Palestinian lands. What’s your viewpoint regarding Bush’s Israel policy? Why did his son adopt a totally opposing stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict compared with that of his father?

NA:  True, there is a vast difference between the policies of the two Bushes. Bush senior had a major conflict with Israel and its Zionist lobby in Washington. He and his Secretary of State James Baker challenged Israel’s settlement building in occupied territory, particularly Jerusalem and its environs. Israel and its minions in the U.S. such as former Senator George Mitchell objected to the assumption that Jerusalem is “occupied” territory. Perhaps Bush, Sr’s Iraq policy illustrates the major differences between the father and son. If one looks at the Israeli press during the summer of 1990 when U.S. forces were in Saudi Arabia while Saddam Hussein’s army was occupying Kuwait, one finds an important reality: Bush was in effect telling Israel that, we the U.S., as the sole super power, are in charge of security in the [Persian] Gulf region and in the whole Middle East.. Consequently, Israel has nothing to worry about and it must come to terms on the Palestine question knowing that Washington is in charge of security. That was probably the closest that the U.S. had ever come to the concept of an imposed settlement in which Israel must abide by Washington’s will based on its national interest as a super power.

But the plan did not come into fruition particularly when Bush was defeated in the presidential elections by Bill Clinton, who derailed Bush’s diplomatic train and diverted it to Oslo instead, hence the end of Bush, Sr’s designs.

When Bush the son came to the White House, the neo-conservatives had managed to secure a position of power and station themselves strategically around the New President who had to shoulder the whole issue of “terrorism” after September 11. These developments hastened the penetration of Bush’s policies by neo-conservatives, hence the difference between the two Bushes.


KZ: Upon taking office, the Presidents of the United States conventionally make trips to Israel and pay homage to the Israelis by saying that they are committed to the security of Israel and that they will try their best to serve the interests of the Jewish regime. Is the Zionist lobby so influential to prevent from coming to power a President who has an anti-Zionist mindset? Is it ever possible for an anti-Zionist politician to rise to power in the United States?

NA: The answers to both questions are yes and yes. No politician with an “anti-Zionist mindset” could ever dream of living in the White House. The American political system has institutional and constitutional barriers against anti-Zionists winning the U.S. presidency. Take for example the Electoral College by which Americans elect their presidents. The EC stipulates that a candidate to the presidency must gain plurality and the winner takes all. These two factors (plurality and winner takes all) tend to polarize the system and promote the two party system. In that setting, there is no place for a minority, which is likely to be the anti-Zionist mindset. Rather, the system would promote two polarities and avoids the diffusion of power. In the US minorities which are cohesive and disciplined can easily develop factions such as Afro-Americans or Zionists who would give their votes to their co-nationals and insure the victory of disciplined, single-minded, and organized constituencies. In such a political system, anti-Zionists could never aspire to win a senatorial or even a lower House position, let alone win the Presidency. That is an impossible task.

KZ: What’s in your view, the source of Zionist lobby’s enormous power and wealth? You may admit that the majority of mainstream media in the United States are being run by the well-off Jews and that the Zionist lobby plays a central role in the decision which the U.S. congress makes. What is the source of this power and influence?

NA: The sources of Zionist power in the US stem from superior organization, good finance, a ready-made “defense” of their cause such as “anti-Semitism,” which serves as a sort of black-mail and a barrier against valid criticism of policies. While the public can criticize Obama and his policy and expect no retribution, that same public cannot criticize Israel in the same way. Look at what happened to Helen Thomas, the dean of the White House journalists since the 1950s when she dared to express her opinion on the Israeli theft of Palestinian land, ongoing since the 1940s. Senators and Congress people have been dumped by the Lobby upon the first sign of dissent and deviation from the delivered wisdom and accepted orthodoxy on Israel. In short, the Zionist lobby is fortified by a shield which enables it to suppress dissent in a democratic nation.

KZ: As my final question, I would like to ask you to propose your solution for drawing an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Do you champion a two-state solution? Do you believe that the Jews should be returned to their original homelands in Europe? What’s your viewpoint in this regard?

NA: As for the ideal solution, I am afraid no just and lasting solution seems to be on the horizon at the present time. Israel and its supporters have stood firmly during the past four decades against the global consensus which demanded withdrawal from occupied territories and a just resolution of the refugees problem in accordance with UN resolutions and the general principles of international law– a resolution based on the principles of equal justice, equal protection of the law, and an end to apartheid, which now prevails throughout historic Palestine pre and post 1948. As for the two-state solution, there is no such a thing. It is already too late for that, as the entire spectrum of Israeli politics allows no sovereignty on any piece of land lying between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. That leaves one just solution: a single state in which Muslims, Christians and Jews can live together on the basis of equal justice and equal protection of the law.

Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance journalist and media correspondent. His articles and interviews have appeared on a number of media outlets and news websites including Tehran Times, Press TV, Global Research and Foreign Policy Journal.

FRANKLIN LAMB : They came, they saw and now it’s time to act

Lebanon’s President Michel Suleiman Meets MPs from Europe and Britain

Intifada

FRANKLIN LAMB / Al Manar

The Palestinian Return Centre (PRC), in partnership with the Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR) sponsored a delegation of British  and EU MEPs to the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon several weeks ago and the 10 member delegation has just released their findings.

It was a quick 48-hour trip filled with tightly scheduled briefing, mainly from Lebanese politicians, including President Michel Suleiman and Prime Minister designate Najib Miqati as well as UNRWA officials, some Palestinian civil society organizations. In addition, the delegation visited refugees in Burj  Barajneh, Nahr al Bared and Shatila Refugee camps.

Sir Gerald Kaufman, MP, who led the delegation, told the Lebanese media:

“When I went to Gaza in 2010 I thought I had seen the worst that could be seen of the appalling predicament of Palestinians living in conditions which no human being should be expected to endure.

Gerald Kaufman

But what I saw in the camps in Lebanon is far worse and far more hopeless.”

From the Lebanese politicians, the visitors like other delegations before them, heard basically the same vague support for Palestinian civil rights that they have been repeating for more than 20 years.

Typical were the words of Lebanon’s President Michel Suleiman who explained to the delegation that: “Lebanon does not have the capacity to absorb 400,000 people; we simply cannot offer them a good life. The truth is that we will not see peace in the Middle East without the implementation of the refugees’ right of return.”

Of course the Lebanese Presidents presentation obscures the central issue almost completely.  Suleiman’s 400,000 Palestinian refugees, is a bit more accurate than some other politicians who use the scare tactic bogey figure of 500,000.  In fact there are close to 250,000 Palestinians remaining in Lebanon and they are not seeking to be “absorbed” or even presented by Lebanon with “a good life”, as Suleiman and others mistakenly and regularly aver.  All they and the international community demand is that Lebanon’s Palestinian refugees be granted the elementary civil rights that all refugees everywhere are entitled to.  Most urgently, the right to work and to own a home.

The Lebanese politicians are correct that it’s also an international problem and Lebanon has never been asked to shoulder the whole burden, but rather to do its part by granting the internationally mandated elementary civil rights.  For the past 63 years Lebanon has shirked its duty.

Almost without exception the brief  Lebanese presentations included ‘escape clauses’  absolving one or another of the 18 Lebanese confessions from responsibility and explaining why the particular party represented in the briefing really wanted to alleviate the “Perpetual Hell” of the quarter million Palestinian refugees packed into 12 “official camps”  and twice that many informal “gatherings.”  But, as they explained to their guests, there exists a laundry list of reasons why the simple act of allowing Palestinians in Lebanon the full right to work and to own a home should not be expected anytime soon.

The Parliamentary delegation heard nothing that countless visitors have not heard before. But the importance of their visit was that they came at all, learned quickly about many more details of this human tragedy and what needs to be done than they explained they were previously unaware of, and that to a member, they vowed to do something about it upon return to their countries.

As British journalist and photographer, Stuart Littlewood reminds us, the  delegations report once more shines light on binding international treaties and conventions that recognize the right to return, including the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the  International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination and the  International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.

The right of return for refugees is guaranteed under Humanitarian and Human Rights Law including international customary law with incorporates the 1952 Refugee Convention even though Lebanon has to date declined to sign it. Also applicable to granting Palestinian refugees in Lebanon elementary civil rights are countless UN resolutions.

The members of the delegation pledged that they will work with their governments to assist Lebanon with granting the internationally mandated civil right to work and to own a home.

The European MP’s visit was refreshing and a welcome break from the stream of American officials and Congressman who visit Lebanon without visiting Palestinian camps and whose main work recently has been to threaten Lebanese politicians to tow the US line and oppose the Lebanese national resistance while being ever vigilant not to antagonize Israel.  The delegation made clear that Israel is the main culprit that caused today’s humanitarian crisis but Lebanon’s new government, when formed, must act without further delay to grant civil rights to her refugees.

The Parliamentary delegation made the following findings of fact”

    * The Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are victims many times over and they are still denied access to their homeland.

    * They are the victims of Lebanon’s civil wars and the numerous Israel invasions and occupation.

    * They are victims of the unwillingness of the international community to secure justice and the unwillingness of the Lebanese authorities to grant them their basic human rights.

Among the delegations recommendations relevant to Lebanon, and which are nearly identical to the findings of more than two dozen workshops and conferences and three dozen studies of the subject over the past two decades:

    * The international community, including Israel, is responsible for guaranteeing the rights of Palestinian refugees and providing them with protection.

    * While Lebanon and many members of the United Nations offer appropriate rhetoric, this must be matched with concrete steps to tangibly improve the lives of the refugees in Lebanon and put an end to the catastrophic conditions in which they live.

    * An appropriate solution is needed that restores and protects the human rights of the refugees, including their right to return to their land.

    * In Lebanon, Palestinian refugees have a status that falls far short of even second class citizenship. This should be corrected without delay.

    * As Israel has shown no inclination to respect the rights of Palestinian refugees under international law, it is incumbent on the international community to enforce a resolution.

    * The European Union and its member states, including the United Kingdom, should significantly increase their funding to UNRWA to allow the agency to fulfill its remit.

    * Negotiators, politicians and activists should ensure that Palestinian refugees remain at the center of all peace talks.

    * Lebanon’s position on the refugees is woefully inadequate. The 17th August 2010 law should be implemented immediately as a first step to normalizing the lives of Palestinian refugees by improving human, civil and property rights and lifting restrictions on the professions available to Palestinians.

On housing, all restrictions that limit the right to adequate housing for Palestinians should be removed, including any legislation that discriminates against Palestinians who are not officially citizens of a recognized state. A degree of security of tenure should be guaranteed and restrictions on bringing building materials into refugee camps should be removed, including the fines or penalties imposed on Palestinians for attempting to make their homes habitable.

As regards the environment, minimum levels of sanitation and access to clean water for all Palestinian refugees should be ensured.

As regards employment, restrictions on Palestinian access to all professions should be lifted and the process of obtaining work permits eased.

As regards education, Lebanon should ensure that all children under its jurisdiction have access to education equal to that enjoyed by Lebanese nationals.

As regards non-ID refugees, their status in Lebanon should be regularized and refugees provided with identification documents.

With the new incoming government there is every reason, opportunity and ability for Lebanon to meet its obligations and earn the respect of all countries and people of good will.  Against the backdrop of the great Arab Awakening of 2011,  Lebanon can also help propel their unwanted guests back to their own country, Palestine.

Palestine Refugee Camps in Lebanon

Lebanon needs the help of human rights activist worldwide, including the hundreds of bloggers who write eloquently on the subject without really affecting the lives of those who most need their solidarity and support. If these activists would become involved with the issue of Palestinian civil rights in Lebanon in their countries by urging their governments to insist that Lebanon apply international humanitarian laws to Palestinian refugees who today remain forced to live in seemingly interminable misery, this problem can be solved without more delay.

UN chief: Israel's occupation is 'morally, politically unsustainable'

Haaretz

Ban Ki-moon pushes Israel and the Palestinian Authority toward a "two-state solution"

Ban Ki-moon

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called on Israel Wednesday to halt settlement building in the West Bank and put a stop to all forms of violence and incitement, the UN News Center reported.

Speaking in Uruguay at the UN Latin American and Caribbean Meeting in support of Middle East peace Ban said it was a "crucial time" for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

“Time is of the essence in realizing the two-State solution, " Ban said, "the occupation that started in 1967 is morally and politically unsustainable, and must end. The Palestinians have a legitimate right to the establishment of an independent and viable State of their own."

“The target dates for reaching an Israeli-Palestinian agreement on permanent status issues and completing the Palestinian Authority’s two-year State-building program are fast-approaching. Yet, the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations remain at a worrying standstill. We must intensify efforts to break the deadlock,” he added.

Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians hit a standstill in September after Israel resumed building in the West Bank following a moratorium on settlement building.

The secretary general continued, saying “actions that prejudge the outcome of the process must stop,” referring to Israel's continued settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem , demolition of Palestinian homes and other forms of violence and incitement.

Ban then commended the Palestinian Authority for its efforts, the UN News center report said, praising the PA's efforts to establish state institutions, enforce security in the West Bank and receive international funding and recognition of its statehood goals.

The UN chief chastised Israel, the report said, calling on the government to take the necessary steps to improve economic and security conditions for Palestinians by removing obstacles to freedom of movement, stopping military operations and enhancing the PA's scope of influence in the West Bank.

Ban also implored Israel to further ease its blockade in Gaza, the report said, which has been under Hamas control since 2007. Israel has refused to negotiate with Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel's destruction and is responsible for numerous attacks perpetrated against Israel and its civilians.

In recent weeks, Hamas and the more moderate West Bank-based Fatah have been engaging in preliminary talks, with the possibility of unification in the future. Israel has made it clear that in the event that Fatah and Hamas join forces, Israel will not be open to negotiations, and Fatah must choose its ally.

Ban reportedly condemned the recent escalation in rocket fire from Gaza to Israel, calling on both sides to prevent civilian casualties and act in conformity with international law, reiterating his “strong condemnation” of the recent bombing in Jerusalem, in which a 59-year-old British tourist was killed and over 30 wounded.

He stressed that "Israel has the right to live in peace and security within internationally recognized and secure borders." According to the report the secretary general then said that both Palestinians and Israelis are entitled to Jerusalem as its capital, with "arrangements for holy sites acceptable for all."

The UN chief also said there "must be a just and agreed solution to the prolonged plight of the Palestinian refugees," an issue that has been highly disputed in past peace negotiations.

The two-day meeting in Uruguay will discuss settlement expansion, Jerusalem and the recent recognition of Palestinian statehood by governments in the region, including Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, the report said.

Robert Fisk: A new truth dawns on the Arab world

The Independent


Leaked Palestinian files have put a region in revolutionary mood

The Palestine Papers are as damning as the Balfour Declaration. The Palestinian "Authority" – one has to put this word in quotation marks – was prepared, and is prepared to give up the "right of return" of perhaps seven million refugees to what is now Israel for a "state" that may be only 10 per cent (at most) of British mandate Palestine.

And as these dreadful papers are revealed, the Egyptian people are calling for the downfall of President Mubarak, and the Lebanese are appointing a prime minister who will supply the Hezbollah. Rarely has the Arab world seen anything like this. 

To start with the Palestine Papers, it is clear that the representatives of the Palestinian people were ready to destroy any hope of the refugees going home. 

It will be – and is – an outrage for the Palestinians to learn how their representatives have turned their backs on them. There is no way in which, in the light of the Palestine Papers, these people can believe in their own rights. 

They have seen on film and on paper that they will not go back. But across the Arab world – and this does not mean the Muslim world – there is now an understanding of truth that there has not been before. 

It is not possible any more, for the people of the Arab world to lie to each other. The lies are finished. The words of their leaders – which are, unfortunately, our own words – have finished. It is we who have led them into this demise. It is we who have told them these lies. And we cannot recreate them any more. 

In Egypt, we British loved democracy. We encouraged democracy in Egypt – until the Egyptians decided that they wanted an end to the monarchy. Then we put them in prison. Then we wanted more democracy. It was the same old story. Just as we wanted Palestinians to enjoy democracy, providing they voted for the right people, we wanted the Egyptians to love our democratic life. Now, in Lebanon, it appears that Lebanese "democracy" must take its place. And we don't like it.

We want the Lebanese, of course, to support the people who we love, the Sunni Muslim supporters of Rafiq Hariri, whose assassination – we rightly believe – was orchestrated by the Syrians. And now we have, on the streets of Beirut, the burning of cars and the violence against government. 

And so where are we going? Could it be, perhaps, that the Arab world is going to choose its own leaders? Could it be that we are going to see a new Arab world which is not controlled by the West? When Tunisia announced that it was free, Mrs Hillary Clinton was silent. It was the crackpot President of Iran who said that he was happy to see a free country. Why was this? 

In Egypt, the future of Hosni Mubarak looks ever more distressing. His son, may well be his chosen successor. But there is only one Caliphate in the Muslim world, and that is Syria. Hosni's son is not the man who Egyptians want. He is a lightweight businessman who may – or may not – be able to rescue Egypt from its own corruption. 

Hosni Mubarak's security commander, a certain Mr Suleiman who is very ill, may not be the man. And all the while, across the Middle East, we are waiting to see the downfall of America's friends. In Egypt, Mr Mubarak must be wondering where he flies to. In Lebanon, America's friends are collapsing. This is the end of the Democrats' world in the Arab Middle East. We do not know what comes next. Perhaps only history can answer this question.