by SONJA KARKAR
PHOTO/AFP
As the push for the Palestinian UN Statehood bid rolls forward with more and more people putting their weight behind it, a legal opinion has surfaced that should have every Palestinian and pro-Palestinian activist shouting “NO” from the rooftops. It is not that there haven’t been eminent people saying the same thing – Saree Makdisi, Salman Abu Sitta, Ilan Pappe, Mazin Qumsiyeh, Ramzy Baroud, Ghada Karmi, Oren Ben-Dor, Nur Masalha, George Bisharat, Naseer Aruri, Haidar Eid, Ali Abunimah, Eitan Bronstein, Sami Jadallah and many others – but either people have not wanted to listen or are convinced that this push has to be for the best – best for the Palestinian people, best for Israel’s ‘soul’, best for peace. And there are millions of good and honourable people who genuinely believe this. It has also put activists in an impossible position. If anyone said in this current climate what the legal opinion has revealed, one would be seen either as obstructionist or extremist, and there are some who would even say, a traitor to the cause. How do you convince people that a “yes” vote is very likely to disenfranchise millions of Palestinian refugees and all those in the Diaspora from their right to return home, when there is so much good will and enthusiasm being whipped up by petitions, envoys, heads of organisations, and people who have never before come out publicly to support the Palestinians?
The legal opinion lays out all the dangers for the Palestinians – not theoretical dangers but real ones. Statehood will terminate the legal status of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) in the United Nations which since 1975 has been the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The current Palestinian Authority (PA) which is making the statehood bid “is a subsidiary body, competent only to exercise those powers conferred on it by the Palestinian National Council. By definition, it does not have the capacity to assume greater powers.” If the PLO loses its status with this statehood bid, the Palestinian refugees and those in the Diaspora will no longer be entitled to equal representation, have a say in matters of national governance, or be able to ever exercise their inalienable right of return. And that would suit Israel down to the ground. With the Palestinians in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza still under Israeli military occupation and no state likely to be created in September, the replacement of the PLO with the State of Palestine, even as one that only has “observer” status in the United Nations, will effectively rid Israel of any responsibility for the millions of Palestinians who have a legitimate claim to their land and properties stripped from them when Israel was created. That means no right of return and no compensation for their catastrophic losses that Israel has managed to ignore for 63 years.
Dr Salman Abu Sitta warns us that “what’s more dangerous, and probable, is for this to open the way for ‘peace negotiations’, backed by Europe and America to accept a Palestinian mini-state. We can see it now: after “hard negotiations” and “painful concessions” an agreement will be reached and celebrations will be held on the White House lawn with handshakes and smiles all round. This mini-state will be a nonentity, with no ability to defend itself; no control over its borders, airspace or land; no control over its water resources; and its final borders will be “agreed” through “land swap” and possibly the forced “transfer” of people. This is precisely the mini-state which Shimon Peres and Ehud Olmert longed for and believed it is absolutely necessary, because, otherwise, “Israel will be finished”.”
One cannot help thinking that the whole statehood bid has been a clever, but devious game played by Israel to lure people into thinking that they are against the Statehood bid, so more people will vote for it because it seems to be just and seems to be the best solution for peace. The Palestinian struggle is not just about ending the occupation, but about ensuring that the inalienable rights of the Palestinian refugees can be realised as demanded by international law and a number of UN resolutions. It is to liberate not to legalise partition.
Where does that leave people wondering how to vote or who have already voted “yes” as many people have? This should be seen as a warning to everyone so that the matter can be debated openly, and as the legal opinion advised, to ensure that a proper legal framework safeguarding the PLO is established, so that the Palestinian representatives taking the statehood bid to the UN will protect and advance the legal rights of ALL Palestinians.
Sonja Karkar is the editor of Australians for Palestine
(Thanks to Ingrid B. Mork)