<html>
<body>
<h1><b>Re-imagining Palestine</b></h1><font size=3>Self determination,
Ethical De-colonization and Equality[1]<br><br>
July 29, 2009<br>
<a href="http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticlePrint/22158" eudora="autourl">
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticlePrint/22158</a> <br><br>
By <b>Omar Barghouti<br>
</b> <br>
<b>INTRODUCTION<br><br>
</b>With Yassir Arafat's departure, the doubling of the population of
Jewish-Israeli colonial settlers in the occupied Palestinian territory,
the latest Israeli slow genocide in Gaza and the fast disintegration of
the last vestiges of Israeli "democracy," the two-state
"solution" for the Palestinian-Israeli colonial conflict is
finally dead. Good riddance! This was never a moral or practical solution
to start with, as its main objective has always been to win official
Palestinian legitimization of Israel's colonial and apartheid existence
on top of most of the area of historic Palestine. It is high time to move
on to the most just, morally sound and sustainable solution: the secular,
democratic unitary state. <br><br>
Blinded by the arrogance of power and the ephemeral comfort of impunity
afforded to it by its US partner and a complicit Europe, Israel, against
its own strategic Zionist interests, failed to control its insatiable
appetite for ethnically cleansing more of the indigenous people of
Palestine and for expanding its control at the expense of their lands,
devouring the very last bit of land that was supposed to form the
material foundation for an independent Palestinian state. <br><br>
With its latest siege of Gaza which culminated in its televised massacre
of more than 1,500 Palestinians, the great majority of whom are
civilians, Israel has entered a new phase in its relentless policy of
making life for the indigenous Palestinians so intolerable as to compel
them to leave: the <i>slow genocide</i> phase.<br><br>
I shall argue in this essay that a secular, democratic unitary state in
British Mandate Palestine is the most just and morally coherent solution
to the century-old colonial conflict, primarily because it offers the
best hope for reconciling the ostensibly irreconcilable -- the
inalienable rights of the indigenous Palestinians, particularly the right
to self-determination, and the acquired rights of the colonial settlers
to live in peace and security, individually and collectively, after
ridding them of their colonial privileges.<br><br>
<a name="_ftnref"></a>To establish such a state there is critical need
for a long, intricate process of what I call ethical de-colonization, or
de-zionization<a name="_ftnref"></a>, involving two simultaneous,
dialectically related processes: reflection and action, to borrow the
Brazilian educator Paulo Freire.
<a name="_ftnref"></a><sup>[2]</sup><a name="_ftnref"></a> <br>
<br>
Ethical decolonization anchored in international law and universal human
rights is a profound process of transformation that requires, above
everything else, a sophisticated, principled and popular Palestinian
resistance movement with a clear vision for justice and a democratic,
inclusive society, as well as an international movement supporting
Palestinian rights and struggling to end all forms of Zionist apartheid
and colonial rule and de-dichotomizing the conflict in parallel. Without
vision and reflection, our struggle would become like a ship without a
skipper. Without resistance, our vision would amount to no more than
arm-chair intellectualism, if not irrelevant sophistry. <br><br>
<b>THE VISION: ETHICAL DE-ZIONIZATION<br><br>
</b><a name="_ftnref"></a>Among the most discussed alternatives to
resolving the question of Palestine, the democratic state solution lays
out the clearest mechanism for ending the three-tiered regime of
injustice that Palestinians have suffered from since the creation of the
state of Israel in 1948 on the ruins of Palestinian society: the
occupation and colonization of the Palestinian - and other Arab --
territory occupied by Israel in 1967; the system of institutionalized and
legalized racial discrimination,
<a name="_ftnref"></a><sup>[3]</sup><a name="_ftnref"></a> or apartheid,
to which the indigenous Palestinian citizens of Israel are subjected to
on account of being "non-Jews;" and the persistent denial of
the UN-sanctioned rights of the Palestine refugees, especially their
right to return to their homes of origin and to reparations.<br>
<br>
A two-state solution cannot adequately, if at all, address the second
injustice or the third, the core of the question of Palestine. A
bi-national solution, also, other than its inherent logical and legal
flaws, cannot accommodate the right of return as stipulated in UNGA
resolution 194, not to mention the fact that it infringes, by definition,
the inalienable rights of the indigenous Palestinians on part of their
homeland, particularly the right to self determination. Recognizing
<i>national</i> rights of Jewish settlers in Palestine cannot but imply
accepting their right to self determination, other than contradicting the
very letter, spirit and purpose of the universal principle of self
determination primarily as a means for "peoples under colonial or
alien domination or foreign occupation" to realize their rights,
may, at one extreme, lead to claims for secession or Jewish
"national" sovereignty on part of the land of Palestine. A
Jewish state in Palestine, no matter what shape it takes, cannot but
infringe the basic rights of the land's indigenous Palestinian population
and perpetuate a system of racial discrimination that ought to be opposed
categorically.<br><br>
Accepting the colonial settlers as equal citizens and full partners in
building and developing a new shared society, free from all colonial
subjugation and discrimination, as called for in the democratic state
model, is the most magnanimous offer any indigenous population, oppressed
for decades, can present to its oppressors. For such a reality to be
attained and sustained, however, the settlers must shed their colonial
character and privileges, accepting justice, the Palestinian refugees'
return and reparations, and unmitigated equality. The indigenous
population, on the other hand, must be ready, after justice has been
reached and rights have been restored, to forgive and to accept the
settlers as equal citizens, enjoying normal lives -- neither masters nor
slaves. <br><br>
<a name="_ftnref"></a>As the One State Declaration
<a name="_ftnref"></a><sup>[4]</sup>, issued by several Palestinian,
Israeli and international intellectuals and activists states:<br><br>
"The historic land of Palestine belongs to all who live in it and to
those who were expelled or exiled from it since 1948, regardless of
religion, ethnicity, national origin or current citizenship status;
<br><br>
"Any system of government must be founded on the principle of
equality in civil, political, social and cultural rights for all
citizens. Power must be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of
all people in the diversity of their identities; ..."<br><br>
Feasibility aside, there are several key issues that ought to be
scrutinized when raising the slogan of a "Democratic State in
Historic Palestine." For the most part, these questions revolve
around how, even whether, such a vision purports to deal with the
following questions. Any exhaustive answer will undoubtedly demand
massive research; I shall only propose, then, brief answers that lay out
the morally-consistent principles that I believe are required to address
the issues at hand, keeping in mind, throughout, the pre-eminence of the
principles of de-colonization, justice and self determination as minimal
conditions for achieving relative justice.<br><br>
<b>The Right to Self Determination and the Palestinian People<br><br>
</b>But why is the right to self determination an essential legal
instrument in the quest for Palestinian rights and a just and sustainable
solution to the settler-colonial conflict in historic Palestine?<br><br>
The United Nations has called the right to self-determination a
prerequisite to the enjoyment of all other human rights. This right
entered international law, formally at least, in the United Nations
Charter, Article 1(2), which states:<br><br>
"The purposes of the United Nations are to develop friendly
relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal
rights and self-determination of peoples."<br><br>
Note that equal rights of all people always proceeds the right to self
determination and all other rights as the most fundamental principle in
the UN Charter.<br><br>
By 1960, with the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Peoples, GA Res 1514, the principle was elevated
to the position of an unconditional right for peoples under "alien,
colonial or oppressive domination" and called for a "speedy and
unconditional end to colonialism in all its
manifestations."<br><br>
In the following decades, the scope and applicability of the right to
self determination expanded to include indigenous peoples suffering from
consequences of past colonial rule, unrepresented peoples, and national
minorities oppressed by national majorities within the boundaries of a
state.<br><br>
UNGA Resolution 3236, of 22 November 1974, elevates the applicability of
the right to self determination to the people of Palestine to an
"inalienable" right. The Resolution:<br><br>
1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in
Palestine, including:<br><br>
(a) The right to self-determination without external
interference;<br><br>
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;<br><br>
2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to
their homes and property from which they have been displaced and
uprooted, and calls for their return;<br><br>
3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these
inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the
solution of the question of Palestine ... .<br><br>
A morally-consistent, rights-based approach to resolving the question of
Palestine, therefore, necessitates addressing the three inalienable
rights of the indigenous people of Palestine, in harmony with universal
human rights and international law. <br><br>
<b>Reconciling the inalienable Palestinian right to self determination
with Jewish-Israeli individual and collective rights<br><br>
</b>Other than the fundamental issue of the inalienable Palestinian right
to self determination, there are several key rights-related questions
that ought to be scrutinized when raising the slogan of a Democratic
State in Historic Palestine:<br><br>
<b>(1) Equal & Democratic Citizenship</b>: This precludes any
privileged status for citizens on account of their ethnic, religious or
other forms of identity, beyond the initial requirements of justice and
reparations for the dispossessed Palestinians. This citizenship ought to
encompass all Palestinians inside historic Palestine as well as in exile
and refugee camps; it also encompasses all current Jewish Israelis
<br><br>
<b>(2) The right of return and reparation for Palestinian refugees</b>:
How can repatriation and reparation be implemented in such a state? What
should be done with current Jewish-Israeli colonies or settlements built
on Palestinian lands and homes illegally expropriated during and ever
since the 1948 Nakba? <br><br>
The general rule, as stipulated in international law, is the right of
every Palestinian refugee to return to his/her home of origin and to
receive full, retroactive reparations. This must be done while avoiding
the infliction of any unnecessary or disproportionate suffering on the
Jewish community in Palestine. There is a need, then, to make a
distinction between two types of pillaged property: (a) private or
collectively-owned property; and (b) property that was designated as
state owned prior to the Nakba.<br><br>
In the first case, private and collectively-owned property, in accordance
with international law, should be returned to its rightful owners. When
doing so is reasonably expected to cause unjust harm to a large number of
citizens -- fair criteria need to be developed, inspired by similar ones
adopted in Bosnia and elsewhere, to decide what degree of harm and number
of those affected is considered unjust -- compensation in the form of
property of comparable location and worth should be offered to the
original owners.<br><br>
In the second case, that of state-owned property, current buildings and
structures can remain intact, provided they benefit all the democratic
state's citizenry, without discrimination.<br><br>
<b>(3) The Jewish community in a democratic Palestine</b>: Has a
"national Jewish-Israeli identity" evolved over the past six
decades? If yes, who is included in it? Regardless, are Jewish Israelis,
as a separate community, entitled to the right to self determination in
Palestine?<br><br>
(a) Some researchers, particularly Zionist ideologues and those
influenced by Zionist assertions, have claimed an inherent or acquired
Jewish right to self determination in Palestine that is equivalent, even
morally symmetric, to the Palestinian right to self determination,
thereby blurring the essential differences between the inalienable rights
of the indigenous population and the acquired rights of the
colonial-settler population. Even if we ignore the formidable body of
evidence refuting the seminal Zionist historical claim to the land of
Palestine, there is no moral parity or legal symmetry between the modern
colonizers and the people that was subjugated to colonialism, and there
has never been in any case of settler colonialism throughout modern
history. The right to self determination, as defined and applied by the
UN, was never intended, after all, as a tool to perpetuate colonial
privileges and reinforce discriminatory regimes of settler-colonial
communities. After more than 300 years of European settler-colonial
domination in South Africa, for instance, the settlers never made a
credible claim to a right to self determination as a separate
people.<br><br>
<a name="_ftnref"></a>(b<a name="_ftnref"></a>) A UNESCO conference of
experts on the implementation of the right to self determination, held in
Barcelona in 1998, <a name="_ftnref"></a>[5]<a name="_ftnref"></a>
reaffirmed that the right to self-determination applies to all peoples
under contemporary international law, but emphasized its particular
applicability to "peoples under subjugation suffering colonial,
racist and occupying regimes, whole populations of states, in terms of
the right to determine their political status and their economic, social
and cultural development, as well as groups within the population of
states, indigenous or otherwise, that are considered ‘peoples' and suffer
under contemporary forms of colonialism, such as settler-colonialism,
which do not fit into the traditional and arbitrary concept of ‘salt
water colonialism'."[6] In other words, the right to self
determination is an instrument of promoting a just peace and ending
oppression, not entrenching it.<br>
<br>
<a name="_ftnref"></a>(c) "Self-determination is achieved by fully
participatory democratic processes among the people who are seeking the
realization<a name="_ftnref"></a> of self-determination, including
referenda where appropriate. ... It is imperative to prevent all actions
by any relevant actors, which include governments, international and
other organizations, individuals and corporations, which may result in
the denial of the exercise of the right to self-determination, such as
demographic aggression or manipulation, cultural assimilation and the
destruction of the natural environment of importance to the survival of
peoples."<a name="_ftnref"></a>[7]<a name="_ftnref"></a> <br>
<br>
The holding of a referendum is a widely accepted act of
self-determination. However, in areas which the community wishing to
exercise self-determination shares with other peoples and communities,
conflicts may arise. Where those other inhabitants are settlers,
specifically, many experts at the UNESCO conference felt that "they
should not be entitled to take part in such referenda." "This
is particularly true," a conference report adds, "where
settlers have been moved to indigenous regions or encouraged to do so
under a government program aimed at changing the demographic composition
of the region in question. Such practices, whether overt or covert, have
caused many peoples to be reduced to a numerical minority in their own
homelands."<br><br>
A case in point is the UN-endorsed referendum in the Western Sahara in
1975. Setting an important precedent, "The United Nations has
decided that persons transferred to the region or encouraged to move
there by the Moroccan government, since 1975, do not have the right to
vote in the referendum."<a name="_ftnref"></a>[8]<br><br>
<a name="_ftnref"></a>(d<a name="_ftnref"></a>) Settler colonialism
aside, do Jewish Israelis constitute a people, in the sense of
entitlement to the right to self determination? The widely accepted
"Kirby definition," adopted at a UNESCO International Meeting
of Experts on the Implementation of the Right to Self-Determination as a
Contribution to Conflict Prevention in
1989,<a name="_ftnref"></a>[9]<a name="_ftnref"></a> may suggest an
affirmative answer to the question. It identifies a people as "a
group of individual human beings who enjoy some or all of the following
common features: history, ethnic identity, culture, language, territorial
connection, etc.<br>
<br>
However, UNESCO experts further underline that "the group as a whole
must have the will to be identified as a people or the consciousness of
being a people," as the key subjective element common to other legal
definitions of peoples. This subjective element is considered a necessary
condition that is lacking in the case of Jewish Israelis, who
predominantly recognize only a "Jewish nation," not an Israeli,
or even a Jewish-Israeli nation. The Israeli Supreme Court refuses to
recognize Israeli nationality as well. Jewish "nationality," as
embodied in the Israeli Law of Return, is an extraterritorial construct
that includes the entire population of Jews around the world, in
contravention of international public law norms pertaining to
nationality.<a name="_ftnref"></a><sup>[10]<br><br>
</sup>(e) Other than being a war crime and infringing the right to self
determination of the indigenous people of Palestine, Israel's
establishment through the premeditated and systematic destruction of
Palestinian society and the forcible transfer of a majority of the
Palestinian people, which Zionist leaders considered a necessary
condition for establishing a Jewish-majority state, cannot give rise to a
right of self determination for the community of Jewish Israelis, who
currently form a majority in the state. This is according to the general
international law principle, "<i>ex injuria non oritur
ius</i>," or no right can be derived from injustice or the
commission of a wrong.<br><br>
(f) But even if, for the sake of argument, we ignored all the above,
would Jewish Israelis as a group be entitled, then, to the right to self
determination in Palestine? Among other moral and legal factors, since
the right to self determination entails, at one extreme, the right to
separation in an independent state, it cannot apply to a settler colonial
community as that would inherently violate and conflict with the right of
the indigenous population to self determination.<br><br>
<a name="_ftnref"></a>But the realization of self determination can
assume one of many possibilities in a spectrum. After all, international
instruments, in particular the Declaration on Principles of International
Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, state
that the modes of implementation of the right to self-determination
extend beyond the right of secession. The Declaration
states<a name="_ftnref"></a>[11]<a name="_ftnref"></a>:<br>
<br>
"the establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free
association or integration with an independent State or emergence into
any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes
of implementing the right to self-determination by that people ...
."<br><br>
Although there is no universally acceptable distinction between
"internal" and "external" self-determination, it may
be instructive to investigate the differences between them in the context
of the colonial conflict in Palestine. Internal self determination
largely entails participatory democracy: the right to decide the form of
government and to elect rulers by the entire population of a state as
well as the right of a population group within the state to participate
in decision making at the state level. Internal self-determination can
also mean the right to exercise cultural, linguistic, religious or
(territorial) political autonomy within the boundaries of the existing
state.<br><br>
External self-determination (described by some as "full"
self-determination), on the other hand, means "the right to decide
on the political status of a people and its place in the international
community in relation to other states, including the right to separate
from the existing state of which the group concerned is a part, and to
set up a new independent state," according to van Praag.<br><br>
In all cases, since the choice is left to the people entitled to exercise
self determination, one cannot accede to a group's right to self
determination and at the same time restrict that right to exclude the
possibility of separation into an independent state. Even if we set aside
the extremity of secession, any exercise of self determination by Jewish
Israelis in any part of historic Palestine that excludes the indigenous
Palestinians, whether citizens living in that part or refugees uprooted
from it, cannot be legal, as it would infringe the inalienable right of
that part of the Palestinian people to self determination; nor can it be
moral, as it would deny those Palestinians their basic rights, including
the right to equality, the most fundamental of all rights in the UN
Charter and human rights conventions.<br><br>
<b>(4) The Zionist "Law of return" and the rights of Jewish
refugees from Arab and other states<br><br>
</b>Being an explicitly racist law that is in contravention of
international law and that has played a key role in the Zionist
settler-colonial project, the Law of Return and all other similarly
discriminatory laws must be abrogated in a democratic state.<br><br>
As for Jewish refugees from Arab states, they are entitled, according to
international law, to the same rights as refugees everywhere, including
Palestinian refugees: the right to repatriation and reparation.<br><br>
<b>(5) Ethnic and Cultural Particularities of Palestinian Arabs and
Jewish Israelis<br><br>
</b>Cultural particularity and identity should be nourished, not just
tolerated, by society and protected by law. Palestine was for centuries a
fertile meeting ground for diverse civilizations and cultures, fostering
communication, dialogue and acculturation among them. This heritage,
almost forgotten under the cultural hegemony of Zionist colonial rule,
must be revived, nourished and celebrated, regardless of any power
asymmetry in the new state. We also must keep in mind that half of the
Jewish Israeli population, the Mizrahi Jews, have their cultural roots in
Arab and other Middle Eastern cultures.<br><br>
Regardless of the above vital components of the vision, perhaps the most
nagging question that one state advocates face is whether our vision is
feasible, whether it can be realized, and, if yes, how. Many commentators
and analysts, even among supporters of the one state solution, seem to be
obsessed with one question in this regard: how do you convince Israelis
to accept this vision?<br><br>
<b>THE VEHICLE: RESISTANCE & EFFECTIVE SOLIDARITY<br><br>
</b>There is a basic problem in the assumed premise in this question --
that a colonial society can or should be persuaded to give up its racist
domination and colonial privileges. Throughout the history of
colonialism, the colonized were only able to end their oppression through
sustained resistance, whether armed, civil, or both -- never through
begging, appeasing or otherwise persuading through "dialogue."
Only after a common ground is reached based on equality, universal human
rights and international law can there be genuine dialogue and
reconciliation. The South African experience is an important source of
inspiration in that regard.<br><br>
Besides developing and effectively promoting a morally consistent and
compelling vision, organizing for a secular, democratic state alternative
primarily entails developing a corresponding strategy of resistance aimed
at ending all forms of Zionist oppression while creating fertile grounds
for future reconciliation and peaceful coexistence based on unmitigated
equality, justice and universal human rights. This is what I call the
ethical de-Zionization/decolonization of Palestine, a process that
entails a de-dichotomization of the two main groups' identities involved
in this colonial conflict.<br><br>
Moral reconciliation between conflicting communities is impossible if the
essence of the oppressive relationship between them is sustained. The
objectively contradictory identities of the oppressor and oppressed
cannot find a moral middle ground. So long as the relation of oppression
obtains, only coercion, submission and injustice are possible outcomes.
Reconciliation and coexistence, then, can only result from ethical
decolonization<br><br>
What form of resistance and action is needed to bring us closer to
realizing the secular, democratic state solution? I think there are three
central pillars that a Palestinian-led, one democratic state movement
needs to be founded on:<br><br>
<b>The Palestinian Pillar</b>: The main vehicle that can carry this
process forward must be a unified, democratized and revolutionary
Palestinian movement that represents Palestinians everywhere, includes
all political parties and grassroots unions and institutions, upholds the
democratic state vision, and leads the resistance, in all its forms, to
achieve it. A progressive Palestinian movement upholding equality,
universal principles of morality and international law is more crucial
than ever, particularly given the steadily growing disillusion with the
two-state solution among Palestinians, in all three segments -- in exile,
in the 1967-occupied Palestinian territory and inside Israel.<br><br>
<a name="_ftnref"></a>The right of return movement, representing the
largest Palestinian constituency, the refugees, has been among the most
fervent supporters of the one democratic state solution, realizing that
the right of return and the two-state solution are basically
incompatible. Palestinian citizens of Israel, in the three historic
documents<a name="_ftnref"></a><sup>[12]</sup> issued by leading
institutions, political leaders and intellectuals among them, have
largely adopted the slogan of "a state of all its citizens,"
which lends credence to the one state vision approach and principles.
Even Palestinians in the OPT, recent polls
reveal<sup>[13]</sup><a name="_ftnref"></a>, have been expressing a
steadily growing support for one state, despite the fact that no
political party is calling for it.<br>
<br>
A thorough and critical reassessment of the entire Palestinian strategy
of resistance is urgently needed, in order to creatively mobilize
Palestinians from all sectors and geographic locations in the struggle.
To this end, promoting civil resistance, as in the campaign for Boycott,
Divestment and Sanctions, or BDS, is a top
priority.<a name="_ftnref"></a><sup>[14]<br><br>
</sup>To this end, the PLO needs to be reconstructed from the bottom up
with mass participation, particularly by democratic grassroots unions; it
must be governed by unfettered democracy, upholding the principle of
proportional representation.<a name="_ftnref"></a><sup>[15]<br><br>
</sup><b>The Arab Pillar</b>: Any reading of the history of the Arab
region tells us that transformations cannot be sustained or developed in
one part without the maturity of nurturing conditions in its surrounding
context. Being part of the Arab nation, with all its geo-strategic
importance, is one of the basic factors that has spared the Palestinians
the fate of Native Americans and other aboriginal populations that were
subjected to full-scale genocide in the "new world." And
although most Arab regimes today are autocratic, despotic,
unrepresentative of their respective peoples, and mostly reliant in their
survival on Western protection, the Arab masses are more aware of and
committed to the Palestinian struggle than ever, as evident in the --
admittedly mostly emotional -- outpouring of support during the Israeli
criminal war of aggression on Gaza.<br><br>
The Palestinian factor is largely regarded as a domestic factor, not just
in the countries surrounding Palestine, but also in Arab countries as far
as Morocco, Yemen and the United Arab Emirates. The emergence of a
Palestinian leadership that advocates a democratic state solution,
therefore, has every potential to mobilize wider Arab grassroots support,
eventually becoming a political force to be reckoned with. Already,
boycott of Israel and of companies that are viewed as perpetuating its
oppression is spreading throughout the Arab world, albeit without an
organized leadership, for the most part. The so-called "peace
dividend" that Israel has banked on since Oslo without conceding any
land or rights in return is quickly disappearing. Israel is again being
viewed as the Arab nation's strategic enemy and as an inherently
belligerent, artificial entity whose existence as a racist and colonial
outpost cannot be tolerated or normalized.<br><br>
<b>The International Pillar</b>: As in the struggle against South-African
apartheid, connecting the struggle for Palestinian rights with
international social movements, trade unions, faith-based organizations,
cultural and academic groups, among other civil society bodies, is
indispensable. If international civil society solidarity groups,
committed to BDS to isolate Israel have started to emerge ever since the
UN World Conference Against Racism in Durban in 2001, now, four years
after the Palestinian Civil Society Call for BDS was launched, these
groups are starting to look and act like a movement that is guided by the
Palestinian Call and that is taking root in several countries, from South
Africa to Sweden, and from Australia to Canada, not to forget the United
Kingdom, of course.<br><br>
This resolutely anti-racist, diverse movement is guided by the principles
of inclusion, gradualness, sustainability, context-sensitivity and the
primacy of international law and universal human rights. And although the
West, owing to its overwhelming political and economic power as well as
its complicity in perpetuating Israel's colonial and apartheid
domination, remains the main battleground for this nonviolent resistance,
the rest of the world should not be ignored. The boycott movement should
reach China, India, Malaysia, South Africa, Brazil, and Russia, among
other states which seek to challenge the West's monopoly on power.
Zionist influence in those states remains significantly weaker than in
the West. Indeed, South African civil society is today the single most
committed supporter of the Palestinian BDS struggle.<br><br>
Can BDS change anything on the ground, though, given Israel's formidable
influence over Congress, the White House and, by extension, the EU? The
still-young Palestinian BDS campaign, modeled after the anti-apartheid
struggle in South Africa, has already shown ample evidence that it has
the potential of unifying Palestinians and international solidarity
movements in a resistance strategy that is moral, effective and
sustainable. In the last few years alone, many mainstream and influential
groups, unions and institutions have heeded the Palestinian BDS Call and
started to consider or apply diverse forms of effective pressure on
Israel. <br><br>
During and ever since Israel's war on Gaza, Palestinian civil society has
stood more united than ever in urging people of conscience all over the
world to hold Israel accountable for its crimes by treating it as South
Africa was under apartheid rule. In response, unions, academic groups,
faith-based organizations, political parties, social movements and others
have adopted creative, context-sensitive and sustainable BDS campaigns,
from South Africa to Norway, from Australia to Canada, from Britain to
Venezuela, and even from the podium of the President of the UN General
Assembly.<br><br>
Israel's state terrorism in Gaza, enabled by virtually unlimited support
from the US and Western governments in general, was a key catalyst in
spreading and deepening BDS around the world, prompting advocates of
Palestinian rights to feel that our South Africa moment has finally
arrived. Israel is now widely perceived, at a grassroots level, as an
international pariah that commits war crimes with impunity and that needs
to be held accountable to international law and basic principles of human
rights.<br><br>
With every achievement that the BDS movement charts, the long path to the
one democratic state solution becomes shorter. After all, although the
BDS movement has never taken a position in the one-state/two-states
debate, being a rights-based movement, the only solution that can
logically accommodate the three basic rights stated in the BDS Call is a
one democratic state solution. The spread of the compelling BDS message
around the world is inspiring new sectors in international civil society
to join the struggle for Palestinian rights; it is quite effectively
raising awareness about Israel's three-tiered system of oppression of the
Palestinian people; and it is unintentionally convincing many that only a
democratic, unitary state is worth fighting for.<br><br>
By emphasizing equal humanity as its most fundamental principle, the
secular democratic state promises to end the fundamental injustices that
have plagued Palestine and, simultaneously, to transcend national and
ethnic dichotomies that now make it nearly impossible to envision ethical
coexistence in a decolonized Palestine, based on equality, justice and
freedom.<br>
<br>
<br>
<a name="_ftn1"></a>[1] Based on two presentations, the first to the
International Conference on the One & Two State Solutions for
Palestine/Israel, Boston, 28-29 March 2009, sponsored by the Trans Arab
Research Institute (TARI) and the Joiner Center for the Study of War and
Its Social Consequences of the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and
the second to the conference titled Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of
Statehood and Paths to Peace, Toronto, 22-24 June 2009, sponsored by
Queen's University and York University, Canada.<br>
<a name="_ftn2"></a><br>
<a name="_ftn2"></a>[2] Paulo Freire, <i>Pedagogy of the
Oppressed</i><a name="_ftn2"></a>. New York: Continuum Books, 1993.<br>
<a name="_ftn3"></a><br>
<a name="_ftn3"></a>[3] Even human rights reports issued by the US State
Department have condemned Israel's "institutional, legal and
societal discrimination" against the indigenous Palestinians. For
example, see the 2008 report:
<a href="http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/nea/119117.htm">
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/nea/119117.htm</a>
<a name="_ftn3"></a><br>
<br>
<a name="_ftn4"></a>[4]
<a href="http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9134.shtml" eudora="autourl">
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9134.shtml<br><br>
</a><a name="_ftn5"></a>[5]
<a href="http://www.unpo.org/content/view/446/83/">
http://www.unpo.org/content/view/446/83/</a><a name="_ftn5"></a><br>
<br>
<a name="_ftn6"></a>[6] Amy Maguire, <i>Law Protecting Rights: Restoring
the law of self-determination in the neo-colonial world</i>. In Law Text
Culture, Volume 12, Issue 1. 2008.
<a href="http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=ltc">
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=ltc</a>
<a name="_ftn6"></a><br>
<br>
<a name="_ftn7"></a>[7] UNESCO conference of expert,
ibid<a name="_ftn7"></a>.<br>
<a name="_ftn8"></a><br>
<a name="_ftn8"></a>[8]
<a href="http://www.tamilnation.org/selfdetermination/98unesco.htm">
http://www.tamilnation.org/selfdetermination/98unesco.htm</a>
<a name="_ftn8"></a><br>
<br>
<a name="_ftn9"></a>[9]
<a href="http://www.unpo.org/downloads/THE%20IMPLEMENTATION%20OF%20THE%20RIGHT%20TO%20SELF.pdf" eudora="autourl">
http://www.unpo.org/downloads/THE%20IMPLEMENTATION%20OF%20THE%20RIGHT%20TO%20SELF.pdf<br>
<br>
</a><a name="_ftn10"></a>[10] For more on this see: <i>United against
Apartheid, Colonialism and Occupation - Dignity and Justice for the
Palestinian People</i>. Palestinian Civil Society Strategic Position
Paper. October 2008.
<a href="http://bdsmovement.net/files/English-BNC_Position_Paper-Durban_Review.pdf">
http://bdsmovement.net/files/English-BNC_Position_Paper-Durban_Review.pdf</a>
<a name="_ftn10"></a><br>
<br>
<a name="_ftn11"></a>[11]
<a href="http://www.whatconvention.org/en/conv/0703.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://www.whatconvention.org/en/conv/0703.htm<br><br>
</a><a name="_ftn12"></a>[12] The Democratic Constitution (2007):
<a href="http://www.adalah.org/eng/democratic_constitution-e.pdf">
http://www.adalah.org/eng/democratic_constitution-e.pdf</a>; The Haifa
Declaration (2007):
<a href="http://www.mada-research.org/archive/haifaenglish.pdf">
http://www.mada-research.org/archive/haifaenglish.pdf</a>; The Future
Vision
(2006):<a href="http://www.adalah.org/newsletter/eng/dec06/tasawor-mostaqbali.pdf">
http://www.adalah.org/newsletter/eng/dec06/tasawor-mostaqbali.pdf</a>
<a name="_ftn12"></a><br>
<br>
<a name="_ftn13"></a>[13]
<a href="http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10497.shtml" eudora="autourl">
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10497.shtml<br><br>
</a><a name="_ftn14"></a>[14]
<a href="http://www.bdsmovement.net/">www.BDSmovement.net</a>
<a name="_ftn14"></a><br>
<a name="_ftn15"></a><br>
<a name="_ftn15"></a>[15] For more on this see:
<a href="http://www.palestine-studies.org/journals.aspx?id=6804&jid=1&href=fulltext">
http://www.palestine-studies.org/journals.aspx?id=6804&jid=1&href=fulltext</a>
<a name="_ftn15"></a> <br>
<hr>
From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives <br>
URL:
<a href="http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/22158">
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/22158</a> <br><br>
<br><br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>