<html>
<body>
<h1><b>Operation Establish a Sovereign
Bantustan</b></h1><font size=3>Submitted by Jalal Abukhater on Fri,
09/02/2011 - 11:16 <br>
<a href="http://electronicintifada.net/blog/jalal-abukhater/operation-establish-sovereign-bantustan" eudora="autourl">
http://electronicintifada.net/blog/jalal-abukhater/operation-establish-sovereign-bantustan<br>
<br>
</a>I chose to include the term
“<a href="http://electronicintifada.net/tags/bantustans">bantustan</a>”
in the title because it literally describes the desperate move the
Palestinian leadership is leading Palestine into:<br><br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>“But it’s no exaggeration to propose that this idea, although
well-meant by some, raises the clearest danger to the Palestinian
national movement in its entire history, threatening to wall Palestinian
aspirations into a political cul-de-sac</i> from which it may never
emerge. The irony is indeed that, through this maneuver, the PA is
seizing even declaring as a right precisely the same dead-end formula
that the African National Congress (ANC) fought so bitterly for decades
because the ANC leadership rightly saw it as disastrous. That formula can
be summed up in one word: Bantustan,” wrote
<a href="http://electronicintifada.net/blog/jalal-abukhater/node/8543">
Virginia Tilley in “Bantustans and the unilateral declaration of
statehood.” </a><br><br>
</dl>If we can’t learn from recent history, what will we ever achieve? We
are being lured into a trap where the rights of millions of dispossessed
refugees are at risk, but who is listening?<br><br>
I said it before and I am willing to say it a thousand times more: Our
struggle is not a struggle for symbolic statehood; it is a struggle to
gain Palestinians’ basic rights! For more than six decades we have been
fighting for our
<a href="http://electronicintifada.net/tags/right-return">right of
return</a>, our right to live in our ancestral homeland, our right to be
treated as equal citizens, our right to live in dignity. And our
leadership is risking all of that in order to establish a sovereign state
on a tiny piece of land of our much bigger homeland. <br><br>
It was only a few months ago when I published my first ever widely-read
article on my personal blog, which was later
<a href="http://972mag.com/letter-to-israeli-left-choose-one-state-not-apartheid/">
published on +972 magazine</a>. In that article, originally titled “How
do you define coexistence” and later titled “Letter to Israeli Left:
chose one state, not apartheid,” I questioned the motives of many Israeli
anti-occupation leftist groups, and asked them to endorse the one
democratic state solution as it is the only solution out there that could
end the struggle and guarantee justice and equality for both
sides.<br><br>
If I have learned anything from debating with my Palestinian friends in
the last few weeks about the September move, it is that I should address
them, my fellow Palestinian countrymen, in the same tone, if not harsher
regarding this topic. Let us get over talking hope, and move to
understand actions and consequences of this move.<br><br>
I believe that if I was to see the West Bank and Gaza instantaneously
liberated as soon as the United Nations recognizes us as a state, I
wouldn’t worry as much because then the leadership would be slightly more
able to sort out bigger matters related to refugees. But the ground
reality says something else.<br><br>
Quoting Ali Abunimah’s
<a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/04/2011413152522296883.html">
opinion piece on Aljazeera English</a> news site, he says:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Lebanon has been a member state of the United Nations since 1945 and
yet this did not prevent Israel from occupying southern Lebanon from 1978
until 2000. Israel’s occupation of Lebanon ended not because of any
international pressure, but only because the Lebanese resistance drove
Israel and its collaborating militias out. […] Similarly, since 1967
Israel has occupied the Golan Heights, which belong to Syria (also a UN
member since 1945). There has been virtually no armed resistance on the
Golan Heights nor has there been any international pressure for Israel to
withdraw or for Syrian refugees to return to their homes. […] Why would
the situation in the “State of Palestine” be any different?<br><br>
<br>
</dl><h2><b>Legal perspective</b></h2><font size=3>Besides the fact on
the ground in the West Bank that the Israeli occupation is going nowhere
after 20 September, our leadership insists that this is the time to
declare statehood ignoring many consequences of this action. The
Palestinian delegation to the United Nations has been warned that the
September move risks the rights of all diaspora and 1948 Palestinians as
it officially
“<a href="http://maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=415804">terminates
the legal status held by the PLO in the UN since 1975 that it is the sole
legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”</a><br><br>
In his seven-page
<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/238962-final-pdf-plo-statehood-opinionr-arb.html">
legal document</a>, Guy Goodwin-Gill, a professor of international law at
Oxford University, sheds light on the legal risks behind the recognition
of the Palestinian state. He said that millions of Palestinian refugees
are at risk of losing their representation at the UN if the bid succeeds.
He concludes:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>“In my opinion, current moves to secure recognition of statehood do
not appear to reflect fully the role of the Palestinian people as a
principle party in the resolution of the situation in the Middle East.
The interests of the Palestinian people are at risk of prejudice and
fragmentation, unless steps are taken to ensure and maintain their
representation through the Palestinian Liberation Organization, until
such time as there is in place a State competent and fully able to assume
these responsibilities towards the people at large.”<br><br>
</dl>It is worth mentioning too that Guy Goodwin-Gill is a
<a href="http://maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=415804">member of
the team</a> that won the 2004 non-binding judgment by the International
Court of Justice that the route of
<a href="http://electronicintifada.net/tags/israels-wall-west-bank">
Israel’s wall</a> was illegal.<br><br>
Meanwhile, the Boycott National Committee has issued
<a href="http://www.bdsmovement.net/2011/bnc-reiterates-its-position-on-september-7794">
its own statement</a> warning of harsh consequences to the UN statehood
bid.<br><br>
</font><h2><b>Bad move</b></h2><font size=3>Many non-Palestinian
activists, rights groups, politicians, and lawyers are voicing their
concerns, but not all are able to protest the Palestinian leadership’s
decision because it is an exclusively Palestinian matter. Unfortunately,
not many Palestinians are fully aware of the risks, and currently over
6.5 million Palestinians in the diaspora are going to face the
consequences of an action taken by someone they didn’t vote for or agree
that he speaks for them. The UN move for the state is an action a low
percentage of Palestinians agree upon, but unfortunately it is going to
be forced upon them.<br><br>
The Palestinian leadership in Ramallah is fully aware of the consequences
of this move, but personally I feel that their action is coming from
anger towards the failing peace process that they went into for decades.
This anger is pushing them for an irrational move, anything that they’d
be able to claim as a success of their own, ignoring consequences. This
move aims to separate and break the bond between Palestinians all over
the world, the Palestinian leadership should know better and seek a
solution that guarantees the rights of all the Palestinians they
“represent.”<br><br>
</font><h2><b>Security Council Veto</b></h2><font size=3>Whenever you
talk about the September bid for the state, you hear Veto. Everyone is
almost certain that the United States will use its veto power to halt any
unilateral attempt seeking a declaration of a Palestinian state on
<a href="http://electronicintifada.net/tags/1967-lines">1967 lines</a>;
some say the Palestinian UN delegation will seek other routes to bypass
the Security Council, and others say it will be the end of the
road.<br><br>
Most Palestinians I meet claim that the move for the state in the United
Nations is a win-win situation. If we succeed, we get our state. If we
don’t succeed, we’d avoid the consequences of having succeeded and we can
seek another solution. It is irrational, I know. But those Palestinians
are ready and will gladly accept any outcome from the September
move.<br><br>
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposes the Palestinian move
because he benefits when he maintains control over all of the illegal
settlements in the West Bank. He wants to maintain control over all
strategic areas and water wells and springs. He aims to maintain our
status quo living in many separate, open air prisons across the West
Bank. But, in my opinion, I believe there is no reason US President
Barack Obama would oppose the move for two states.<br><br>
Personally, I doubt the United States will use its veto power. The United
States is able to put an end to 64 years of continuous struggle and favor
the Zionist end of the equation in this solution. Of course, having said
this, putting an end to our struggle in this way will harm us a lot as I
have argued earlier.<br><br>
The two-state solution will cause fragmentation of the Palestinian
people, more separation between those in the West Bank and Gaza, those in
Israel, and those living in the diaspora. It will forcibly take away the
rights of millions.<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>