Al-Jazeerah History  
	 
	
	
	Archives  
	 
	
	
	Mission & Name   
	 
	
	
	
	Conflict Terminology   
	 
	
	Editorials  
	 
	
	
	
	
	Gaza Holocaust   
	 
	
	Gulf War   
	 
	
	Isdood  
	 
	
	Islam   
	 
	
	News   
	 
	
	
	News Photos 
	  
	 
	
	
	Opinion 
	
	
	Editorials  
	 
	
	
	
	US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)   
	 
	
	www.aljazeerah.info
	  
      
       
      
        
        
     | 
     | 
    
       
      Statehood Must Mean Liquidation of the 
	  Occupation  
	By Khalid Amayreh  
	PIC, Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, September 19, 2011 
	
  Palestinian Authority (PA) President, Mahmoud Abbas, has assured 
	the Palestinian masses that a possible recognition of statehood by the UN 
	won't be at the expense of other fundamental Palestinian rights, including 
	the paramount right of return for Palestinian refugees, uprooted from their 
	homeland at gunpoint by Jewish invaders from Eastern Europe some 63 years 
	ago. 
	Speaking during a speech in Ramallah on 17 September, Abass reiterated 
	Palestinian grievances, reminding the international community that the 
	Palestinian people were the only people under the sun still languishing 
	under a foreign military occupation. 
	"There is not a territory, or an island, or a region that has not gained 
	its freedom and independence, except us. Our freedom, independence and 
	statehood are therefore long overdue." Abbas said the occupation was 
	becoming anachronistic and it had to go by whatever means necessary. 
	The speech, described by PLO officials as land-mark, contained few 
	surprises. Abbas said the PLO would remain the sole and only legitimate 
	representative of the Palestinian people regardless of the formation of 
	statehood. The statement is seen as a necessary assurance to those who are 
	worried that statehood would be at the expense of the right of return for 
	the refugees.
  Mr. Abbas also exhorted the Palestinians not to be 
	lured by violence "because this is exactly what the Israelis want."
  
	If all goes well, and the Abbas leadership does approach the UN, including 
	the Security Council, it will be the first time the Ramallah leadership 
	refuses to budge to American-Israeli pressure. In this case, a certain 
	credit should be given to Abbas.
  However, much attention ought to be 
	given to political and diplomatic theatrics and other forms of wheeling and 
	dealing expected to ensue a possible unbinding UN resolution recognizing a 
	state of Palestine based on the pre-1967 borders.
  First of all, the 
	PA must realize that satisfying American demands would effectively mean 
	contenting ourselves with a deformed state on isolated parts of the West 
	Bank, probably with some East Jerusalem neighborhoods.
  This should be 
	absolutely unacceptable since liberating the land from the clutches of 
	Zionism is far more important than statehood.
  Moreover, the PA 
	leadership should absolutely reject any American efforts, by Congress or the 
	administration, to blackmail the Palestinians by way of financial or 
	political pressure to make them reconsider or deviate from pursuing 
	manifestly legitimate rights.
  Congress, as we all know, is always at 
	Israel's beck and call and would go to any extent to prove its loyalty and 
	cheap subservience to the apartheid regime in occupied Palestine.
  
	More to the point, certain European states, such as Germany, won't abandon 
	the disgusting idea that the Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims of the world 
	must have to pay the price for whatever Adolph Hitler and his thugs did to 
	Jews in the course of the Second World War. We must not succumb to this 
	contemptuous stand on the part of the Merkel government. 
  It is 
	probably premature to predict the ultimate net-outcome of the Palestinian 
	bid at the United Nation. The Obama administration, always in the grip of 
	the Jewish lobby, will most likely veto any draft resolution at the UN 
	Security Council recognizing a Palestinian state based on the 1967-borders. 
	 Moreover, a Palestinian achievement at the UN, such as gaining 
	membership of the international organization, would have only symbolic 
	importance, especially in the short run.
  In the final analysis, a 
	real success will depend on the ability, willingness and determination of 
	the international community to transform diplomatic achievements into 
	tangible facts on the ground in the West Bank, including occupied East 
	Jerusalem. This would require more determined and concerted efforts, with 
	the collaboration and coordination of our many allies on the international 
	arena.
  This is especially significant since Israel, which controls 
	American politics and policies, can always fly in the face of the 
	international community by seeking to abort and crush Palestinian 
	independence efforts. Such a blunt disregard for international legitimacy 
	would undoubtedly cost Israel and its guardian-ally, the United States, a 
	lot of diplomatic and political capital.
  So the question that begs 
	itself is whether Israel would be willing to sacrifice her international 
	standing for the sake of crushing aspirations, even for a temporary period. 
	 Moreover, an extremist Israeli stand is likely to be strongly rejected 
	by regional powers, including Turkey, Egypt and Iran. Even traditionally 
	pro-western regimes such as the regimes in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf 
	Emirates would come under internal pressure to display their rejection of 
	Israeli insolence. Jordan in particular could face violent and sustained 
	protests demanding the removal of the Israeli ambassador, the severance of 
	relations with Israel and even the abrogation of the 1994- Wadi Araba Peace 
	treaty between Jordan and the Jewish state.
  As to the apartheid 
	Israeli regime, it is quite apparent that the Jewish state will continue to 
	play the role of the victim, mainly in order to blackmail the Palestinians 
	and the international community for maximal concessions.
  This is the 
	reason Israel is relating to the Palestinian bid to seek UN recognition as 
	if a Third World war were about to breakout or as if a superpower were 
	threatening Israel with a devastating nuclear attack.
  Israel is 
	reiterating the same old mendacious mantra that Palestinian "unilateralism" 
	won't bring peace and that negotiations were the only route that could lead 
	to the materialization of Palestinian statehood.
  This argument is, of 
	course, bereft of honesty and truth since the PA-PLO has been negotiating 
	with Israel in vain for close to 20 years, while the Jewish state Israel was 
	exploiting all these years to build more Jewish settlements and obliterating 
	the Arab-Islamic identity of occupied East Jerusalem.
  Hence, the 
	argument that only negotiations would lead to peace is a characteristic 
	Israeli lie that is meant to confuse and mislead international public 
	opinion.
  Moreover, Israel, which has built hundreds of Jewish-only 
	colonies on occupied Arab land and transferred hundreds of thousands of its 
	fanatical Jewish citizens to live on land that belongs to another people, is 
	the last country on earth that is qualified to complain about unilateralism. 
	 Israeli prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu, a man notorious for his 
	dishonesty, has also been repeating his many mantras about Hamas, urging the 
	PA to terminate its partnership with the Islamic movement.
  Netanyahu 
	comfortably ignores and forgets his own alignment with Judeo Nazi groups 
	such Gush Emunim, Shas and other ultra-fascist Jewish parties which advocate 
	enslavement, expulsion or even outright physical extermination of non-Jews 
	living in occupied Palestine. 
  This unholy partnership between the 
	Likud and Judeo-Nazi groups explains the virtual silence and shocking 
	inaction of the Netanyahu government towards the latest unprovoked wave of 
	arson, vandalism and rampage carried out by Jewish settler terrorists 
	against Palestinian targets, including mosques, all over the West Bank. 
	 To conclude, there is a zero per cent probability that negotiations with 
	Israel, even if such negotiations lasted for a hundred years, would achieve 
	positive results.
  Hence, the remaining alternative is that the 
	Palestinian people must act independently, even unilaterally to achieve 
	their legitimate goals. After all, If Israel acts unilaterally as it has 
	been doing since its misbegotten creation 63 years ago, why shouldn't we. 
	 Besides, the Arab, regional and international situation appears to be 
	more adequate than ever for pursuing Palestinian statehood even without 
	sacrificing or compromising other legitimate rights, including the right of 
	return, the soul and heart of the Palestinian cause.
 
  
       
       | 
     | 
     
      
      
      
      
     |