Friday, June 1, 2007
PRESIDENT Husni Mubarak of Egypt reportedly told visiting Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni recently that "no Arab leader would dare give up the right of return," for Palestinian refugees, uprooted from their homes when Israel was created in 1948.
Mubarak's words, which must have irked Livni, were a significant assertion of the central importance of the refugee plight, the heart and soul of the Palestinian problem.
Moreover, Mubarak's remarks seem also to reflect a growing trend among Palestinians and their Arab, Muslim and international allies to accentuate the right of return and never allow Zionist circles to dilute or downplay its paramount importance. The Right of Return remains the heart and soul of the Palestinian question despite the passage of 60 years since ethnic East European Ashkenazi supremacists massacred and terrorised the bulk of the native Palestinians to flee for their lives.
Today, Israel, in concert with its guardian ally, the United States, continues to reject the concept of repatriation of the Palestinian refugees to their former homes and villages in what is now claimed to be "Israel".
To rationalise this essentially racist discourse, Israeli and Zionist apologists present four main arguments which are as unethical as they are mendacious.
The first argument, they claim that the bulk of the refugees were not expelled but left voluntarily and that some of them were asked to leave by the Arab leaders of that era. Well, as recognised by a growing number of Israeli historians and leaders, the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by Israel was carried out according to a well-devised plan prepared by the Zionist leadership.
But even if some Palestinians had left because they feared for their safety, would it mean that they didn't have the right to return home when the dust of war settled?
The rule of international law is very clear on this. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948, states in its Article 13 that "Everyone has the right to leave any country including his own and to return to his country".
The second argument cited by the Zionists in this regard is that the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes and villages in what is now Israel would undermine the Jewish identity of Israel.
This is a purely racist argument because the right of a refugee to return to his home overrides Israel's alleged "right" to religious and ethnic purity.
Besides, Israel has no more right to be racist, exclusively Jewish, than Apartheid South Africa had the right to be exclusively or predominantly white.
The third argument voiced by Zionists, especially today, is that hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees were uprooted from the Arab world and that Arabs had to deal with their refugees as Jews have dealt with theirs.
The Jews of the Arab world who left their native Arab countries following the creation of Israel were actually bullied, terrorised and invited by Israel to make Aliya (immigration) to Palestine. They were not expelled and their arrival in Israel was the ultimate fulfilment of Zionism. Well, isn't bringing all the Jews of the world to Palestine Zionism's ultimate goal and raison d'etre?
Hence, the equation of bringing Jewish immigrants into Palestine to live on land that belongs to the Palestinian people with the violent uprooting and expulsion of an entire people from their homes goes beyond the pale of acceptable logic.
Finally, some Israeli and Zionist leaders are trying to outsmart themselves by arguing that only those Palestinians who had lived in Palestine prior to 1948 had the right to return home, but not their descendants. In other words, those refugees who are above sixty years?
In brief, the right of return for Palestinian refugees is a sacred right that should never ever be compromised or dealt with lightly. Nor should it be subject to controversy and dispute just as the rightful owner's right to recover his or her stolen property from a thief is not subject to dispute and controversy.
Sixty years of homelessness, pain and dispersion in the four corners of the globe should be enough for these miserable victims of Zionist supremacy. Ending this obscene and sinister nightmare wouldn't be an act of charity to the Palestinians. It would be a belated application of UN resolution 194 which calls for the repatriation of the refugees.
After all, by what logic do the purported descendants of Jews who allegedly left Palestine more than 2000 years have the right to "return" to Palestine whereas the true natives of the land who still retain the keys to their homes, from which they were expelled at gun point sixty years ago, are robbed of the right to return to their homes?
Palestinian Information Centre
Mubarak's words, which must have irked Livni, were a significant assertion of the central importance of the refugee plight, the heart and soul of the Palestinian problem.
Moreover, Mubarak's remarks seem also to reflect a growing trend among Palestinians and their Arab, Muslim and international allies to accentuate the right of return and never allow Zionist circles to dilute or downplay its paramount importance. The Right of Return remains the heart and soul of the Palestinian question despite the passage of 60 years since ethnic East European Ashkenazi supremacists massacred and terrorised the bulk of the native Palestinians to flee for their lives.
Today, Israel, in concert with its guardian ally, the United States, continues to reject the concept of repatriation of the Palestinian refugees to their former homes and villages in what is now claimed to be "Israel".
To rationalise this essentially racist discourse, Israeli and Zionist apologists present four main arguments which are as unethical as they are mendacious.
The first argument, they claim that the bulk of the refugees were not expelled but left voluntarily and that some of them were asked to leave by the Arab leaders of that era. Well, as recognised by a growing number of Israeli historians and leaders, the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by Israel was carried out according to a well-devised plan prepared by the Zionist leadership.
But even if some Palestinians had left because they feared for their safety, would it mean that they didn't have the right to return home when the dust of war settled?
The rule of international law is very clear on this. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948, states in its Article 13 that "Everyone has the right to leave any country including his own and to return to his country".
The second argument cited by the Zionists in this regard is that the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes and villages in what is now Israel would undermine the Jewish identity of Israel.
This is a purely racist argument because the right of a refugee to return to his home overrides Israel's alleged "right" to religious and ethnic purity.
Besides, Israel has no more right to be racist, exclusively Jewish, than Apartheid South Africa had the right to be exclusively or predominantly white.
The third argument voiced by Zionists, especially today, is that hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees were uprooted from the Arab world and that Arabs had to deal with their refugees as Jews have dealt with theirs.
The Jews of the Arab world who left their native Arab countries following the creation of Israel were actually bullied, terrorised and invited by Israel to make Aliya (immigration) to Palestine. They were not expelled and their arrival in Israel was the ultimate fulfilment of Zionism. Well, isn't bringing all the Jews of the world to Palestine Zionism's ultimate goal and raison d'etre?
Hence, the equation of bringing Jewish immigrants into Palestine to live on land that belongs to the Palestinian people with the violent uprooting and expulsion of an entire people from their homes goes beyond the pale of acceptable logic.
Finally, some Israeli and Zionist leaders are trying to outsmart themselves by arguing that only those Palestinians who had lived in Palestine prior to 1948 had the right to return home, but not their descendants. In other words, those refugees who are above sixty years?
In brief, the right of return for Palestinian refugees is a sacred right that should never ever be compromised or dealt with lightly. Nor should it be subject to controversy and dispute just as the rightful owner's right to recover his or her stolen property from a thief is not subject to dispute and controversy.
Sixty years of homelessness, pain and dispersion in the four corners of the globe should be enough for these miserable victims of Zionist supremacy. Ending this obscene and sinister nightmare wouldn't be an act of charity to the Palestinians. It would be a belated application of UN resolution 194 which calls for the repatriation of the refugees.
After all, by what logic do the purported descendants of Jews who allegedly left Palestine more than 2000 years have the right to "return" to Palestine whereas the true natives of the land who still retain the keys to their homes, from which they were expelled at gun point sixty years ago, are robbed of the right to return to their homes?
Palestinian Information Centre