|
ZIONISM AND PEACE IN
PALESTINE
Nizar Sakhnini
31 December 2004
Peaceful co-existence requires respect for and acceptance of
the other as an equal human being with equal human rights. Zionism is based on ethnic superiority and complete denial of the
other, which leaves no room for peace with Zionism in Palestine.
Peace meant specifying borders for Israel and the return of Palestinian
refugees to the homes and lands, which were stolen from them to provide
accommodation for alien colonial settlers. This was not
acceptable to the Zionists and it was the reason behind the failure of
all peace initiatives and efforts made for over five decades. The
Zionists wanted to buy time in order to expand their territorial
boundaries and to avoid any return of the Palestinian refugees who were
ethnically cleansed from Palestine.
In a speech to the Israeli Knesset on 15 June 1948, Israeli Foreign
Minister, Moshe Sharett (Shertok), refused repatriation of the
Palestinian refugees. He stated, “A wave of returning refugees
might explode the state from inside…” (Simha Flapan, The Birth of
Israel: Myths and Realities. New York: 1987, p. 223, citing
Record of the Knesset, vol. 1, 1949, session 43)
In a cabinet meeting that was held on 16 June, David Ben-Gurion spoke
out against a return of Arab refugees. Sharett agreed: “They will
not return. This is our policy, they shall not return.” (Michael
Palumbo, The Palestinian Catastrophe: The 1948 Expulsion of a People
from their Homeland. London/Boston: 1987, p. 145)
Ben-Gurion recorded in his war diary, in 1949, that Abba Eban, Israel's
ambassador to the UN, “sees no need to run after peace. The
armistice is sufficient for us; if we run after peace, the Arabs will
demand a price of us – borders [that is, in terms of territory] or
refugees [that is, repatriation] or both. Let us wait a few
years.” (Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee
Problem, 1947 – 1949, p. 22, citing quotations in Shlaim, Collusion
Across the Jordan, p. 465 and citing David Ben-Gurion, Yoman
Hamilhama-Tashah [the war diary 1948-9], ed. Gershon Rivlin and
Elhannan Orren, Tel Aviv, 1982, iii, p. 993)
In an effort to bring about a peaceful end to the war in 1948, Count
Folke Bernadotte was appointed by the UN as a mediator between the
Arabs and Israel. He submitted a ninety-page report to the UN Security
Council on 16 September 1948. Bernadotte was assassinated in the Jewish
part of Jerusalem on the following day in the Katamon quarter of
Jerusalem. His final proposals to end the conflict were published
on 20 September.
Following Bernadotte’s assassination, the UN General Assembly adopted
resolution # 194 on 11 December 1948. The resolution expressed
its “Deep appreciation of the progress achieved through the good
offices of the late UN Mediator in promoting a peaceful adjustment of
the future situation of Palestine, for which cause he sacrificed his
life”. The resolution also established a Conciliation Commission
consisting of the representatives of the U.S., France, and Turkey to
assume the functions given to the UN Mediator on Palestine and to carry
out any other functions and directives given to it by the General
Assembly or by the Security Council.
Peace negotiations held under the patronage of the Palestine
Conciliation Commission were opened in Lausanne, Switzerland on 26
April 1949.
During the PCC discussions in 1949, the Arabs were ready to make peace
with Israel provided the refugees were allowed to return to their
homes. Israel rejected the offer. The “return” and
“rehabilitation” of the Palestinian refugees are inconsistent with the
Zionist objective of building an exclusive Jewish State.
The PCC took two steps to try to break the logjam:
1. Set up a Technical Committee on Refugees to workout measures
for implementation of the provisions of UN resolution # 194.
2. Called an international conference at Lausanne where, under
PCC chairmanship, the parties could discuss the whole range of issues –
refugees, Jerusalem, borders, recognition – and hammer out a
comprehensive peace settlement. (Benny Morris, The Birth of the
Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949, Cambridge, 1987, p. 260)
The Lausanne protocol stated that the aim of the conference was to
achieve “as quickly as possible the objectives of the General Assembly
resolution # 194 of December 11, 1948, regarding the refugees, respect
for their rights, and the preservation of their property, as well as
territorial and other questions”.
Under the threat that the US would prevent Israel's admission to the
UN, Israel finally agreed to attend the conference. The PCC conference
was opened in Lausanne, Switzerland on 26 April 1949.
In his guidelines to the delegation in Lausanne with respect to
negotiating peace, Sharett pointed out that “it behooves us to do so
not with haste and trepidation but by revealing strength and the
ability to exist even without official peace.” According to
Sharett, since official peace was not a vital necessity, Israel had
nothing to lose from procrastination. (Simha Flapan, The Birth of
Israel: Myths and Realities. New York: 1987, p. 215, citing ISA
120.02/2447/3 & ISA 93.03/2487/11)
The efforts of the PCC were unsuccessful. It called for a return
of the refugees to their homes. Israel simply rejected
that. Palestinian homes and lands were coveted to settle colonial
settlers coming from all corners of the world. It also called for
the assumption of the functions of mediation started with Count
Bernadotte to arrive at a “final settlement of questions outstanding
between the Governments and authorities concerned”. This meant
final boundaries for Israel and peace with its neighbors, which would
have limited its desire for expansion. (For a detailed account on the
PCC conference and the myth of Israel's extended hand for peace, see:
Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities. New York:
1987, pp. 201-232)
Failure of the PCC to bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict
was replicated with all other peace initiatives and efforts ever
since.
Israeli PM Shamir declared that he wanted the negotiations in
Washington, which followed the Middle East Peace Conference in Madrid
on 30 October 1991, to continue for 10 years, if need be, so that he
had enough time to keep on going with planned Israeli settlement in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and leave nothing for the
negotiations to talk about. (Mohammad Hassanein Haikal, Secret
Negotiations between the Arabs and Israel, in Arabic, Cairo, 1996,
Volume III, p. 254)
Benjamin Netanyahu was elected as Israel’s Prime Minister in May
1996. On 17 June 1996 Netanyahu’s office released a statement
outlining his government’s guidelines with regard to the peace
process. It said no to withdrawal from the OPT, no to a
Palestinian State, no to an official Palestinian presence in Jerusalem,
and no to the refugees’ right of return “to any part of the Land of
Israel [sic] west of the Jordan River”. (Elia Zureik, The
Palestinian Refugees: Background. Institute for Palestine
Studies, Washington, 1996. p. 127)
Dov Weisglass, Sharon’s senior adviser and one of the initiators of
Sharon’s disengagement plan, was speaking in an interview with
Ha’aretz. According to Weisglass, “The significance of the
disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. And when
you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian
state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and
Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian
state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our
agenda”. (Ha’aretz, 6 October 2004)
In his speech at the 5th Herzliya Conference, Sharon put it in
unequivocal words, “The understandings between the U.S. President and
me protect Israel’s most essential interests: first and foremost, not
demanding a return to the ’67 borders; allowing Israel to permanently
keep large settlement blocs which have high Israeli populations; and
the total refusal of allowing Palestinian refugees to return to
Israel.”
After decades of bloodshed, we are still running within a vicious
circle. Zionism and peace in Palestine are irreconcilable. The road for peace requires acknowledgement and correction of the wrong
done in Palestine, abandonment of the Zionist myth and acceptance of
Palestinian Arabs as equal human beings with equal human rights.
Nizar
Sakhnini was born in Acre in 1932. His paternal grandparents came
from Sakhnin, which explains the origin of his family name, Sakhnini.
He was forced to become a refugee in 1948. He now lives in Canada.
********
MORE ABOUT ZIONISM
URI DAVIS:
APARTHEID ISRAEL AND THE JEWISH NATIONAL FUND OF CANADA
PDF FILE
Zionism as a Racist Ideology
Reviving an Old Theme to Prevent Palestinian Ethnicide
IS ZIONISM RACISM?
Your
Comments
|
