10/20/11 Daoud Kuttab

For most observers, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is one of raw politics. Most people familiar with the conflict take one side or another, maybe even becoming fanatical in their defense of their side.

Usually, those who support the Palestinian cause do so because of a personal connection, because of a visit to Palestinian territories or because they understand the Palestinian cause and the injustice the Palestinians have suffered for decades.

Support for Israelis usually comes due to a religious connection, often through the Judeo-Christian heritage that is prevalent in the West. Americans remember the David and Goliath story in the Bible and sympathize with the Israelis, mistakenly connecting the Old Testament Israelites with the 20th century Israelis.

Neutral observers often adopt a position on this century-old conflict based on media reports in which the overwhelming narrative is that of a civilized white people fighting barbarian natives who do not value human life or individual freedoms and values that people in the West are familiar with.

Naturally, this narrative has been much eroded in time, just as the David and Goliath image was reversed, with images of Israeli soldiers, guns and planes pitted against stone-throwing Palestinian resistance.

But the human narrative of the Palestinian individual has not succeeded in becoming part of the global media narrative. Western media reports do give attention to individual stories, but most often Palestinians are only mentioned as groups or are nameless.

Never has this distinction been clearer than in the days leading to the prisoner exchange. With the exception of two political leaders (Marwan Barghouti and Ahmad Sa’adat) who were not released, Palestinian prisoners were often referred to as a number — 1,027 — to be released in exchange for an Israeli who has become a household name all over the world. Private Gilad Shalit is more famous than any other person because of the persistence of his family and country to seek his release and because of the media focus on him.

Israeli hasbara (“public relations”) was successful in painting a human portrait of this young Israeli soldier who was kidnapped. While hundreds of Palestinians, including elected members of parliament, had been kidnapped and held without charge or trial, no one tried to focus on any one of these Palestinians. Summud Saadat, who was not allowed to see her father for five years, received little attention from the media.

Shalit’s needing eyeglasses was highlighted to defame his captors, while cases of the many Palestinians held in solitary confinement, so widespread that prisoners had to go on hunger strike for 20 days just to inform the world of what they are facing, got little or no attention.

Soon after the prisoner release, many Palestinian stories were heard. Perhaps the most famous is the love story of Nizar and Ahlam. He belongs to Fatah and she belongs to Hamas. They met before both were imprisoned and got engaged while in prison. Their only form of communication was letters sent through the International Committee of the Red Cross. She is a Jordanian citizen and was sent to Jordan; he was allowed to return to the West Bank village of Nabi Salih and now they are preparing for a joyous wedding that they hope will unite the two factions. Most Palestinians only heard of this story when both talked to an anchor from Voice of Palestine, who interviewed them by phone in differing locations.

Then there was 57-year-old Fakhri Barghouti, who was jailed at the age of 24. A report by the Palestinian news agency WAFA talks warmly about his embrace with his granddaughter, Majdal, who is named after an Israeli prison. Speaking to a local radio in Ramallah, Barghouti talked about recognizing his village of Kobar only because of the welcoming sign. He talked about the fact that both his parents and one of his brothers died while he was in jail without a chance to bid them farewell.

Journalist Yousef Shayeb relayed a moving story in the Palestinian daily Al Ayyam of Hassan Salameh, whose twins Ali and Sanaa were 19 days old when he was arrested in 1982. He comes out of jail as a grandfather.

While 1,027 stories are now being narrated, thousands other stories are held back behind bars. When will Palestinians understand that the political struggle is not limited to the fight over the precious Palestinian land, but also for the hearts and minds of people around the world? Humanizing the Palestinian case is a prerequisite to gaining the political support of the world community.

Coupled with the political actions at the UN and nonviolent protests in Palestine, a human Palestinian narrative is necessary in order to win over whoever is yet not totally supporting the Palestinians’ inalienable right to live in freedom and peace.

Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has issued a Pastoral Letter on Israeli-Palestinian Peace.
A PASTORAL LETTER ON ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE
On the holy mountain stands the city he has founded;
The Lord loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob.
Of Zion it shall be said, “Everyone was born in her,
And the Most High himself shall sustain her.”
— Psalm 87 (page 711, Book of Common Prayer)

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
The events of recent weeks have drawn the minds of many around the world once again to the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict.   New violence and hostility directed against the State of Israel from other neighbor states in the region, the continued expansion of Israeli settlements into the Palestinian territories, and the United Nations’ expected consideration of the matter of Palestinian statehood all are reflections of the untenable nature of the present reality.   While optimism for meaningful and constructive negotiation between the two parties dimmed over the past year, the events of recent weeks – and the new opportunities they may present — invite us to reflect prayerfully on what each might do to bring new hope to those who live, move, and have their being within the daily reality of this conflict in the land called holy by all the children of Abraham.

I.  The Present Moment
At the outset, it bears noting what The Episcopal Church has said repeatedly over the course of multiple decades:  a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians can be achieved only by bilateral negotiations between the two parties themselves.  This important principle was reaffirmed just last month by a joint communiqué of the Patriarchs and Heads of Local Churches in Jerusalem.  The contours of what such negotiations must produce are as clear as ever:  a two-state solution that provides for the security and universal recognition of Israel and the safety of all its people, the viability and territorial integrity of a state for the Palestinian people, and a sharing of the holy city of Jerusalem.
Unfortunately, the gulf between this outcome and the political and moral will needed to achieve it has proven wide.  Only a year ago, hope existed that negotiations would commence, and that – particularly with the involvement of the President of the United States – the moment for a peaceful solution might finally have arrived.  Tragically, the events of the past year have driven the parties further apart rather than closer together, leading some to question whether international efforts to support the peace process have lost credibility, and whether there is any meaningful path toward negotiations.
Yet even in the midst of such complexity and crisis, one can note two very powerful reasons to remain engaged.   First, people on each side share a common dream for a future of peace and a common political support for the compromises necessary to achieve it.  Second, even though each side is frustrated and believes that the present moment is untenable, nearly all agree that a future without peace is more untenable still.  New discussions by Israelis and Palestinians over this past weekend about a resumption of negotiations in the near future are a reminder that we must maintain hope and actively support those seeking to make peace.
If we can agree that a future without peace is no future at all, and that negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians themselves are the only way to bring about peace, we must ask what each of us can do to support the parties in beginning the journey toward peace together.

II. Palestinian Statehood and the United Nations
As our Church’s Executive Council noted in a resolution passed in June, the Palestinian Authority’s efforts toward recognition of statehood at the United Nations are a response to the impasse of the present moment.   They are not a repudiation of the need for negotiations but a response to the absence of negotiations.    Palestinians share with Israelis the pain and frustration of a conflict that has now entered its seventh decade but lack the political right of self-determination to which all people are entitled.
The question of how the community of nations should handle the bid for Palestinian recognition at the United Nations is more complex than whether a statehood resolution should be affirmed or rejected.  What is clear is that the diplomatic isolation of Israel that could result from a vote in which only a handful of nations refuse recognition of Palestinian statehood would not be productive to achieving peace.  At the same time, it is also clear that a vote in which the United States, as a principal international agent in the peace process, votes – either by itself or with other members of the Security Council – against even symbolic recognition of Palestinian statehood would be deeply unproductive.
The most responsible course for the United Nations would be for member states to think beyond the question of symbolic recognition of Palestinian statehood and instead offer a new, creative, and consequential proposal for a negotiations process that can produce durable and meaningful results.   If the negotiations process is broken or has lost credibility – as indicated by nearly all present evidence – it is not only appropriate but imperative that world leaders, including Israeli and Palestinian leaders, work to fix it.   The time for symbolic statements has passed.  As the heads of local Churches in Jerusalem said in their recent statement, “negotiations are the best way to resolve all outstanding issues between the two sides,” and the moment to “intensify the prayers and diplomatic efforts for peace” is here.
I am encouraged by the actions of the Quartet for Middle East Peace – the United States, the United Nations, the European Union, and Russia – to respond to the Palestinian statehood resolution by putting forward a clear plan for the parties to come back to the negotiating table immediately.   I am encouraged that both Israeli and Palestinian leaders have voiced openness to this course, and I am hopeful that the coming weeks will provide meaningful opportunities for each of us to support the parties in coming to the table.

III. What We Can Do
The question for each of us, then, is what we can do to contribute to the creation of peace in the Holy Land.   How, in this case, do we live into our baptismal covenant to strive for justice and peace and promote the dignity of every human being?
We will ultimately need to address how to advocate with our own political leaders.   But first I want to emphasize the particular responsibility we have as Christians to stand in solidarity with the Christian communities of the Holy Land who suffer the pains of the conflict and consistently act as agents of peacemaking.  Bishop Suheil Dawani, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, at a recent conference in London on Holy Land Christians, put it this way, “As Christians, we are called to be peacemakers, to continue to provide hope where it is dim, to be voices of the voiceless, and to be advocates for a just and durable peace.  We must work together with people of other faiths to encourage the politicians to put politics aside and meet midway, where all people are equal; the marginalized and the powerful, the poor and the wealthy, men and women, children and the elderly, regardless of faith or social status.”
Unfortunately, the Christian presence in the Holy Land has declined precipitously over the course of the past several decades.  The causes of this are complex and varied, and relate in many ways to the realities of the conflict that have afflicted the area and the surrounding communities.   If we are to help sustain the Christian presence, the “living stones” in the land in which Our Lord walked and in which the Church was born, we must energetically support the Christian communities in their varied witness.
The Diocese of Jerusalem is involved in multiple critical initiatives to improve the life of all persons in the Holy Land, particularly through education, healthcare, and the creation of religious dialogue between people of each of the three great Abrahamic traditions.   I encourage all Episcopalians to read Bishop Dawani’s address(1)  to the London conference this summer, to learn more about the ministries of the Diocese of Jerusalem, and to prayerfully consider what you might do to support those ministries through partners like Episcopal Relief and Development(2)  and the American Friends of the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem.(3)
Not only does financial investment in these ministries support the mission of the Church in the place of its birth, but it also helps the development of economic and social infrastructure in the Palestinian territories.  In 2006 our Church affirmed this as key to the creation of a future Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
As Bishop Dawani reminds us, Christians also have a responsibility for advocacy with their governments, calling politicians into new and creative solutions midway between the old and stubborn positions that divide them.
As our government has the potential to be the single-largest external force in the resolution of the conflict, Americans have several clear steps we can take.  In view of the Quartet’s proposal for immediate resumption of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, I am asking our Church’s Office of Government Relations in Washington to spearhead advocacy campaigns in the coming weeks around several key actions:
Urging the President of the United States to devote significant diplomatic capital to working in the coming days and weeks to encourage Israeli and Palestinian leaders to come to the negotiating table around the parameters proposed by the Quartet.  These include the resumption of direct negotiations within one month, agreement on borders and security within three months, and the resolution of all final-status issues by the end of 2012.   It is vitally important that the President stand by the proposal for borders based on the 1967 lines, with accompanying land swaps, and that he insist that other critical issues not explicitly covered in the Quartet’s proposal – like the status of Jerusalem – play a central role in discussions.
Urging that the President and the United States Congress reach an agreement to forego all efforts to cut funding to the Palestinian Authority as a response to their actions at the United Nations.  Cutting aid would have disastrous consequences not just for Palestinians, but also for Israel and the region.  Among other effects, it could end current security cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which has allowed Israel to enjoy historically low levels of violence and terrorism in recent years.  Prime Minister Netanyahu himself has expressed opposition to the termination of aid to the Palestinian Authority, and yet Congress has reiterated its threat to move forward with this course of action as a response to actions at the United Nations.  Particularly as the parties themselves discuss the possibility of resuming negotiations, it is imperative that U.S. lawmakers walk back from that threat, given the disastrous consequences it could produce.   It must be made abundantly clear that aid to the Palestinian Authority is not only in the interest of Palestinians, but it is also very much in the interest of Israel and the United States.
Urging the President to devote significant diplomatic energy to working with the Israeli government to once again implement a freeze on all settlement activity – within both the West Bank and Palestinian East Jerusalem – as a signal that it is serious about negotiations with the Palestinians.   While the Quartet is correct to request negotiations without preconditions, it is clear that 1967 borders with land swaps are an essential component of a final peace agreement and that continued settlement building imperils the likelihood of coming to agreement.  The Obama Administration spent much of its first year in office working, ultimately unsuccessfully, for a long-term settlement freeze in the West Bank, but abandoned those efforts after the Israeli government abandoned a limited-term freeze that had not succeeded in bringing the parties back to the table.   President Obama must resume these efforts immediately, with the focus and seriousness shown earlier in his Administration.
Urging that the President devote significant diplomatic energy to working with the Palestinian Authority to ensure that the sort of political reconciliation that will be required for a peace agreement is accompanied by strong and unequivocal assurances from the Palestinian Authority, and from all potential members of a future government, that the Palestinian Authority’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist and its condemnation of all violence against Israelis will remain undiminished.   The Quartet proposal for negotiations calls for an agreement within three months not only on borders but also on security, and an unequivocal consensus among Palestinian leaders to reject violence and respect Israel’s sovereignty and security will be necessary for this.
These acts of advocacy should be carried forth not only by our Church’s representatives in Washington, but by each of us in the United States, and so I urge all  U.S. Episcopalians to join the Episcopal Public Policy Network,(4)  which will, in the coming weeks, lead grassroots advocacy actions around these important issues.
For Episcopalians who do not live in the United States, advocacy with their governments is no less important, and I encourage several additional advocacy responses:
Urging your governments to support the Quartet’s call for immediate negotiations, including the development of a concrete peace plan that can deliver results within clearly defined timeframes and with the clear accountability of all parties to those results;
Urging robust aid to the Palestinian Authority from all donor governments.   The European Union is currently the world’s largest donor to the Palestinian Authority, but the Palestinian Authority’s fiscal health is untenable in its present state and will grow much more so if the U.S. Congress blocks or reduces aid.   The United Nations should encourage all member states with the ability to contribute to the Palestinian Authority to do so, particularly the several members of the Arab League who have made numerous pledges but have not yet honored them.
Urging their governments to request that all governments that have withdrawn ambassadors from Israel, severed diplomatic ties with Israel, or failed to recognize Israel and its right to exist, reverse those decisions.   Universal recognition by the international community is necessary for peace to succeed.
Finally, and most fundamentally, I urge all Episcopalians to pray regularly for all of the people of the Holy Land, for peace between the children of Abraham, and for a shared future that reflects the Psalmist’s vision of Jerusalem as “a city at unity with itself,” having peace within its walls and quiet in its citadels.  (Psalm 122)

IV. A Closing Word
There is little doubt that the impasse of the present moment has brought frustrations in all quarters to new highs.   For Palestinians, the challenges and burdens of life under occupation, and a shrinking footprint for a future Palestinian state, are untenable.   For Israelis, the fear that changes in the region will lead to increased violence and hostility from all directions after a decade of relative harmony is equally untenable.   For those of us who love both Israel and the Palestinian people, the frustration of continual advocacy for political solutions that don’t come to fruition is disempowering and demoralizing.   It is fair to say that we are not just at an impasse, but a real crisis.
The greatest risk in such moments of crisis is that frustration leads to further retrenchment, to further polarization masquerading as righteous anger, and to the creation of hearts of stone rather than hearts of flesh.   The faith shared by the children of Abraham, however, demands a different response.  It demands that we see that retrenchment itself, in all quarters, is precisely what has created the crisis of the present moment, the crisis of generation upon generation of conflict.   If we are serious about the Scriptural vision of Jerusalem as the possession of God, standing as a signal to the nations of God’s peace and justice, we must be the messengers who proclaim peace in the moments it seems most elusive.  We must, as Bishop Dawani reminds us, grasp the hands of politicians and draw them to a meeting point midway, to compromises they may find uncomfortable or even previously unthinkable, to real and meaningful peace.
Some may ask why we should remain hopeful when each passing year feels like a further closing of the window for peace and each new fact on the ground seems to be a new impediment to peace rather than an incentive.    Let us be reminded of what the engagement of millions of people of good will in this conflict has accomplished.   The past decade alone has brought Palestinians economic and social infrastructure where it did not exist before, and effective governance in the West Bank that is demonstrably serious about peace and held in high regard by international partners.   For Israelis, the past decade has brought security and safety that, while far from perfect, nevertheless is as firm as it has been at any point since 1948.   These things would not have been possible without the engagement, advocacy, and friendship of millions of people around the world.    It is precisely because these gains now seem at risk that frustrations run so high, but it is precisely the fact that these gains are at risk that should inspire us to continue.
People of faith are called to be people of hope, even when it seems darkest. Join me in hoping beyond hope for a fruitful resolution to this crisis.   Let our motivation arise from Isaiah’s vision of crying aloud to Jerusalem that her warfare truly is ended.   I remain
Your servant in Christ,
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate

(1)    http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/2135/archbishops-host-international-conference-on-christians-in-the-holy-land-opening-speeches
(2)   http://www.er-d.org/JerusalemWestBankGaza/
(3)   http://www.afedj.org
(4)   www.episcopalchurch.org/eppn

— For more info contact:
Neva Rae Fox
Public Affairs Officer
The Episcopal Church
newsline@episcopalchurch.org
212-716-6080 Mobile: 917-478-5659

The following letter, dated September 17, was circulated by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs on September 19, 2011.

Dear Mr. President:

Just think for a minute—what would happen if the United States abstained when the Palestinian question comes before the UN Security Council in the next week or two?

The resolution would pass. The world would be stunned. The United States would enter an entirely new era in our relations with the Muslim countries of the world. The vision you outlined in Cairo for better relations with the Islamic world would take the largest step forward of your presidency. The United States would once again have regained the high moral ground we so often claim to occupy. The energies loosed by the “Arab spring” would continue to be devoted to their own domestic affairs rather than being diverted into condemning the United States. We are hypocrites when we claim to want justice for the Palestinians but we do nothing meaningful to help achieve this.

On the other hand, if the United States vetoes the Palestinian request for statehood, we will damage our position in the Islamic world—not merely the Arab World—for untold years to come. We will become the object of retribution throughout the Muslim world, and will give new energy to the lagging efforts of al-Qaida to retaliate against us. I served my country 36 years in the Foreign Service of the United States, ten assignments in ten Muslim countries. I know the power of this issue. Why would we want to give new impetus to anti-American sentiment throughout the Muslim world?

Mr. Netanyahu’s office has issued a statement saying “Peace will be achieved only through direct negotiations with Israel.” You know, and I know, that Mr. Netanyahu has no intention of concluding a just and fair peace with the Palestinian Authority. His only concern is to continue the inexorable construction of more settlements, creating more “facts on the ground” until the idea of an independent Palestinian state becomes a mere memory of a bygone era. When Israel declared its independence in 1948 it did not do so after direct negotiations with Palestine. If Israel really wants to negotiate with the Palestinians, why would negotiating with an independent Palestinian government, on an equal footing, deter it from engaging in these negotiations?

The Reagan administration launched an international information campaign under the slogan “Let Poland be Poland.” It’s time we let Palestine be Palestine.

Abstain from this upcoming vote. Just think about it.

Sincerely yours, Charles O. Cecil U.S. Ambassador, retired
(Ambassador to the Republic of Niger during the Clinton Administration)

The Washington Report encouraged its readers to distribute this letter to their friends. “You could also try to fax or e-mail it, along with your own comments, to President Obama, the State Department, Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice or your representatives.” Contact information is listed below.

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20500
(202) 456-1414
White House Comment Line: (202) 456-1111
Fax: (202) 456-2461

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Department of State
Washington, DC 20520

State Department Public Information Line: (202) 647-6575

Press and Public Diplomacy Section
United States Mission to the United Nations
799 United Nations Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10017
Opinion & Comment line: 212-415-4062
Fax: 212-415-4053

Any Senator
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-3121

Any Representative
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-3121

E-mail Congress and the White House

E-mail Congress: visit the Web site <www.congress.org> for contact ­information.

E-mail President Obama:
<president@whitehouse.gov>

E-mail Vice President Joe Biden:
<vice.president@whitehouse.gov>

The idea of the Palestinian leadership going to the United Nations in order to press for full recognition of Palestine as a state has run into many complexities.  Sabeel would like to reiterate that after sixty years since the original conflict over Palestine, it is time for the international community to push for the liberation and independence of Palestine.  One of the main obstacles in the way is not only the unjust policies of the Israeli government, but the inability of the administration of the United States of America to act in line with the demands of international law and on the basis of UN resolutions. We can expect that a country like Israel pursuing its own political interests, would disregard UN resolutions.  What we find difficult to understand is why a country like the United States, as the major power in the world today, allows itself to protect and defend the very country that is flouting UN resolutions and eroding international law.  Consequently, due to United States collaboration and collusion with Israel, we find ourselves at a deadly impasse and far from approaching the resolution of the conflict.

The situation on the ground is intolerable since it is clear that Israel with its unstoppable settlement policy and its ravenous appetite for devouring Palestinian land will not leave even a patch of land for the Palestinians to call home.   What Israel does on a daily basis is being carried out in clear daylight before the eyes of the world while no country is able to stop the stark expanding injustice.

In the statement that Sabeel circulated on August 24, 2011, we tried to help our friends understand the pros and cons of going to the UN in September.  In this paper, we would like to elaborate on some details and background information that could further clarify the situation.

Futile negotiations

For twenty years the Palestinians and the Israelis have been engaged in negotiations for the resolution of the conflict.  Obviously this happened with the encouragement of the United States and the international community.   When the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) signed the Oslo Declaration of Principles (DOP) in 1993, it was upon the understanding that within five years a comprehensive agreement will be reached ending with the establishment of a Palestinian independent state.  This did not happen, and the negotiations have not yielded the desired results.  They went into a vicious circle and became utterly futile.

More recently, the Palestinian Authority (PA) insisted that in order for the negotiations to achieve their goal, both sides must accept two basic and essential principles, namely, the terms of reference for the negotiations and a time frame.  The PA insisted that the terms of reference must be the pertinent UN resolutions on the question of Palestine, and a set timetable.  Israel did not only refuse to do that, it set seven pre-conditions:

1.     No right of return for Palestinian refugees.

2.     Jerusalem is not negotiable.

3.     No return to the 1967 borders.

4.     No stopping of settlement building.

5.     The recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

6.     Keeping the Israeli army along the Jordan Valley.

7.     A demilitarized Palestinian state.

The United States could not provide a solution to this deadlock.  President Obama tried but failed to impress on Israel to halt settlement building while the negotiations went on. In fact, the Israeli government refused to comply, and President Obama embarrassingly, had to back down.

So it has become abundantly clear that Israel is doing everything possible to block the establishment of a Palestinian state, and is unilaterally creating a one-state reality.

Theoretically, this can point to one of two directions, either a racist, apartheid-like state which is already in the making, or a state with full democracy for all citizens that can possibly emerge.

Since we know where Israel stands on “democracy for all,” we believe that the movement is surely towards a racist state. At the same time we know that Israel does not want to rule or govern millions of Palestinians, so it is easy to conclude that Israel’s policy is to get rid of the Palestinians.  Its strategy is becoming clearer by the day.  It wants to drag, stall, and prevaricate in order to devour more and more Palestinian land.  As it devours, it builds and expands the settlements and constructs its separation wall in order to include what it wants and to exclude what it “wishes” to leave for the Palestinians.  When it completes its scheme, what is left of the West Bank will be less than 10% of historic Palestine, instead of the 22% which originally comprised the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.  (And instead of over 45% that was allocated by the UN Partition Plan of 1947)   The Palestinians would be confined to a small area that is not contiguous and viable but fragmented and impossible.  As far as Israel is concerned if the Palestinians then want to call it a state, so be it.

Sabeel has always maintained that the ideal solution for the resolution of the conflict is the establishment of ONE civil democratic state for all the inhabitants of the area of mandated Palestine – Palestinians and Israelis, Jews, Christians, and Muslims.  But for many reasons including pragmatic considerations, UN resolution for the two-state solution, and especially for the sake of peace and security for all, Sabeel has stood for and promoted the two-state solution which we consider the historic and generous offer of the Palestinians for a permanent peace.  The Palestinian state, therefore, must include all the 1967 occupied lands with East Jerusalem as its capital, and no more compromises or concessions or swaps of land should be asked of the Palestinians.

Other options that could be considered are: a bi-national state in Palestine-Israel or a confederation or federation of states in the region.

The United Nations:

To get out of the present deadlock, the PA announced that it has no option except to turn to the UN as the world governance system, and seek the support of the international community of nations.  Israel’s immediate response was to announce the building of thousands of new settlement units in the occupied territories.   As usual the U.S administration and other western countries expressed their regret and opposition to the Israeli decision but failed to act against it.  In the face of such a clear provocation, the U.S administration kept insisting on the resumption of the fruitless, endless, and ineffectual negotiations.

As we write this statement, the PA is determined to go to the UN on September 20, 2011 with an application for recognizing Palestine as a state with full membership in the international body.  Such recognition will help the Palestinians to negotiate with the Israelis from a position of equal status as a recognized state.

According to the UN Charter, a state can obtain UN membership if both the Security Council and the General Assembly vote affirmatively in its favor.  In September the Palestinians will submit their application for membership.  The Palestinians realize that to go to the UN Security Council first is to be repulsed by a guaranteed United States veto; while to go to the General Assembly first where there is no veto, they stand a good chance to acquire the needed two thirds majority vote.  It is important to note that there are 193 countries that make up the UN body.  For Palestine to become a member, at least 129 countries must vote for it, of which 126 already recognize the state of Palestine within the 1967 borders.

It is important to remember that the conflict over Palestine started in the UN General Assembly in 1947 when it voted to partition the country into two states totally ignoring the will of the Palestinian majority and their right to self determination.  The UN, therefore, is the right address; it created the problem and it has the responsibility to resolve it.

Protecting the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people

The “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people” is a matter of utmost importance that we need to flag.  For Palestinians it is the most sensitive matter.  There is a potential danger that the whole issue will turn into a trap that could jeopardize their legitimate rights. Therefore the questions that need to be posed are:

1.     Will the recognition of a Palestinian state under the present circumstances be the end of the road?

2.     Will such recognition lead to the establishment of a viable independent, sovereign state within the 1967 borders that can realize the inalienable rights of the Palestinians?

As we try to respond to those dilemmas we can envisage the following:

1.     To have a state that is non-contiguous and non-sovereign without the legal authority and jurisdiction over its land, will only amount to a non-state.

2.     Without strong allies, the Palestinians might be denied any further right to struggle for the liberation of their land, and will put a lid on our fate.

3.     The PLO was established as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people throughout the world; and it is important that the PLO continue in that role in order to protect the inalienable rights of all Palestinians.

The PA is hoping that the UN General Assembly will overwhelmingly vote to recognize the right of the Palestinians to independence and sovereignty over all the land that was occupied by Israel during the 1967 war – the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.  Palestine will become the 194^th state within the United Nations.  If that happens in September 2011, three threatening and crucially fearful questions would still need answers:

One:  How will the UN enforce its decision to end the Israeli occupation so that full    Palestinian sovereignty can be realized over all the liberated land?

Two:  What happens to all the illegal Israeli settlements that fall within the Palestinian state?

Three:  What happens to UN Resolution 194 regarding the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees?

Sabeel as a liberation theology movement working basically for justice, peace, and reconciliation prophetically offers the following suggestions:

1.  If Israel refuses to comply with the UN decision, the UN can ask all member states to use the whole range of nonviolent methods of resistance including boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) to make it comply.  It will take time, but it is a start.  There are other options that the UN has at its disposal.  If there is an international will to force the government of Israel to conform with and submit to the demands of the international community, it can be done.   We have seen the UN in action when other countries have not complied with UN resolutions.

2. Whereas the Israeli settlements on the West Bank and in and around Jerusalem are considered illegal according to international law, and thus illegitimate, then all the settlements become automatically an integral part of the Palestinian state.  And whereas the Palestinians aspire for a civil democratic state irrespective of race, ethnicity, or religion, there will be no objection if some Jewish people choose to live in Palestine peacefully under Palestinian Jurisdiction.

3.  The government of Israel must recognize its responsibility for the displacement of the Palestinian refugees between 1947- 49.  Israel has consistently refused to implement UN Resolution 194, on which basis it was allowed to become a member of the UN.  The Right of Return is an international right, as well as an individual inalienable right.  Once Israel accepts that this right applies to the Palestinians, then its implementation would be negotiated.

It is important to remember that the United States is not only unwilling to support the Palestinians in their decision to go to the UN, it is exerting great pressure to persuade them not to go.  This is a real obstacle, especially when one remembers that President Obama himself mentioned the establishment of a Palestinian state in his speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2010.  He said that the world can have an agreement that will lead to the creation of a new Palestinian state next year (that is, 2011).   It seems also that the Europeans are not willing to take a strong and clear stand apart from the United States.

Crossroads:

As we stand at this juncture confronted with these dilemmas and opportunities, it is difficult to predict whether going to the UN in September will be a great opportunity for the Palestinians to claim their rights, or whether Israel and the United States, because of their opposition and influence, can turn it into a trap.  If it is turned into a trap, it could entail unforeseen disastrous consequences to all the people of the region and the prolongation of the occupation to every body’s misery.

If going to the UN is a right that must be claimed come what may,  it will provide an opportunity to the international community to stand up for the rights of the Palestinians and put an end to the occupation and the ongoing injustice, suffering and dispossession.

However, we need to realize that such a step might demand renewed unity among our people, new elections, new leadership, and a new strategy that could bring about the establishment of a viable state in Palestine and at the same time achieve the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, and peace in the region.

Therefore, as we move to this new stage, we ask our friends to pray for us and to stand with us as we continue our struggle for justice, peace and liberation on the basis of United Nations resolutions and the demands of international law.

Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center

Jerusalem

September 5, 2011

(Nahida Gordon is Professor of Statistics in the School of Nursing at Case Western Reserve University.  Born in Jerusalem, she is active in seeking peace and justice for the people of the Holy Land.  She serves on the Steering Committee of the Presbyterian’s Israel Palestine Mission Network, the Executive Committee of the National Middle East Presbyterian Caucus and is a member of PJN’s Palestinian Advisory Group)

For Palestinians there is something wonderful about the idea that this coming September a Palestinian state might be recognized internationally. For them it would be a dream come true.  However, when one examines the realities behind this dream, the wonderment disappears.

Palestinians were expelled from 78% of Palestine, their lands and properties stolen, and their communities torn apart.  Amazingly, lands and properties continue to be stolen to the present time from Palestinians living in the West Bank (and East Jerusalem), albeit at a slower pace.  Further, it is not clear that this process would stop once a Palestinian state is recognized by the international community given the large expanding Jewish settler population inhabiting the new state.   The declaration of the Palestinian state in September would appear to be a renouncement of the right of return of Palestinians displaced from their homes in 1947-48, 1967, and continuing to this day to their homes, land and communities.

Mr. Abbas claims in an Op Ed piece published in the New York Times:

The State of Palestine intends to be a peace-loving nation, committed to human rights, democracy, the rule of law and the principles of the United Nations Charter. Once admitted to the United Nations, our state stands ready to negotiate all core issues of the conflict with Israel. A key focus of negotiations will be reaching a just solution for Palestinian refugees based on Resolution 194, which the General Assembly passed in 1948. [i]

Mr. Abbas proposes to “negotiate” the issue of the “solution of Palestinian refugees”.  This brings to mind two problems.  The first is that Mr. Abbas is not the elected representative of the Palestinians, all of whom live either in the occupied territories, in Israel, in refugee camps in the Middle East, or in the diaspora in most of the continents of the world.  The second issue is the right of these Palestinians to return to their homes and communities.  It is clear that many Palestinians of all ages wish to return as evidenced by what was witnessed very recently on the borders of Lebanon and Syria, and the boundaries of East Jerusalem as Palestinians sought to return to their homes, land and communities from which they were expelled.

To reiterate, the right of refugees to return is not up for negotiations.  On the contrary, the right of return of refugees to their countries of origin is a customary right and has origins from several sources.  First, in Leviticus, Chapter 25, the ‘Year of Jubilee’ is defined as occurring every fifty years.  Leviticus, Chapter 25, verse 13, a commandment from God, reads: “In this Year of Jubilee everyone is to return to his own property”.[ii] Thus, in accordance with God’s commandment, after sixty three years, the Palestinian refugees certainly have the right to return.

Second, On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly (GA) of the United Nations (UN) adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Articles 9, 13, and 15 address the individual’s right of return:

Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 13: (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 15: (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.[iii]

Third, on December 11, 1948, the UN GA passed Resolution 194(III) concerning the progress report of the United Nations Mediator for Palestine.  Article 11 of Resolution 194(III) specifically addresses the issue of the right of return of refugees:

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;[iv]

Fourth, on December 16, 1966, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights issued the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[v].  Article 12 section 4 states that “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country”.

So Mr. Abbas should not be “negotiating” about the right of return but should be demanding the right of return even though Israel holds all the guns and has the almost unconditional support of the United States Congress, State Department and President.  In view of the continuing occupation and the seizing of land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, there are dangers in declaring the West Bank and Gaza as the State of Palestine and obtaining international recognition of this new state.  Will this declaration be viewed as a capitulation of the right of return of Palestinians to all and any parts of Palestine including what is now the state of Israel?

Another danger is that in reality the new state of Palestine may be a collection of small disconnected enclaves under Israeli control.  Would this new Palestine state end the occupation by the Israeli military and would it have control of its borders and have a military to defend itself from unwanted incursions by Israel?  Or, is it a mirage of a state which would lack the essential characteristics of a modern state free of domination by Israel and the West?

In short, the Palestinian team at the United Nations must ensure that recognition of a Palestinian state does not negate the rights of Palestinians everywhere.  Specifically recognition of a Palestine as a state must also explicitly restate the rights of Palestinians everywhere.

The real issues are the occupation, the right of return, and the violation of basic human and civil rights for Palestinians in all of Palestine.

[i] Mahmoud Abbas, The Long Overdue Palestinian State, Op Ed in the New York Times, May 1`6, 2011.

[ii] Leviticus 25:13, New International Version.

[iii] United Nations Declaration of Human Rights can be accessed on the internet at: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.

[iv] UN GA Resolution 194(III) can be accessed on the internet at http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/C758572B78D1CD0085256BCF0077E51A

[v] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights issued by Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights can be accessed on the internet at: Accessed at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm.

(Grace Said recently asked members of PIN’s Palestinian Advisory Group their perspective on the current dynamics in Palestine and Israel.  This is Nora Carmi’s response)

Dear Grace,

September is only two and a half months away, and I for one am very concerned about the future. Of course, had the unending peace process yielded a positive solution years ago, the Palestinians would not be in this defying mood. The fact is that we already declared our state in 1988 on the borders of 1967 and made the real painful compromise of denying the full rights of our refugees for the sake of peace!

Many of our friends know my Utopian dream of the geographical space of Palestine/Israel (name it what you want !) of being a haven of harmonious living for the two peoples. Unfortunately, realistically,
it is even farther than the two state solution today. It is clear that Israel is doing everything possible to sabotage a Palestinian state; and Haaretz disclosed that the Ministry of Foreign affairs has instructed
all Israeli diplomats to put pressure in  the countries where they are not to support The Palestinian State.

For the Palestinian people within the oPt, there is a lot of consultation, deliberation, expectations and real concern. Is it recognition as a member state at the UN at this stage? What if in the security council the US vetoes? What measures then? Remember that we are talking about the fate of 10 million Palestinians ALL over the world and not only those who are in Palestine.  What happens to those
who are in Israel?  And what about the RIGHT of return of our refugees?.

I may have confused you even more. My advice is to follow closely the developments. I believe that your wise stand should be that the Palestinians, like other peoples, have the right to live in a free democratic state of their own.   After 63 years, I think that it is time for the global community to stand with our just cause and stop pampering the spoiled child Israel. Let us all work together to find the way for the Palestinians to live in dignity.

Sincere words from a Palestinian Refugee.

Nora Carmi