Noot 84/Israel raast en tiert!

[84]
DE ISRAELISCHE NEDERZETTINGEN IN BEZET PALESTIJNS GEBIED/
ILLEGAAL VOLGENS HET INTERNATIONAAL RECHT
ASTRID ESSED
THE SETTLEMENTS

From 1967 to the end of 2017, more than 200 Israeli settlements were established in the West Bank. They include:

  • 131 settlements officially recognized by the Israeli Ministry of the Interior;
  • About 110 settlements built without official authorization but with governmental support and assistance (known as “illegal outposts”);
  • Several settlement enclaves inside the city of Hebron;
  • 11 neighborhoods in the areas of the West Bank that Israel annexed to the municipal jurisdiction of Jerusalem in 1967, and several settlement enclaves within Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.

Another 16 settlements that had been established in the Gaza Strip, and four in the northern West Bank, were dismantled in 2005 as part of the Disengagement Plan.

More than 620,000 Israeli citizens currently reside in settlements. Of these, about 209,270 live in the parts of the West Bank that Israel annexed to the municipal jurisdiction of Jerusalem (according to Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research figures from late 2016), and 413,400 live throughout the rest of the West Bank (according to Central Bureau of Statistics figures from late 2017).

The settlements are the single most important factor in shaping life in the West Bank. Their destructive impact on the human rights of Palestinians extends far beyond the hundreds of thousands of dunams [1 dunam = 1,000 sq. meters], including farmland and grazing areas, that Israel appropriated from Palestinians in order to build them. More land has been expropriated to pave hundreds of kilometers of roads for settler use only; roadblocks, checkpoints, and other measures that limit Palestinian movement only have been erected based on the location of settlements; Palestinian landowners have been effectively denied access to much of their farmland, both within settlements and outside them; and the winding route of the Separation Barrier, which severely violates the rights of Palestinians living near it, was established inside the West Bank in order to leave as many settlements as possible – and large tracts of land for expanding them – on the western side of the barrier.

All the settlement practices in the West Bank share the same objective, although those employed in the urban areas of Hebron and East Jerusalem – where Palestinians have also been dispossessed of their homes and of other structures – take a different form.

In the early years of the occupation, the main ploy that Israel used to take over land for building settlements was to seize the land “for military purposes”. Military seizure orders were issued for some 31,000 dunams, most of which were earmarked for building settlements. In June 1979, the military issued a seizure order for privately-owned land near Nablus, which was slated for establishing the settlement of Elon Moreh. Several Palestinians petitioned Israel’s High Court of Justice (HCJ), arguing that the seizure violated international law, since it served a civilian purpose of building a settlement rather than true military needs. The court had rejected this argument in previous petitions, accepting the state’s claim that settlements contribute to security.

In this case, however, top security officials stated that building a settlement at that location would serve no military purpose. Also, some of the settlers joined the proceedings as respondents, explaining to the court that it was their intention to settle in the area permanently, for religious and political reasons, rather than to promote security. Given these unique circumstances, the court could not rule that the establishment of the settlement would serve military needs – although it did not rule out such a possibility in general. The justices restricted their decision to the specific case of Elon Moreh, ruling that the land seizure was meant to serve a civilian rather than military purpose and therefore breached international law. The court did not completely deny the possibility of seizing private land for building settlements, but held that when the dominant reason for issuing a seizure order is the establishment of a civilian settlement rather than military considerations, the order is unlawful.

This ruling made it difficult for Israel to continue seizing Palestinian land as it had done until that point. Instead, it required the state to obtain agreement between top security officials on the military advantage of every planned settlement, and to ensure that the settlers kept their intentions to themselves. To circumvent this, the government announced that it would thereafter build settlements only on land that had been declared state land.

However, when the state sought such land, it discovered that only some 687,000 dunams were considered state land at the time, mostly in the Jordan Valley and in the Judean Desert. This frustrated the governmental plan to build settlements along the central mountain ridge of the West Bank. Therefore, the state came up with a new system for declaring state land.

This system was founded on rewriting legal provisions and applying a completely different approach to the Ottoman Land Code, which governs land ownership in the West Bank, than the standard interpretation applied until then. The new approach made it much easier to declare state land, even when the land in question was considered private or collective Palestinian property under British and later Jordanian rule. One method for achieving this was requiring Palestinians to regularly cultivate farmland as a prerequisite to acquiring ownership rights; another was to disregard the provisions of local law, which grants Palestinian communities collective rights to use grazing areas and other public land. By employing these new tactics, from 1979 to 2002 Israel declared more than 900,000 dunams as state land. There are now some 1,200,000 dunams of state land in Area C, constituting 36.5% of Area C and 22% of the entire West Bank. An additional 200,000 dunams of state land are located in areas A and B, where planning is in the hands of the Palestinian Authority.

A comparative survey carried out by B’Tselem in the area of Ramallah revealed massive differences between the amount of land that Jordan defined as government property in areas registered before the occupation, and the amount that Israel declared state land in areas that the Jordanians had not managed to register prior to 1967. The results of the survey indicate that a significant proportion of the land that Israel declared as state land is actually private Palestinian property that was taken from its lawful owners through legal maneuvering, in breach of both local and international law.

This process of land takeover also contravenes basic tenets of due process and natural justice. In many cases, the Palestinian residents were not aware that their land had been registered as state property and when they found out, it was too late to appeal. The burden of proof always lies with Palestinians claiming ownership; even if landowners did manage to prove their ownership over the land, in some cases it was registered state land based on the claim that it had been handed over to a settlement “in good faith”.

Even if all the declarations of state land were lawful, public land – including the land declared as government property prior to 1967 – is meant to serve the population of the occupied territory, i.e. the Palestinian public, not the State of Israel or its citizens. However, Israel prohibits Palestinian use of this land almost entirely and considers it Israeli property. In keeping with this policy, Israel has allocated to settlement vast tracts of this “state land”, stretching far beyond their built-up sections. The lands allocated to settlements have been declared closed military zones and are off limits to Palestinians, except by special permit. In contrast, Israeli citizens, Jews from around the world and tourists can enter them freely.

At present, settlements cover 538,130 dunams – almost 10% of the West Bank. Their regional councils control another 1,650,370 dunams, including vast open areas that have not been attached to any particular settlement. This brings the total area under the direct control of settlements to 40% of the West Bank, and 63% of Area C.

Along with this governmental land grab, settlers have exploited the forced separation between Palestinians and their land to build houses, outposts and roads, sow fields and groves, graze livestock and take over natural water sources – all outside the vast areas already allocated to the settlements. This is attended by routine violence against Palestinians. These actions play a major role in the implementation of Israel’s policy in the West Bank by complementing official measures. The settlers’ apparently independent actions serve as a privatized system for taking over land, allowing Israel to establish and expand entire settlement blocs through an unofficial sidetrack while formally disavowing these actions.

Unlike the restrictive planning policy enforced upon Palestinian communities, Israeli settlements are fully represented in the planning process, enjoying detailed outline plans and advanced infrastructure. Although the state uses the same professional and legal terms to refer to both Israeli and Palestinian construction in the West Bank with– such as building and planning laws, urban master plans, planning procedures and illegal construction – it applies them very differently in practice. When it comes to Israeli settlements, the state turns a blind eye and offers support and retroactive approval, all as part of an overarching policy to de facto annex parts of the West Bank to Israel’s sovereign territory. Palestinian communities, on the other hand, are subjected to painstaking bureaucracy, stalled plans and widespread demolitions, in keeping with Israel’s policy to prevent Palestinian development in the West Bank and continue dispossessing Palestinians of their land.

The establishment of the settlements contravenes international humanitarian law (IHL), which states that an occupying power may not relocate its own citizens to the occupied territory or make permanent changes to that territory, unless these are needed for imperative military needs, in the narrow sense of the term, or undertaken for the benefit of the local population.

The existence of settlements also leads to the violation of many human rights of Palestinians, including the rights to property, equality, an adequate standard of living and freedom of movement. In addition, the radical changes that Israel has made to the map of the West Bank preclude any real possibility of establishing an independent, viable Palestinian state in fulfilment of the right to self-determination. Although the West Bank is not part of Israel’s sovereign territory, Israeli has applied most of its domestic laws to the settlements and their residents. As a result, the settlers enjoy almost all the same privileges as citizens living within Israel. Meanwhile, Palestinians continue to live under martial law and are thereby systematically deprived of their rights and denied the ability to have any real impact on policymaking with respect to the territory in which they live. In creating this reality, Israel has formed a regime in which a person’s rights depend on his or her national identity.

Israel has refrained from formally annexing the West Bank (except in East Jerusalem). In practice, however, it treats the settlements established throughout Area C as extensions of its sovereign territory and has virtually eliminated the distinction for Israeli citizens – while concentrating the Palestinian population in 165 disconnected “islands” (Areas A and B). This double movement, of Israeli settlers taking over more and more West Bank land and Palestinians being pushed aside, has been a consistent mainstay of Israeli policy in the West Bank since 1967, with all Israeli legislative, legal, planning, funding and defense bodies working towards that end.

END

BTSELEM.ORG

SETTLER VIOLENCE=STATE VIOLENCE

https://www.btselem.org/settler_violence_updates_list

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Noot 84/Israel raast en tiert!

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Noten 80 t/m 83/Israel raast en tiert!

[80]
WIKIPEDIA
NAKBA
[81]
WIKIPEDIA
1948 ARAB-ISRAELI WAR
[82]
REACTIE ASTRID ESSED OP ZIONISTISCHE POST OVER
DE ZOGENAAMDE ”ISRAELISCHE ONAFHANKELIJKHEIDSOORLOG”
ZIE EERST ZIONIST/REACTIE ASTRID ESSED DAARONDER
QUORA
Why is it that Israel’s war for independence is far from over?
Profile photo for David Dresin

David Dresin

·

Follow
Author of Bubby’s Story: A Concise History of the Holocaust.5y

Great question. It never will.

First we need to define war in this case as definition 2 of Webster’s dictionary; a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism.

Without getting into any long drawn out academic analysis, in a nutshell, the roots of the conflict go back to Mandate Palestine and the Balfour Declaration, where the British who took control of the Levant from the defeated Ottoman Empire after WW1 pledged to “view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”.

This for obvious reasons do not sit too well with many Muslim Arabs already living there.

In 1947, to try and molify the Arabs as well as find a home for the hundreds of thousands of displaced Jews of Europe who survived the Holocaust, the United Nations voted to Partition Palestine into two states; one Jewish and one Palestinian.

The Muslim Palestinian Arabs flat out rejected the plan and as soon as the British authority left, the Jews declared independence, accepting the Partition Plan, and the Arab League of Nations attacked.

This war of Israeli Independance and what the Palestianin Muslim Arabs refer to as Al Naqba (The Tragedy) created what is now called the Palestinian refugee crisis.

Before I get into to that let’s take a step back and examine what a Democratic, Sovereign Jewish State in the ancestrial home of the Jewish People actually means. In order to be defined as a Jewish State yet at the same time be a democracy, the demographic majority of the population must identify as and be Jewish (I will get into what defines one as being Jewish another time).

During the 1948 War of Indepednace, many Palestinian Arabs fled their homes as people often due during conflict. When the cease fire was established and the final demarcation lines set, many of these Arabs could not return home as their villages were now within the Jewish State of Israel.

So?, one might ask, let them come home and just become Citizens of the newly formed State of Israel. Ah ha! Can’t do that! If you do that then demographics change. Remember what I said above. If the county no longer is majority Jewish and still democratic, it can no longer be called a Jewish State.

Fast forward to 1967. Israel under immenant threat from Egypt, launches a preemptive strike and in the ensuing conflict now referred to as the Six Day War, Israel concurs the West Bamk, Gaza, the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights.

I doing so, also acquired Egyptian, Jordanian (former Palestinian) and Syrian Citizens along with Palestinian Refugees from the 1948 conflict.

What to do. At least Israel now had some territorial strategic depth to defend against their hostile Arab neighbors as well as some chips to negotiate with, which they would ultimately use to make a peace treaty with Egypt in 1979 by returning them the Sinai Peninsula (Egypt refused to take back the Gaza Strip comprised mostly of Palestinian Refugees and in 1988 Jordan ceded all claims to the West Bank stripping their former citizens there under Israeli Occupation, of their Jordanian Citizenship).

Well we know Israel just walked away from Gaza in 2005, they annexed the Golan Heights in 1981 and generously offered Israeli citizenship to the mostly Druze (non-Muslim Arabs) that still remained (the majority of Syrian Arabs fled into Syria during the Six Day war) but what to do with the now millions of Palestenians in the West Bank? Can’t annex that and offer citizenship, bye bye Jewish State if they did that.

So that is the current state of affairs. In spite of technically being occupied, the 1993 Oslo Accords afford the Palestinians in the West Bank their own Civilian autonomy and they do fare much better than their Arab counterparts in Jordan, Egypt and certainly Syria.

Barring the occasional terrorist attack and the inevitable Israeli crackdowns in response, things seem to be pretty quite right now. That could all change in the blink of an eye with another Intifada or what have you, so ultimately a more permanent solution and disengagement needs to happen.

Problem is, unlike Gaza, where there was essentially just one big settlement to disband, the West Bank is loaded with them, some as large as small cities.

I believe the ultimate plan, which was no doubt always part of Israel’s long term strategic negotiating chip, is to annex certain parts of the West Bank comprised of large blocks of Jewish Settlements and just give the Palestianes the rest with maybe some land swaps and money and then build a big wall.

Regarding the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees from Israel proper (1948 boundaries) they will probably offer some form of monetary settlement. All this will likely have to be done unilaterally.

So you can see, since Israël will never allow itself to not have a Jewish majortiy, there could never be peace from the perspective of the Palestinians.

One final note to leave on.

If the Arabs laid down their weapons, there would be peace. If the Israelis laid down theirs, there would be genocide.

Thanks for reading.

Astrid Essed

· Just now

WAR OF INDEPENDENCE?/COLONIAL ETHNIC CLEANSING WAR IS

A BETTER TERM

The 1948 Israeli Arab war WAS no ”Israeli War of Independence”, but a

colonial zionist war with the aim of cutting the Palestinians of their right

to selfdestination and independence!

It all began at the end of the 19th Century, when the Austrian Jewish

journalist, Theodor Herzl, founded the zionist movement, confirmed

at the first zionist Congress of Basel [1897]

AIM:

The foundation of a Jewish State in Palestine, then part of the Ottoman

Empire, since antisemitism was growing and growing in Europe

see Dreyfuss Affair, pogroms in Eastern Europe]

Now I can understand Jewish people wanted to escape the century old

European antisemitism [since the 8th century!, but NOT by founding a

State in the land of other people.

Now the idea to settle in other mans country and ”found a State” was

common to colonial thinking in that time, but contrary the right of selfdetermination!

And contrary with zionist propaganda, Palestine was NOT a ”Country without

a people”, since Arab Palestinians lived in Palestine for centuries!

In 1917 the zionist movement got an agreement with the British government

”to found a National Home for the Jewish People” [Balfour Declaration

1917], and when the Ottoman Empire lost all his provinces including Palestine

[since they sided in WOI with the German Empire and lost the war] and

Palestine became a British Mandate, the zionist aspirations could be

realized, eventually resulting in an Arab and Jewish part of Palestine!

[UN AV Resolution 181, 1947 ”The Partition of Palestine”

Of course this outraged the original Palestunian population,

that saw their land given away to newcomers!

No people in the world nowaday would accept a division of their land

in two parts without their consent to people who lived there more than 2000 years ago!

Pure colonialism!

So the war that broke out then-between Palestinian Arabs and their Arab allies

onesided and Zionist militia’s and their supporters at the other side-was a

colonial war, resulting in the ethnic cleansing of Palestined and eventually

ending in occupation, apartheid and genocide!

Look what Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have to say

about that.

https://la.indymedia.org/news/

2007/06/201927.php

It was a shameless colonial operation, with as result what they now call Israel!!

ASTRID ESSED, AVENGER OF EVIL

[83]
”Sinds 1967 is er sprake van de Israelische bezetting van de Palestijnse gebieden op de Westelijke Jordaanoever, Gaza [14] en Oost-Jeruzalem ondanks Vn Veiligheidsraadsresolutie 242, die Israel in 1947 opriep, zich terug te trekken uit de in de juni oorlog veroverde gebieden, waaronder de bovengenoemde Palestijnse. ”
CIVIS MUNDI

Zweedse fotograaf wint World Press Photo 2012. Misdaden Israëlische politiek in beeld gebracht.

ASTRID ESSED
ZIE VOOR GEHELE TEKST

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Noten 80 t/m 83/Israel raast en tiert!

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Noot 79/Israel raast en tiert!

[79]
JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES
PUBLISHED IN FALL 2006
THE 1948 ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINE
BY ILAN PAPPE
[ARTICLE]
WIKIPEDIA
ILAN PAPPE
”Books

Articles

 
WIKIPEDIA
ILAN PAPPE/PUBLISHED WORK
 
 
ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIA
ILAN PAPPE

DOELBEWUST VERDREVEN

Terwijl Israël de gebeurtenissen van mei 1948 al 75 jaar met grote vreugde viert, herdenken Palestijnen deze gebeurtenissen jaarlijks met grote droefheid. Zij gedenken wat toen gebeurde als een ramp: de Nakba, Arabisch voor de catastrofe. Minstens 750.000 mensen werden uit hun huizen, steden en dorpen verdreven of sloegen op de vlucht uit wat vandaag de staat Israël is. Naar schatting 450 dorpen werden vernietigd. De Palestijnse wijken in de grote gemengde steden werden etnisch gezuiverd. De beschaving die honderden jaren in Palestina had bestaan, werd grotendeels en brutaal vernietigd. De gruwel en het trauma dragen deze mensen en hun nakomelingen tot op vandaag mee.

SAMPOL.BE

75 JAAR NAKBA: ISRAEL IS GEBOUWD OP EEN GROOT ONRECHT
14 MEI 2023

https://www.sampol.be/2023/05/75-jaar-nakba-israel-is-gebouwd-op-een-groot-onrecht

ZIE VOOR GEHELE TEKST, NOOT 68

DISASTER OVER PALESTINE/THE REFUGEE PROBLEM AND
THE IDEOLOGY OF TRANSFER
ASTRID ESSED
2007
by Astrid Essed Thursday, Jun. 28, 2007 at 12:03 AM
 

In contrary with the allegations of zionist non-deniers, the expulsion of the Palestinians in 1948 and 1967 was no ad hoc war-crime, but a yearlong deliberate planned strategy

 

Dear Editor and Readers,

This month june, it had been 40 years ago, Resolution 242 has passed, which urged Israel to withdraw from among else the Palestinian areas, which it had conquered in the june-war in 1967
As you all shall know, Israel completely has ignored, over 40 years, to fullfill this resolution

The occupation was the last fullfillment of the conquest of ”historical Palestine”, which was the very aim of zionism

Another aim was the expulsion of the original and autochton Palestinian population from their own country, which has been executed in 1948 [750.000 people] and 1967 [250.000 people]

In contrary with the allegations of zionist non-deniers [regarding the expulsion] this, however, was not an ad hoc war-crime, but a deliberate strategy, which was based on the views of the early zionist thinkers and is a ‘necessity” for the fullfillment of the political zionism

To expose and unmask this process and in remembrance of all the nameless victims of this ethnic cleansings, I have written underlying article

May justice be like a river

Kind regards
Astrid Essed
The Netherlands

See for picture of Palestinian refugees:

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/General/Story1649.html

The Naqba

Disaster over Palestine
The Palestinian Refugee-problem and the ideology of transfer

Dedicated to the anonymous Palestinian victims of expulsion

In solemn remembrance and respect for Count Folke Bernadotte, who, being UN mediator for Palestine in 1948, has paid with his life by defending the rights of the Palestinian Arabs, who were victims of the expulsion by the Israeli-zionist militias. [1]

“The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.”

Part of a letter of the zionistic-Israeli politician David Ben Gurion, to his son, dd 1937

UN General Assembly Resolution 194 dd 11-12-1948

The General Assembly,
Having considered further the situation in Palestine

………….
………….
………….
………….

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours 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;

Few things in life are so tragic like streams of refugees, who, fleeing for the violence of war or directly expelled, are moving painfully forward, towards an uncertain future.
Those images are daily seen on TV and leave behind a non-erasable memory

A Refugees and military activities:

There are few photographs and archives about this tragic fate of Palestinian refugees, on the eve of the one-sided exclamation of the State of Israel, by the zionistic politician Mr Ben Gurion [2] and the military confrontations thereafter, between the Israeli-zionistic military organisations [the Hagana, Palmach and the terrorgangs Irgun and Stern] on the one hand, and the armies of several Arabic countries [3], on the other hand

However, contrary with the pro-Israeli-propaganda, no great impression should be made of the strength of the Arabic troops, since it concerned countries, which had become independent recently [for that time under British or French mandatory or ”protective” authority], and therefore couldn’t have formed an extended army, while the zionist troops were very well armed, partly due to own effort, partly due to British military training

Also the Transjordanian army [the present Jordan], which was the biggest army, only fought in the evironments of Jerusalem
A further problem was also the lack of harmony on Arab side, because of mutual conflicts

The result of the military confrontation between the zionist-Israeli troops and the Arab troops is known.
Not only the zionist army won the war, also it occupied 20% of the area, which was granted to the Arabs according to the UN Partition Plan for Palestine [resulting in UN General Assembly-resolution, nr 181,which was accepted dd december 1947]
The rest of the curtailed Arab area was occupied by respective Trans-Jordan [namely the present Westbank and Eastern-Jerusalem] and Egypt [the present Gaza-area]

Jerusalem, which would have a corpus separatum-status [an international character], according to the Partition Plan, was partly occupied by the newly exclaimed State of Israel [Western Jerusalem], partly by Trans-Jordan [Eastern Jerusalem]

B The humanitarian toll of the war

The humanitarian toll of the war was very high, especially on the Arab-Palestine side.

Although it has to be admitted, that war-crimes and grave human rights violations took place on both sides [4], the fact remains, that, yet apart from the horrible character as such, a number of massacres in Arabic villages, instigated by zionist/Israeli terrorgangs, has had disasterous consequences for the Palestinian/Arab population in Palestine

The most notorious was the massacre in the Arab village of Deir Yassin in the night of april the 9th to the 10th, in which 100 to 120 Palestinian/Arab inhabitants were killed.
Those responsible, who have been actually never brought to justice, were units of the Israeli-zionistic terror-gangs Irgun and Stern [with knowlegde of the regular zionist army the Haganah, which would later deny any responsibility], with as commanders the later Israeli prime-ministers mr Begin and mr Shamir.

Moreover, in his book ”The Revolt”, the Israeli prime-minister Mr Begin alleged, that without the ”victory” (his words) of Deir Yassin, the State of Israel probably wouldn’t be founded at all.
Although this allegation could have referred to the intimidating effect on the Palestinian civilian population, without a deliberated plan to provoke this, it must be noticed, that this bery allegation was made by one of the responsible commanders for the attack on Deir Yassin.

Yet apart from the massacres and the following immense stream of refugees, on which I shall refer, also 400 Arab villages were destroyed [5]

C Military aims of Plan Dalet and other Israeli military operations:

Although I will not go as far as to assume, that the massacres were aimed deliberately to expell the Arab population, it is highly probable, that Plan Dalet (the zionist-Israeli military operations between april the 1st and may the 15th 1948] has had as main goals as well the occupation of parts of the Arab area [according to the decision by UN resolution 181], as the destruction of Arab villages in the Jewish area [according to the decision by UN resolution 181]

Referring to that occupation, I quote the ”introduction” to Plan Dalet:

´´a) “The objective of this plan is to gain control of the areas of the Hebrew state and defend its borders. It also aims at gaining control of the areas of Jewish settlements and concentration which are located outside the borders (of the Hebrew state) against regular, semi-regular, and small forces operating from bases outside or inside the state.´´

Regarding the deliberate destruction of Arab villages I quote Section B of the Plan:

´´Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously. … Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population expelled outside the borders of the state. ´´

Also the later Israeli-zionist plans were embroidering on the mourning clothes of military attacks on Arab villages and the occupation of as much as Arab area as possible.

D Stream of refugees:

It will not be a surprise to the reader, that as a consequence of this dirty war, hunderd-thousands of Arab people fled, due to the ditect and indirect expulsion from their houses and lands

Indirectly because of fear for new massacres, directly because of expulsions by the Israeli-zionistic regulary troops, as well the terrorgangs Irgun and Stern.
More than 750.000 Arab refugees were the victims of those expulsions

Not only those expulsions are definitely inhuman, morover, being ethnic cleanings, they belong to the gravest war-crimes

The humanitarian toll has its consequences till today and is still enlarged by the second ethnic cleansing in 1967, after the Israeli victory in the Six Day war [the socalled ”june-war], by which more than 250.000 people fled or were expulsed.

Further it needs to be said, that this expulsion of the Arab-Palestinian population was not only one of the aims of Plan Dalet, but was also rooted in the political-ideological ideas of great number of prominent zionist leaders
I will refer to this later

1 Israeli version of the cause of the Refugee-stream:

Evidently, the need of an official apologetic Israeli version of the tragic events was high, not only as a justification for the ”outside world”, but also to keep up the myth of the ”high standard” principles of the ”Jewish State”, in contrast with the ”barbarism” of the Arabs, thus corresponding with the Western-European racist views about Arab people.

Except for those racist views, there were more reasons for believing the Israeli version and supporting the new-founded State of Israel, like Western guilt-feelings about the holocaust, religious fantasies about the refoundation of the ”Promised Land” by people, who called themselves ”christians” and colonial thought [which didn’t consider it as unacceptable to ”found a State” in the country of the autochtonous people, in casu the Palestinian Arabs]

In the Israeli version, the emphasis was being laid on the voluntarily departure of the Arab-Palestinian population, in response to an Arab broadcast-call, which urged the Palestinian Arabs to leave Palestine, waiting for the victory over ”the Jews” [thus referring to the zionist-Israeli armies]

However, neither the official Israeli ”first generation” historians, nor the later New Historians, who are contradicting the official version, ever have found any proof of the existence of this socalled ”broadcast-call”

2 Unmasking of the official Israeli version: The New Historians

However, another important discovery, which would throw a whole different light on the official Israeli history, was made by the New Historians like Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe and others, namely the evident proof, that no ”voluntarily depart” had taken place, but either a mass expulsion or a flight in panic, out of fear for future massacres

The proof was found in Israeli governmental and army papers, archive-materials and other documentation.

Yet apart from the official governmental and army material, it is highly unlikely anyway, that a great deal of the civilian population, consisting of complete families, would abamdon homes and lands to depart because of a broadcast-call of one or more Arab leaders.
Further, the flight behaviour [a mother without her children, a man without his wife, a family without an old father or mother], as well as the leaving behind of neccessary tools [like clothes] shows a hurried and unvoluntarily depart.

To complete the zionist ”hall of shame”, some films have been discovered, which show pictures of the actual expulsion of the civilian population by Israeli military units.

E The deeperlying motivation for the ethnic cleansings:

1 The views of the zionist leaders

Untill recently the reality of the expulsions, as well as the criminal character of them, has been unmasked, but yet too little, the deeperlying causes have been emphasized

It must be said, that there are critical zionists, who have the moral decency, not to deny the scientific findings of the New Historians, but they assumpt mosltly, that the ethnic cleansings were not a part of a deliberate plan.

That is not correct

The historian Ilan Pappe states in his book ”The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”, that the decision to this ethnic cleansing has been made in the socalled ”Red House” [located on the present Sheraton Tel Aviv], on the 30th of march 1948, during a meeting, headed under the chairmanship of the Israeli politician David Ben Gurion.

That this isn’t a new view, is being confirmed by a number of statements, made by zionist leaders in the past, who obviously have shown no moral objections against the expulsion of the Arab-Palestinian population.

In the introduction to this article I have quoted already a sentence of a letter, the already named politician David Ben Gurion wrote to his son in 1937.

Another notorious example is article III of the draft charter, which Theodor Herzl [6] proposed to the Sultan of Turkey [7] in 1901, which would give the Jews the right to deport the existing rural population [8]

However, it needs to be said, that not all zionist leaders hold this opinion.
So at the 7th zionistic Congress in Basel in 1905, Hillel Zeitlin [9] challenged the defenders of the transfer-idea by stating:

”Everyone seems to forget, that Palestine belongs to others and that the country is fully populated” [10]
The removal of the Jews to Palestine couldn’t be succesfull, according to Zeitlins opinion, unless the others should be transferred ”which shouldn’t be executed by anyone ”

Probably without realizing fully, this conscientious man referred to the very essence of the latter unscrupulous actions of the zionist leaders in the war of 1948.

2 The demografical problem

Although is being shown, that the perversity of the ethnical cleansing is based on zionist views from the time of Theodor Herzl, which are related to the then colonial contempt for the autochton population, also another motive must be named, the socalled ”demografical problem”

This ”demografical problem” has played a part in early Israeli politics till nowadays and can be in shortly characterized as the fear for a Palestinian population-majority in Israel.

It is clear

When a society is based on equal rights for everyone, regardless race, religion or descent, the number of different population-groups are of no importance.
However, when State policy is based on unequal rights, or stronger, on the denial of the right of existence of a certain part of the population, the demografical situation does matter.

It is clear also, that the Arab Palestinians were the autochton population of Palestine.
Further it is a fact, that they would have obtained the de facto political power in Palestine, when there had been a normal decolonization-process, like in the surrounding countries [Syria, Jordan, the then Trans-Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon etc]

However, due to Jewish immigration from the outside and the unjust claim of zionist leaders on Palestine, with the Balfour Declaration in their hands, the Palestinian right on selfdetermination was fundamentally and seriously violated.

The international legitimation for the violation of their own UN/Charter [11] was consolidated in UN resolution 181, by which Palestine was divided in a Jewish and Arab part, completely ignoring the right of selfdetermination of the autochton Arab population.
Quite rightly, the representive of the Arabic High Committee called the resolution a colonial decision

However, to legimate this ”Jewish State” [12] [the part of Palestine, that according to Resolution 181, was granted to the zionists] as much as possible [13], it was of the utmost importance, to make it as ”empty” as possible [14], since the zionist idea was hardly to defend, when there was an Arab majority.

Further the zionist leaders wanted to make ”room” for the immigration of Jewish peope from Europe and the rest of the world.

F After the june-war, ethnic cleansing again

It is of importance, to focus on the relation between the zionist idea and the ethnic cleansings, because of its next role in the ethnic cleansings after the Six Day War [june war] in 1967.

Of course the zionist leaders knew, that the occupation of the remaining Palestinian areas [the Westbank and Gaza, which were conquered by Jordan and Egypt in the war of 1948] would meet important critics, especially because of the extension of members of the UN, since 1948.

The old bastion of colonial powers with some subject semi-colonies [like a number of South-American countries, the Fillippines and the very poor Haiti] had been extended with a large number of ex-colonies, which could see a comparison between the fate of the Palestinians and their own colonial past.

However, given the nature of zionist ”necessity”, again ethnic cleansings took place, with as tragic result 250.000 Palestinian refugees.
Only this time the zionists didn’t succeed in fullfilling the dirty game, because of the above named extension of the UN and the Palestinians, who had become wiser by the former bitter experiences.

The occupation of the remaining of historial Palestine was a fact and despite the unanimously accepted Security Resolution 242 [15], which Israel summoned to withdraw from the Palestinian territories [The Westbank, the Gaza-area and Eastern Jerusalem] , the occupation still lasts, 40 years later, with as humanitarian consequences, numerous human rights violations of the Palestinian civilian population, mass-expropriations by the illegal settlementspolicy and the building of the Israeli Wall through occupied Palestinian area.

5 june 2007
A sad jubilee.

G Tragical fate of the refugees and UN General Assembly resolution 194:

When it was too late for the 750.000 fled or expelled Palestinian Arabs, the international community reacted.
In General Assembly Resolution 194 [dd december 1948] Israel was summoned to permit the refugees to return to their homes or that compensation should be paid for their property.
It is a known fact, that Israel is ignoring this resolution now for 59 years, with as a consequence, that the most of the refugees are living since 1948 in refugee-camps, in often miserable circumstances, without much chance on better conditions, as well in the occupied Palestinian territories as in surrounding countries.

Yet apart from the bad conditions, for which Israel is head-responsible, at least in the occupied territories [16], it has been said already, that Israel always has refused to acknowledge the right to return of the Palestinian refugees or to compensate them for their loss of property.

Except inhuman, it is also discriminatory, since every Jew in the world has the right to ”return”, while this right has been denied to the original autochton population.

Epilogue:

I have tried to make clear, that the Palestine refugee-problem is not only the tragic result of the warcrimes in 1948, but is founded on a conscious ideology of transfer, which is a ”necessity” in the concept of an artificially created ”Jewish State”

On this ”Jewish State” concept, the idea of transfer has been based, which is still vivid in Israeli society

As long as there is an artificially created ”Jewish State”, which came to this world with the assistance of unholy midwives, being the UN countries, who approved the UN partition-plan, resulting in resolution 181, there will be no peaceful existence with the neigbouring Arab countries.

Neither a peaceprocess, based on International Law, is possible, since occupation, the construction of the Wall and settlementspolicy are considered as the very tools for the safety of the State of Israel.

Therefore, lasting peace and a just solution of the refugee problem will be possible only in a non-zionist, secular Palestine with equal rights for all inhabitants, based on a one man, one vote government

Astrid Essed
Amsterdam
The Netherlands

Notes:

[1] Count Folke Bernadotte was assissinated in september 1948 by 3 members of the Stern gang, among else the later Israeli prime-minister Shamir, who was also responsible for the Deir Yassin massacre in april 1948
The reason for this assisination was his courageous defence of the human rights of the Palestinian Arabs, trying to prevent their expulsion

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte

http://www.counterpunch.org/himmelstein09162004.html

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0995/9509083.htm

[2] Although the UN partition-plan for Palestine had been approved by the UN [by means of UN resolution 181], it didn’t imply yet the official acknowledgment of the ”Jewish State”, since there was still UN-discussion about the ”tutelage” of Palestine
Of course this ”tutelage” would be based on the approved UN resolution 181, in respect with the percentage of Palestine, which would be ”Jewish” [56,4] and ”Arab” [42,8] and Jerusalem, being a ”corpus separatum” [international status]

[3] The respective Arabic States were Egypt, Trans-Jordan [the present Jordan], Syria, Lebanon and Iraq

[4] At april 13th, 4 days after the Deir Yassin massacre, there was an Arab military attack on a medical convoy travelling to Haddassah Hospital, with as a tragic result the death of 77 doctors, nurses, and other Jewish civilians.

[5] The Israeli Prof I Pappe is referring to even 531 villages

[6] Founder of the zionism

[7] The draft charter was part of the request to the Sultan of Turkey dd 1901, to establish a ”Judisch-Ottomanische LandCompagnie zur Besiedlung von Palestina und Syrien”, simply said, the establishment of a Jewish community in Palestine [which has been often described as a ”Syrian province”]

[8] See: Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons, A Historical Survey of Proposals to
Transfer Arabs from Palestine
1895 – 1947

For the part III of the draft charter: See

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7854/transfer03.html

[9] About Hillel Zeitlin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_Zeitlin

[10] By this he challenged the early zionist propaganda, that Palestine was barely populated, embodied in the slogan of
“A land without a people for a people without a land”, which was uttered and propagated by the Jewish writer Israel Zangwill

[11] Article 1, 2, about the selfdetermination of all people, referring among else to the decolonisation-process
Evidently this principle was being ignored regarding the Arab-Palestinian population of Palestine
See
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

[12] the part of Palestine, that according to UN Resolution 181, was granted to the zionists

[13] In the ”Jewish” part of Palestine [according to UN Resolution 181], the Arab Palestinians formed during the fisrt months of 1948, nearly the half of the whole population

[14] ”free” from the Arab Palestinian population

[15] The text of the UN Security Resolution 242
See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242#Text_of_Resolution

[16] in respect with the international judicial obligation, according to the 4th Geneva Convention, of an occupying power for the welfare, wellbeing and safety of the ”protected persons” [people, who live under an occupation]

Further backgroundinformation:

About UN General Assembly resolution 194

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_General_Assembly_Resolution_194

About the Deir Yassin massacre:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

http://www.deiryassin.org/index.html

Testimony of Mr de Reynier, head of the Red Cross-delegation in Palestine

http://www.debriefing.org/1026.html

Eyewitness-testimony of Colonel Meir Pael [the former mr Meir Pilevsky], who had been a Palmach-soldier during the tragic events in Deir Yassin

http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy/dypail.htm

Further information about Deir Yassin:

http://www.deiryassin.org/shimontzabar.html

http://www.deiryassin.org/mh2001.html

About the Israeli human rights organisation Zochrot, trying to raise awareness of the Naqba, at the Israeli public opinion:

http://www.afsc.org/israel-palestine/profiles-of-peace/eitan-bronstein.htm

http://www.nakbainhebrew.org/index.php?lang=english

About Theodor Herzl:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story643.html

Theodor Herzl: The Jewish State

http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/6640/zion/judenstaadt.html

Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons, A Historical Survey of Proposals to
Transfer Arabs from Palestine
1895 – 1947

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7854/transfer.html

Hillel Zeitlin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_Zeitlin

About the historian Mr Benny Morris:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris

http://hnn.us/articles/3166.html

Website of Prof Ilan Pappe:

http://www.ilanpappe.org/

http://www.ilanpappe.org/Articles/Ilan%20Pappe%20on%20how%20Israel%20was%20founded%20on%20ethnic%20cleansing.html

END
WIKIPEDIA
DEIR YASSIN MASSACRE
PALESTINE REMEMBERED
IF AMERICANS KNEW
REFUGEES AND ETHNIC CLEANSING
ORIGINELE BRON
IF AMERICANS KNEW

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Noot 79/Israel raast en tiert!

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Noot 78/Israel raast en tiert!

[78]

D. ECONOMIC UNION AND TRANSIT

The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall enter into an undertaking with respect to Economic Union and Transit. This undertaking shall be drafted by the Commission provided for in section B, paragraph 1, utilizing to the greatest possible extent the advice and cooperation of representative organizations and bodies from each of the proposed States. It shall contain provisions to establish the Economic Union of Palestine and provide for other matters of common interest. If by 1 April 1948 the Provisional Councils of Government have not entered into the undertaking, the undertaking shall be put into force by the Commission.

The Economic Union of Palestine

The objectives of the Economic Union of Palestine shall be:

A customs union;

A joint currency system providing for a single foreign exchange rate;

Operation in the common interest on a non-discriminatory basis of railways inter-State highways; postal, telephone and telegraphic services and ports and airports involved in international trade and commerce;

Joint economic development, especially in respect of irrigation, land reclamation and soil conservation;”

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 181

NOVEMBER 29, 1947

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/res181.asp

ZIE VOOR GEHELE TEKST, NOOT 76

Corpus separatum (Latin for “separated body“) was the internationalization proposal for Jerusalem and its surrounding area as part of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly with a two-thirds majority in November 1947. ”

WIKIPEDIA

CORPUS SEPARATUM (JERUSALEM)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_separatum_(Jerusalem)#:~:text=Corpus%20separatum%20(Latin%20for%20%22separated,thirds%20majority%20in%20November%201947.

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Noot 78/Israel raast en tiert!

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Noot 77/Israel raast en tiert!

[77]

”n favour (33 countries, 72% of total votes)

Latin American and Caribbean (13 countries):

Western European and Others (8 countries):

Eastern European (5 countries):

African (2 countries):

Asia-Pacific (3 countries)

North America (2 countries)

Against (13 countries, 28% of total votes)

Asia-Pacific (9 countries, primarily Middle East sub-area):

Western European and Others (2 countries):

African (1 country):

Latin American and Caribbean (1 country):

Abstentions (10 countries)

Latin American and Caribbean (6 countries):

Asia-Pacific (1 country):

African (1 country):

Western European and Others (1 country):

Eastern European (1 country):

Absent (1 country)

Asia-Pacific (1 country):

 
WIKIPEDIA
UNITED NATIONS PARTITION PLAN FOR PALESTINE/FINAL VOTE
 
ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIA
UNITED NATIONS PARTITION PLAN FOR PALESTINE

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Noot 77/Israel raast en tiert!

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Noot 76/Israel raast en tiert!

[76]
”Op 29 november 1947 is door de Algemene Vergadering van de VN bij meerderheid het zogeheten Verdelingsplan (Resolutie 181) aangenomen met 33 stemmen vóór, 13 tegen en 10 onthoudingen (1 lidstaat was bij de stemming afwezig). Van de Europese lidstaten stemden België, Denemarken, Frankrijk, Luxemburg, Nederland, Noorwegen, Polen en Zweden vóór; Griekenland stemde tegen; Groot-Brittannië onthield zich van stemming uit vrees voor problemen met moslim-onderdanen in Brits-Indië en elders. Het verslagen Duitsland en Italië waren nog niet in de VN opgenomen. Ook de Verenigde Staten en de Sovjet-Unie hadden vóór het Verdelingsplan gestemd.”
NPK
NEDERLANDS PALESTINA KOMITEE
KWESTIE PALESTINA
ZIE VOOR GEHELE TEKST, NOOT 75
”The partition resolution was finally adopted on 29 November with 33 votes in favor, 13 votes against, and 10 abstentions.”
INTERACTIVE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE
PALESTINE QUESTION
UN PARTITION PLAN, 29 NOVEMBER 1947

On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 recommending the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states (along with an international zone encompassing Jerusalem and Bethlehem ). Specifically, the plan proposed a Jewish state on more than half of Mandate Palestine at a time when Jews comprised less than a third of the population and owned less than 7 percent of the land. Passage of the UN Partition Plan , in the face of strong Arab opposition, is among the most significant dates of modern Palestinian history, for in essence it gave international legitimacy to the Zionist conquest of Palestine by force of arms.

The notion of eventually dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab states was first floated in official British discourse by the 1937 Peel Commission . Compared to the UN Partition Plan, the Peel Commission proposed a much smaller Jewish state. The plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency , the international body representing the World Zionist Organization , and the leadership of the Mapai (Labor) Party, the dominant Jewish force on the ground. However, large numbers of Zionists—including the “>Revisionists and the Union of Po’alei Tzion —objected to a plan falling so far short of their goals. The Peel Commission suggestion that the feasibility of partition required the transfer of Palestinian Arabs outside the Jewish state softened the opposition, and after fierce debate the Zionist Congress accepted the plan as a first step, providing a secure base where Jewish immigration could continue uninhibited and which could subsequently be expanded. For the Palestinian Arabs, who then constituted over 70 percent of the population, partition never ceased to be anathema: the depth of their popular opposition can be gauged by the immediate escalation of the Great Palestinian Rebellion launched in 1936. The British Woodhead Commission , formed to study the feasibility the Peel plan, concluded in November 1938 that partition was “impracticable.”

The Palestine situation became increasingly unmanageable after World War II , and in February 1947 Britain announced its intention to terminate the Mandate. In May 1947, a month after Britain formally turned the Palestine case over to the United Nations , the UN created the Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP ) comprising representatives of Australia , Canada , Czechoslovakia , Guatemala , India , Iran , the The Netherlands , Peru , Sweden , Uruguay , and Yugoslavia . UNSCOP’s September 1947 report listed eleven unanimous recommendations on general principles, including the transition of Palestine from Mandated territory to independence, preservation of the pre-existing “status quo ” on the holy places and rights of the religious communities as well as of the foreign privileges conceded by the Ottomans, and—crucially—linking the Palestine question to a solution to the postwar Jewish refugee problem. In addition to its unanimous recommendations, UNSCOP presented two plans devised by two different working groups: a Plan of Partition with Economic Union (supported by Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, the Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, and Uruguay) and a Federal State Solution (supported by India, Iran, and Yugoslavia).

On 23 September 1947, the UN General Assembly formed an Ad Hoc Committee to consider UNSCOP’s report. Representatives of the Arab Higher Committee (Hay’a) (AHC) and the Jewish Agency attended. The AHC rejected the proposals of both UNSCOP working groups, arguing that any solution that privileged the claims of Jews to Palestine was inconsistent with the UN Charter . The Jewish Agency—which in August 1946 had submitted its own partition proposal, with a Palestinian rump state whose boundaries bear some resemblance to those of the post-1948 West Bank —accepted the partition proposal but lobbied for the inclusion of Jerusalem and the western Galilee (e.g., Acre , Nazareth ) in the Jewish state. The ad hoc committee made some revisions to the UNSCOP report’s boundaries, and the proposal for partition proceeded to the General Assembly for a vote.

The proposed Jewish state covered some 56 percent of Mandate Palestine divided into three barely contiguous parts/areas: the eastern Galilee (including Safad , Tiberias , Baysan , and the Sea of Galilee ), a coastal area (about two-thirds of Palestine’s coast, including Haifa , Tel Aviv , and the fertile lowland plains), and most of the Negev (excluding Bir al-Sabi’ and a strip/area running about half-way down the border with Egypt , but giving access to the Red Sea ). Of Mandate Palestine’s sixteen districts, nine were allotted to the Jewish state, only one of which had a Jewish majority; the UN-proposed Jewish state as a whole had an Arab “minority” approaching 47 percent.

The Arab state—which was to be linked to Transjordan —comprised some 43 percent of Mandate Palestine for an Arab population exceeding two-thirds. It, too, constituted three parts/areas in addition to the tiny Jaffa enclave (surrounded by the Jewish state). Its main areas were Western Galilee down to Acre and including Nazareth; the central Palestinian highland areas around Jenin , Nablus , and Hebron , extending west to include Tulkarm , Qalqilya , Lydda , and Ramla , and south to include the central southern desert hub of Bir al-Sabi’; and a coastline strip (including Gaza ) running from Isdud to the Egyptian border and following that border southwards. The international enclave around Jerusalem and Bethlehem (the corpus separatum) had a slight Arab majority.

The UN vote was originally scheduled for 26 November, but proponents of partition feared that the proposal would not receive the required two-thirds majority and succeeded in delaying the vote for three days, giving more time for the intense lobbying and pressures brought to bear on member states, primarily by Washington and Zionist organizations. The partition resolution was finally adopted on 29 November with 33 votes in favor, 13 votes against, and 10 abstentions. The announcement of the UN acceptance of partition was met in Arab Palestine by a general strike and demonstrations; some—in Jerusalem and elsewhere—turned to destructive riots. Meanwhile, emboldened by the international imprimatur given by the UN decision, the Zionist military organizations attacked Arab villages and residential quarters before launching the highly organized campaigns of Plan Dalet starting in early April 1948. Villagers together with the more organized Arab volunteer and irregular forces defended their territory and attacked Zionist areas. This “civil war” phase of the 1947–49 Palestine War ended with Israel’s declaration of statehood on 15 May 1948.

By emphasizing their acceptance of the idea of partition and Arab rejection of it, while ignoring the deep injustice written into the details of the proposal in terms of both land and population, Zionists were able to cloak the ensuing conquest and displacement of Palestinians as both legitimate and defensive. The UN Partition Plan thus represents both the fruits of Zionist efforts to secure international recognition of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine and the immediate precursor to the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, predicated as it was on the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their lands.

Selected Bibliography:

Gilbert, Martin. “The Jewish Agency’s Partition Plan, August 1946” (map). In The Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict (7th ed., p. 35). New York: Routledge.

Khalidi, Walid. “Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution.” Journal of Palestine Studies 27, no.1 (Autumn 1997): 5–21.

McCarthy, Justin. The Population of Palestine: Population, History, and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate. Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies; New York: Columbia University Press, 1990.

Rogan, Eugene L., and Avi Shlaim. The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

WIKIPEDIA

UNITED NATIONS PARTITION PLAN FOR PALESTINE

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 181

NOVEMBER 29, 1947

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/res181.asp

The General Assembly, Having met in special session at the request of the mandatory Power to constitute and instruct a Special Committee to prepare for the consideration of the question of the future Government of Palestine at the second regular session;

Having constituted a Special Committee and instructed it to investigate all questions and issues relevant to the problem of Palestine, and to prepare proposals for the solution of the problem, and

Having received and examined the report of the Special Committee (document A/364)(1) including a number of unanimous recommendations and a plan of partition with economic union approved by the majority of the Special Committee,

Considers that the present situation in Palestine is one which is likely to impair the general welfare and friendly relations among nations;

Takes note of the declaration by the mandatory Power that it plans to complete its evacuation of Palestine by l August 1948;

Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;

Requests that

The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

The Security Council consider, if circumstances during the transitional period require such consideration, whether the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace. If it decides that such a threat exists, and in order to maintain international peace and security, the Security Council should supplement the authorization of the General Assembly by taking measures, under Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter, to empower the United Nations Commission, as provided in this resolution, to exercise in Palestine the functions which are assigned to it by this resolution;

The Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution;

The Trusteeship Council be informed of the responsibilities envisaged for it in this plan;

Calls upon the inhabitants of Palestine to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan into effect;

Appeals to all Governments and all peoples to refrain from taking any action which might hamper or delay the carrying out of these recommendations, and

Authorizes the Secretary-General to reimburse travel and subsistence expenses of the members of the Commission referred to in Part 1, Section B, Paragraph I below, on such basis and in such form as he may determine most appropriate in the circumstances, and to provide the Commission with the necessary staff to assist in carrying out the functions assigned to the Commission by the General Assembly.*

The General Assembly,

Authorizes the Secretary-General to draw from the Working Capital Fund a sum not to exceed 2,000,000 dollars for the purposes set forth in the last paragraph of the resolution on the future government of Palestine.

PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION

Part I. – Future Constitution and Government of Palestine

A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE

The Mandate for Palestine shall terminate as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.

The armed forces of the mandatory Power shall be progressively withdrawn from Palestine, the withdrawal to be completed as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.

The mandatory Power shall advise the Commission, as far in advance as possible, of its intention to terminate the mandate and to evacuate each area. The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948.

Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below.

The period between the adoption by the General Assembly of its recommendation on the question of Palestine and the establishment of the independence of the Arab and Jewish States shall be a transitional period.

B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE

A Commission shall be set up consisting of one representative of each of five Member States. The Members represented on the Commission shall be elected by the General Assembly on as broad a basis, geographically and otherwise, as possible.

The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission, which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent coordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.

In the discharge of this administrative responsibility the Commission shall have authority to issue necessary regulations and take other measures as required.

The mandatory Power shall not take any action to prevent, obstruct or delay the implementation by the Commission of the measures recommended by the General Assembly.

On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in Part II of this Plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.

The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of the Arab and Jewish States, shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government. The activities of both the Arab and Jewish Provisional Councils of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission.

If by 1 April 1948 a Provisional Council of Government cannot be selected for either of the States, or, if selected, cannot carry out its functions, the Commission shall communicate that fact to the Security Council for such action with respect to that State as the Security Council may deem proper, and to the Secretary-General for communication to the Members of the United Nations.

Subject to the provisions of these recommendations, during the transitional period the Provisional Councils of Government, acting under the Commission, shall have full authority in the areas under their control including authority over matters of immigration and land regulation.

The Provisional Council of Government of each State, acting under the Commission, shall progressively receive from the Commission full responsibility for the administration of that State in the period between the termination of the Mandate and the establishment of the State’s independence.

The Commission shall instruct the Provisional Councils of Government of both the Arab and Jewish States, after their formation, to proceed to the establishment of administrative organs of government, central and local.

The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall, within the shortest time possible, recruit an armed militia from the residents of that State, sufficient in number to maintain internal order and to prevent frontier clashes.

This armed militia in each State shall, for operational purposes, be under the command of Jewish or Arab officers resident in that State, but general political and military control, including the choice of the militia’s High Command, shall be exercised by the Commission.

The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall, not later than two months after the withdrawal of the armed forces of the mandatory Power, hold elections to the Constituent Assembly which shall be conducted on democratic lines.

The election regulations in each State shall be drawn up by the Provisional Council of Government and approved by the Commission. Qualified voters for each State for this election shall be persons over eighteen years of age who are (a) Palestinian citizens residing in that State; and (b) Arabs and Jews residing in the State, although not Palestinian citizens, who, before voting, have signed a notice of intention to become citizens of such State.

Arabs and Jews residing in the City of Jerusalem who have signed a notice of intention to become citizens, the Arabs of the Arab State and the Jews of the Jewish State, shall be entitled to vote in the Arab and Jewish States respectively.

Women may vote and be elected to the Constituent Assemblies.

During the transitional period no Jew shall be permitted to establish residence in the area of the proposed Arab State, and no Arab shall be permitted to establish residence in the area of the proposed Jewish State, except by special leave of the Commission.

The Constituent Assembly of each State shall draft a democratic constitution for its State and choose a provisional government to succeed the Provisional Council of Government appointed by the Commission. The Constitutions of the States shall embody Chapters 1 and 2 of the Declaration provided for in section C below and include, inter alia, provisions for:

Establishing in each State a legislative body elected by universal suffrage and by secret ballot on the basis of proportional representation, and an executive body responsible to the legislature;

Settling all international disputes in which the State may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;

Accepting the obligation of the State to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations;

Guaranteeing to all persons equal and non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association;

Preserving freedom of transit and visit for all residents and citizens of the other State in Palestine and the City of Jerusalem, subject to considerations of national security, provided that each State shall control residence within its borders.

The Commission shall appoint a preparatory economic commission of three members to make whatever arrangements are possible for economic co-operation, with a view to establishing, as soon as practicable, the Economic Union and the Joint Economic Board, as provided in section D below.

During the period between the adoption of the recommendations on the question of Palestine by the General Assembly and the termination of the Mandate, the mandatory Power in Palestine shall maintain full responsibility for administration in areas from which it has not withdrawn its armed forces. The Commission shall assist the mandatory Power in the carrying out of these functions. Similarly the mandatory Power shall co-operate with the Commission in the execution of its functions.

With a view to ensuring that there shall be continuity in the functioning of administrative services and that, on the withdrawal of the armed forces of the mandatory Power, the whole administration shall be in the charge of the Provisional Councils and the Joint Economic Board, respectively, acting under the Commission, there shall be a progressive transfer, from the mandatory Power to the Commission, of responsibility for all the functions of government, including that of maintaining law and order in the areas from which the forces of the mandatory Power have been withdrawn.

The Commission shall be guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue.

The measures taken by the Commission, within the recommendations of the General Assembly, shall become immediately effective unless the Commission has previously received contrary instructions from the Security Council.

The Commission shall render periodic monthly progress reports, or more frequently if desirable, to the Security Council.

The Commission shall make its final report to the next regular session of the General Assembly and to the Security Council simultaneously.

C. DECLARATION

A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the Provisional Government of each proposed State before independence. It shall contain, inter alia, the following clauses:

General Provision

The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

Chapter 1: Holy Places, Religious Buildings and Sites

Existing rights in respect of Holy Places and religious buildings or sites shall not be denied or impaired.

In so far as Holy Places are concerned, the liberty of access, visit, and transit shall be guaranteed, in conformity with existing rights, to all residents and citizen of the other State and of the City of Jerusalem, as well as to aliens, without distinction as to nationality, subject to requirements of national security, public order and decorum.

Similarly, freedom of worship shall be guaranteed in conformity with existing rights, subject to the maintenance of public order and decorum.

Holy Places and religious buildings or sites shall be preserved. No act shall be permitted which may in an way impair their sacred character. If at any time it appears to the Government that any particular Holy Place, religious, building or site is in need of urgent repair, the Government may call upon the community or communities concerned to carry out such repair. The Government may carry it out itself at the expense of the community or community concerned if no action is taken within a reasonable time.

No taxation shall be levied in respect of any Holy Place, religious building or site which was exempt from taxation on the date of the creation of the State.

No change in the incidence of such taxation shall be made which would either discriminate between the owners or occupiers of Holy Places, religious buildings or sites, or would place such owners or occupiers in a position less favourable in relation to the general incidence of taxation than existed at the time of the adoption of the Assembly’s recommendations.

The Governor of the City of Jerusalem shall have the right to determine whether the provisions of the Constitution of the State in relation to Holy Places, religious buildings and sites within the borders of the State and the religious rights appertaining thereto, are being properly applied and respected, and to make decisions on the basis of existing rights in cases of disputes which may arise between the different religious communities or the rites of a religious community with respect to such places, buildings and sites. He shall receive full co-operation and such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the exercise of his functions in the State.

Chapter 2: Religious and Minority Rights

Freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, shall be ensured to all.

No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the ground of race, religion, language or sex.

All persons within the jurisdiction of the State shall be entitled to equal protection of the laws.

The family law and personal status of the various minorities and their religious interests, including endowments, shall be respected.

Except as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government, no measure shall be taken to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of religious or charitable bodies of all faiths or to discriminate against any representative or member of these bodies on the ground of his religion or nationality.

The State shall ensure adequate primary and secondary education for the Arab and Jewish minority, respectively, in its own language and its cultural traditions.

The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the State may impose, shall not be denied or impaired. Foreign educational establishments shall continue their activity on the basis of their existing rights.

No restriction shall be imposed on the free use by any citizen of the State of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, in religion, in the Press or in publications of any kind, or at public meetings.(3)

No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State)(4) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be said previous to dispossession.

Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations

1. Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State, providing that no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State. The exercise of this right of option will be taken to include the wives and children under eighteen years of age of persons so opting.

Arabs residing in the area of the proposed Jewish State and Jews residing in the area of the proposed Arab State who have signed a notice of intention to opt for citizenship of the other State shall be eligible to vote in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of that State, but not in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of the State in which they reside.

2. International conventions

The State shall be bound by all the international agreements and conventions, both general and special, to which Palestine has become a party. Subject to any right of denunciation provided for therein, such agreements and conventions shall be respected by the State throughout the period for which they were concluded.

Any dispute about the applicability and continued validity of international conventions or treaties signed or adhered to by the mandatory Power on behalf of Palestine shall be referred to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.

3. Financial obligations

The State shall respect and fulfil all financial obligations of whatever nature assumed on behalf of Palestine by the mandatory Power during the exercise of the Mandate and recognized by the State. This provision includes the right of public servants to pensions, compensation or gratuities.

These obligations shall be fulfilled through participation in the Joint Economic Board in respect of those obligations applicable to Palestine as a whole, and individually in respect of those applicable to, and fairly apportionable between, the States.

A Court of Claims, affiliated with the Joint Economic Board, and composed of one member appointed by the United Nations, one representative of the United Kingdom and one representative of the State concerned, should be established. Any dispute between the United Kingdom and the State respecting claims not recognized by the latter should be referred to that Court.

Commercial concessions granted in respect of any part of Palestine prior to the adoption of the resolution by the General Assembly shall continue to be valid according to their terms, unless modified by agreement between the concession-holders and the State.

Chapter 4: Miscellaneous Provisions

The provisions of chapters 1 and 2 of the declaration shall be under the guarantee of the United Nations, and no modifications shall be made in them without the assent of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Any Member of the United Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the General Assembly any infraction or danger of infraction of any of these stipulations, and the General Assembly may thereupon make such recommendations as it may deem proper in the circumstances.

Any dispute relating to the application or interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.

D. ECONOMIC UNION AND TRANSIT

The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall enter into an undertaking with respect to Economic Union and Transit. This undertaking shall be drafted by the Commission provided for in section B, paragraph 1, utilizing to the greatest possible extent the advice and cooperation of representative organizations and bodies from each of the proposed States. It shall contain provisions to establish the Economic Union of Palestine and provide for other matters of common interest. If by 1 April 1948 the Provisional Councils of Government have not entered into the undertaking, the undertaking shall be put into force by the Commission.

The Economic Union of Palestine

The objectives of the Economic Union of Palestine shall be:

A customs union;

A joint currency system providing for a single foreign exchange rate;

Operation in the common interest on a non-discriminatory basis of railways inter-State highways; postal, telephone and telegraphic services and ports and airports involved in international trade and commerce;

Joint economic development, especially in respect of irrigation, land reclamation and soil conservation;

Access for both States and for the City of Jerusalem on a non-discriminatory basis to water and power facilities.

There shall be established a Joint Economic Board, which shall consist of three representatives of each of the two States and three foreign members appointed by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. The foreign members shall be appointed in the first instance for a term of three years; they shall serve as individuals and not as representatives of States.

The functions of the Joint Economic Board shall be to implement either directly or by delegation the measures necessary to realize the objectives of the Economic Union. It shall have all powers of organization and administration necessary to fulfil its functions.

The States shall bind themselves to put into effect the decisions of the Joint Economic Board. The Board’s decisions shall be taken by a majority vote.

In the event of failure of a State to take the necessary action the Board may, by a vote of six members, decide to withhold an appropriate portion of the part of the customs revenue to which the State in question is entitled under the Economic Union. Should the State persist in its failure to cooperate, the Board may decide by a simple majority vote upon such further sanctions, including disposition of funds which it has withheld, as it may deem appropriate.

In relation to economic development, the functions of the Board shall be planning, investigation and encouragement of joint development projects, but it shall not undertake such projects except with the assent of both States and the City of Jerusalem, in the event that Jerusalem is directly involved in the development project.

In regard to the joint currency system, the currencies circulating in the two States and the City of Jerusalem shall be issued under the authority of the Joint Economic Board, which shall be the sole issuing authority and which shall determine the reserves to be held against such currencies.

So far as is consistent with paragraph 2(b) above, each State may operate its own central bank, control its own fiscal and credit policy, its foreign exchange receipts and expenditures, the grant of import licences, and may conduct international financial operations on its own faith and credit. During the first two years after the termination of the Mandate, the Joint Economic Board shall have the authority to take such measures as may be necessary to ensure that – to the extent that the total foreign exchange revenues of the two States from the export of goods and services permit, and provided that each State takes appropriate measures to conserve its own foreign exchange resources – each State shall have available, in any twelve months’ period, foreign exchange sufficient to assure the supply of quantities of imported goods and services for consumption in its territory equivalent to the quantities of such goods and services consumed in that territory in the twelve months’ period ending 31 December 1947.

All economic authority not specifically vested in the Joint Economic Board is reserved to each State.

There shall be a common customs tariff with complete freedom of trade between the States, and between the States and the City of Jerusalem.

The tariff schedules shall be drawn up by a Tariff Commission, consisting of representatives of each of the States in equal numbers, and shall be submitted to the Joint Economic Board for approval by a majority vote. In case of disagreement in the Tariff Commission, the Joint Economic Board shall arbitrate the points of difference. In the event that the Tariff Commission fails to draw up any schedule by a date to be fixed, the Joint Economic Board shall determine the tariff schedule.

The following items shall be a first charge on the customs and other common revenue of the Joint Economic Board:

The expenses of the customs service and of the operation of the joint services;

The administrative expenses of the Joint Economic Board;

The financial obligations of the Administration of Palestine, consisting of:

The service of the outstanding public debt;

The cost of superannuation benefits, now being paid or falling due in the future, in accordance with the rules and to the extent established by paragraph 3 of chapter 3 above.

After these obligations have been met in full, the surplus revenue from the customs and other common services shall be divided in the following manner: not less than 5 per cent and not more than 10 per cent to the City of Jerusalem; the residue shall be allocated to each State by the Joint Economic Board equitably, with the objective of maintaining a sufficient and suitable level of government and social services in each State, except that the share of either State shall not exceed the amount of that State’s contribution to the revenues of the Economic Union by more than approximately four million pounds in any year. The amount granted may be adjusted by the Board according to the price level in relation to the prices prevailing at the time of the establishment of the Union. After five years, the principles of the distribution of the joint revenue may be revised by the Joint Economic Board on a basis of equity.

All international conventions and treaties affecting customs tariff rates, and those communications services under the jurisdiction of the Joint Economic Board, shall be entered into by both States. In these matters, the two States shall be bound to act in accordance with the majority of the Joint Economic Board.

The Joint Economic Board shall endeavour to secure for Palestine’s exports fair and equal access to world markets.

All enterprises operated by the Joint Economic Board shall pay fair wages on a uniform basis.

Freedom of Transit and Visit

  • The undertaking shall contain provisions preserving freedom of transit and visit for all residents or citizens of both States and of the City of Jerusalem, subject to security considerations; provided that each State and the City shall control residence within its borders.Termination, Modification and Interpretation of the Undertaking

    The undertaking and any treaty issuing therefrom shall remain in force for a period of ten years. It shall continue in force until notice of termination, to take effect two years thereafter, is given by either of the parties.

    During the initial ten-year period, the undertaking and any treaty issuing therefrom may not be modified except by consent of both parties and with the approval of the General Assembly.

    Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of the undertaking and any treaty issuing therefrom shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court Of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.

    E. ASSETS

    The movable assets of the Administration of Palestine shall be allocated to the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem on an equitable basis. Allocations should be made by the United Nations Commission referred to iii section B, paragraph 1, above. Immovable assets shall become the property of the government of the territory in which they are situated.

    During the period between the appointment of the United Nations Commission and the termination of the Mandate, the mandatory Power shall, except in respect of ordinary operations, consult with the Commission on any measure which it may contemplate involving the liquidation, disposal or encumbering of the assets of the Palestine Government, such as the accumulated treasury surplus, the proceeds of Government bond issues, State lands or any other asset.

    F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS

    When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.

    Part II. – Boundaries

    A. THE ARAB STATE

    The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village. There it follows the western boundary line of the villages of ‘Alma, Rihaniya and Teitaba, thence following the northern boundary line of Meirun village to join the Acre-Safad Sub-District boundary line. It follows this line to a point west of Es Sammu’i village and joins it again at the northernmost point of Farradiya. Thence it follows the sub-district boundary line to the Acre-Safad main road. From here it follows the western boundary of Kafr-I’nan village until it reaches the Tiberias-Acre Sub-District boundary line, passing to the west of the junction of the Acre-Safad and Lubiya-Kafr-I’nan roads. From the south-west corner of Kafr-I’nan village the boundary line follows the western boundary of the Tiberias Sub-District to a point close to the boundary line between the villages of Maghar and ‘Eilabun, thence bulging out to the west to include as much of the eastern part of the plain of Battuf as is necessary for the reservoir proposed by the Jewish Agency for the irrigation of lands to the south and east.

    The boundary rejoins the Tiberias Sub-District boundary at a point on the Nazareth-Tiberias road south-east of the built-up area of Tur’an; thence it runs southwards, at first following the sub-district boundary and then passing between the Kadoorie Agricultural School and Mount Tabor, to a point due south at the base of Mount Tabor. From here it runs due west, parallel to the horizontal grid line 230, to the north-east corner of the village lands of Tel Adashim. It then runs to the northwest corner of these lands, whence it turns south and west so as to include in the Arab State the sources of the Nazareth water supply in Yafa village. On reaching Ginneiger it follows the eastern, northern and western boundaries of the lands of this village to their south-west comer, whence it proceeds in a straight line to a point on the Haifa-Afula railway on the boundary between the villages of Sarid and El-Mujeidil. This is the point of intersection. The south-western boundary of the area of the Arab State in Galilee takes a line from this point, passing northwards along the eastern boundaries of Sarid and Gevat to the north-eastern corner of Nahalal, proceeding thence across the land of Kefar ha Horesh to a central point on the southern boundary of the village of ‘Ilut, thence westwards along that village boundary to the eastern boundary of Beit Lahm, thence northwards and north-eastwards along its western boundary to the north-eastern corner of Waldheim and thence north-westwards across the village lands of Shafa ‘Amr to the southeastern corner of Ramat Yohanan. From here it runs due north-north-east to a point on the Shafa ‘Amr-Haifa road, west of its junction with the road of I’billin. From there it proceeds north-east to a point on the southern boundary of I’billin situated to the west of the I’billin-Birwa road. Thence along that boundary to its westernmost point, whence it turns to the north, follows across the village land of Tamra to the north-westernmost corner and along the western boundary of Julis until it reaches the Acre-Safad road. It then runs westwards along the southern side of the Safad-Acre road to the Galilee-Haifa District boundary, from which point it follows that boundary to the sea.

    The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River at the Wadi Malih south-east of Beisan and runs due west to meet the Beisan-Jericho road and then follows the western side of that road in a north-westerly direction to the junction of the boundaries of the Sub-Districts of Beisan, Nablus, and Jenin. From that point it follows the Nablus-Jenin sub-District boundary westwards for a distance of about three kilometres and then turns north-westwards, passing to the east of the built-up areas of the villages of Jalbun and Faqqu’a, to the boundary of the Sub-Districts of Jenin and Beisan at a point northeast of Nuris. Thence it proceeds first northwestwards to a point due north of the built-up area of Zie’in and then westwards to the Afula-Jenin railway, thence north-westwards along the District boundary line to the point of intersection on the Hejaz railway. From here the boundary runs southwestwards, including the built-up area and some of the land of the village of Kh. Lid in the Arab State to cross the Haifa-Jenin road at a point on the district boundary between Haifa and Samaria west of El- Mansi. It follows this boundary to the southernmost point of the village of El-Buteimat. From here it follows the northern and eastern boundaries of the village of Ar’ara rejoining the Haifa-Samaria district boundary at Wadi ‘Ara, and thence proceeding south-south-westwards in an approximately straight line joining up with the western boundary of Qaqun to a point east of the railway line on the eastern boundary of Qaqun village. From here it runs along the railway line some distance to the east of it to a point just east of the Tulkarm railway station. Thence the boundary follows a line half-way between the railway and the Tulkarm-Qalqiliya-Jaljuliya and Ras El-Ein road to a point just east of Ras El-Ein station, whence it proceeds along the railway some distance to the east of it to the point on the railway line south of the junction of the Haifa-Lydda and Beit Nabala lines, whence it proceeds along the southern border of Lydda airport to its south-west corner, thence in a south-westerly direction to a point just west of the built-up area of Sarafand El ‘Amar, whence it turns south, passing just to the west of the built-up area of Abu El-Fadil to the north-east corner of the lands of Beer Ya’aqov. (The boundary line should be so demarcated as to allow direct access from the Arab State to the airport.) Thence the boundary line follows the western and southern boundaries of Ramle village, to the north-east corner of El Na’ana village, thence in a straight line to the southernmost point of El Barriya, along the eastern boundary of that village and the southern boundary of ‘Innaba village. Thence it turns north to follow the southern side of the Jaffa-Jerusalem road until El-Qubab, whence it follows the road to the boundary of Abu-Shusha. It runs along the eastern boundaries of Abu Shusha, Seidun, Hulda to the southernmost point of Hulda, thence westwards in a straight line to the north-eastern corner of Umm Kalkha, thence following the northern boundaries of Umm Kalkha, Qazaza and the northern and western boundaries of Mukhezin to the Gaza District boundary and thence runs across the village lands of El-Mismiya El-Kabira, and Yasur to the southern point of intersection, which is midway between the built-up areas of Yasur and Batani Sharqi.

    From the southern point of intersection the boundary lines run north-westwards between the villages of Gan Yavne and Barqa to the sea at a point half way between Nabi Yunis and Minat El-Qila, and south-eastwards to a point west of Qastina, whence it turns in a south-westerly direction, passing to the east of the built-up areas of Es Sawafir Esh Sharqiya and ‘Ibdis. From the south-east corner of ‘Ibdis village it runs to a point southwest of the built-up area of Beit ‘Affa, crossing the Hebron-El-Majdal road just to the west of the built-up area of ‘Iraq Suweidan. Thence it proceeds southward along the western village boundary of El-Faluja to the Beersheba Sub-District boundary. It then runs across the tribal lands of ‘Arab El-Jubarat to a point on the boundary between the Sub-Districts of Beersheba and Hebron north of Kh. Khuweilifa, whence it proceeds in a south-westerly direction to a point on the Beersheba-Gaza main road two kilometres to the north-west of the town. It then turns south-eastwards to reach Wadi Sab’ at a point situated one kilometer to the west of it. From here it turns north-eastwards and proceeds along Wadi Sab’ and along the Beersheba-Hebron road for a distance of one kilometer, whence it turns eastwards and runs in a straight line to Kh. Kuseifa to join the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary. It then follows the Beersheba-Hebron boundary eastwards to a point north of Ras Ez-Zuweira, only departing from it so as to cut across the base of the indentation between vertical grid lines 150 and 160.

    About five kilometres north-east of Ras Ez-Zuweira it turns north, excluding from the Arab State a strip along the coast of the Dead Sea not more than seven kilometres in depth, as far as ‘Ein Geddi, whence it turns due east to join the Transjordan frontier in the Dead Sea.

    The northern boundary of the Arab section of the coastal plain runs from a point between Minat El-Qila and Nabi Yunis, passing between the built-up areas of Gan Yavne and Barqa to the point of intersection. From here it turns south-westwards, running across the lands of Batani Sharqi, along the eastern boundary of the lands of Beit Daras and across the lands of Julis, leaving the built-up areas of Batani Sharqi and Julis to the westwards, as far as the north-west corner of the lands of Beit-Tima. Thence it runs east of El-Jiya across the village lands of El-Barbara along the eastern boundaries of the villages of Beit Jirja, Deir Suneid and Dimra. From the south-east corner of Dimra the boundary passes across the lands of Beit Hanun, leaving the Jewish lands of Nir-Am to the eastwards. From the south-east corner of Beit Hanun the line runs south-west to a point south of the parallel grid line 100, then turns north-west for two kilometres, turning again in a southwesterly direction and continuing in an almost straight line to the north-west corner of the village lands of Kirbet Ikhza’a. From there it follows the boundary line of this village to its southernmost point. It then runs in a southerly direction along the vertical grid line 90 to its junction with the horizontal grid line 70. It then turns south-eastwards to Kh. El-Ruheiba and then proceeds in a southerly direction to a point known as El-Baha, beyond which it crosses the Beersheba-EI ‘Auja main road to the west of Kh. El-Mushrifa. From there it joins Wadi El-Zaiyatin just to the west of El-Subeita. From there it turns to the north-east and then to the south-east following this Wadi and passes to the east of ‘Abda to join Wadi Nafkh. It then bulges to the south-west along Wadi Nafkh, Wadi ‘Ajrim and Wadi Lassan to the point where Wadi Lassan crosses the Egyptian frontier.

    The area of the Arab enclave of Jaffa consists of that part of the town-planning area of Jaffa which lies to the west of the Jewish quarters lying south of Tel-Aviv, to the west of the continuation of Herzl street up to its junction with the Jaffa-Jerusalem road, to the south-west of the section of the Jaffa-Jerusalem road lying south-east of that junction, to the west of Miqve Yisrael lands, to the northwest of Holon local council area, to the north of the line linking up the north-west corner of Holon with the northeast corner of Bat Yam local council area and to the north of Bat Yam local council area. The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State.

    B. THE JEWISH STATE

    The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan. It includes the whole of the Huleh Basin, Lake Tiberias, the whole of the Beisan Sub-District, the boundary line being extended to the crest of the Gilboa mountains and the Wadi Malih. From there the Jewish State extends north-west, following the boundary described in respect of the Arab State. The Jewish section of the coastal plain extends from a point between Minat El-Qila and Nabi Yunis in the Gaza Sub-District and includes the towns of Haifa and Tel-Aviv, leaving Jaffa as an enclave of the Arab State. The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.

    The Beersheba area comprises the whole of the Beersheba Sub-District, including the Negeb and the eastern part of the Gaza Sub-District, but excluding the town of Beersheba and those areas described in respect of the Arab State. It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary line to ‘Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

    C. THE CITY OF JERUSALEM

    The boundaries of the City of Jerusalem are as defined in the recommendations on the City of Jerusalem. (See Part III, section B, below).

    Part III. – City of Jerusalem(5)

    A. SPECIAL REGIME

    The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations. The Trusteeship Council shall be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority on behalf of the United Nations.

    B. BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY

    The City of Jerusalem shall include the present municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns, the most eastern of which shall be Abu Dis; the most southern, Bethlehem; the most western, ‘Ein Karim (including also the built-up area of Motsa); and the most northern Shu’fat, as indicated on the attached sketch-map (annex B).

    C. STATUTE OF THE CITY

    The Trusteeship Council shall, within five months of the approval of the present plan, elaborate and approve a detailed statute of the City which shall contain, inter alia, the substance of the following provisions:

    Government machinery; special objectives. The Administering Authority in discharging its administrative obligations shall pursue the following special objectives:

    To protect and to preserve the unique spiritual and religious interests located in the city of the three great monotheistic faiths throughout the world, Christian, Jewish and Moslem; to this end to ensure that order and peace, and especially religious peace, reign in Jerusalem;

    To foster cooperation among all the inhabitants of the city in their own interests as well as in order to encourage and support the peaceful development of the mutual relations between the two Palestinian peoples throughout the Holy Land; to promote the security, well-being and any constructive measures of development of the residents having regard to the special circumstances and customs of the various peoples and communities.

    Governor and Administrative staff. A Governor of the City of Jerusalem shall be appointed by the Trusteeship Council and shall be responsible to it. He shall be selected on the basis of special qualifications and without regard to nationality. He shall not, however, be a citizen of either State in Palestine.

    The Governor shall represent the United Nations in the City and shall exercise on their behalf all powers of administration, including the conduct of external affairs. He shall be assisted by an administrative staff classed as international officers in the meaning of Article 100 of the Charter and chosen whenever practicable from the residents of the city and of the rest of Palestine on a non-discriminatory basis. A detailed plan for the organization of the administration of the city shall be submitted by the Governor to the Trusteeship Council and duly approved by it.

    3. Local autonomy

    The existing local autonomous units in the territory of the city (villages, townships and municipalities) shall enjoy wide powers of local government and administration.

    The Governor shall study and submit for the consideration and decision of the Trusteeship Council a plan for the establishment of special town units consisting, respectively, of the Jewish and Arab sections of new Jerusalem. The new town units shall continue to form part the present municipality of Jerusalem.

    Security measures

    The City of Jerusalem shall be demilitarized; neutrality shall be declared and preserved, and no para-military formations, exercises or activities shall be permitted within its borders.

    Should the administration of the City of Jerusalem be seriously obstructed or prevented by the non-cooperation or interference of one or more sections of the population the Governor shall have authority to take such measures as may be necessary to restore the effective functioning of administration.

    To assist in the maintenance of internal law and order, especially for the protection of the Holy Places and religious buildings and sites in the city, the Governor shall organize a special police force of adequate strength, the members of which shall be recruited outside of Palestine. The Governor shall be empowered to direct such budgetary provision as may be necessary for the maintenance of this force.

    Legislative Organization.

    A Legislative Council, elected by adult residents of the city irrespective of nationality on the basis of universal and secret suffrage and proportional representation, shall have powers of legislation and taxation. No legislative measures shall, however, conflict or interfere with the provisions which will be set forth in the Statute of the City, nor shall any law, regulation, or official action prevail over them. The Statute shall grant to the Governor a right of vetoing bills inconsistent with the provisions referred to in the preceding sentence. It shall also empower him to promulgate temporary ordinances in case the Council fails to adopt in time a bill deemed essential to the normal functioning of the administration.

    Administration of Justice.

    The Statute shall provide for the establishment of an independent judiciary system, including a court of appeal. All the inhabitants of the city shall be subject to it.

    Economic Union and Economic Regime.

    The City of Jerusalem shall be included in the Economic Union of Palestine and be bound by all stipulations of the undertaking and of any treaties issued therefrom, as well as by the decisions of the Joint Economic Board. The headquarters of the Economic Board shall be established in the territory City. The Statute shall provide for the regulation of economic matters not falling within the regime of the Economic Union, on the basis of equal treatment and non-discrimination for all members of thc United Nations and their nationals.

    Freedom of Transit and Visit: Control of residents.

    Subject to considerations of security, and of economic welfare as determined by the Governor under the directions of the Trusteeship Council, freedom of entry into, and residence within the borders of the City shall be guaranteed for the residents or citizens of the Arab and Jewish States. Immigration into, and residence within, the borders of the city for nationals of other States shall be controlled by the Governor under the directions of the Trusteeship Council.

    Relations with Arab and Jewish States. Representatives of the Arab and Jewish States shall be accredited to the Governor of the City and charged with the protection of the interests of their States and nationals in connection with the international administration of thc City.

    Official languages.

    Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of the city. This will not preclude the adoption of one or more additional working languages, as may be required.

    Citizenship.

    All the residents shall become ipso facto citizens of the City of Jerusalem unless they opt for citizenship of the State of which they have been citizens or, if Arabs or Jews, have filed notice of intention to become citizens of the Arab or Jewish State respectively, according to Part 1, section B, paragraph 9, of this Plan.

    The Trusteeship Council shall make arrangements for consular protection of the citizens of the City outside its territory.

    Freedoms of citizens

    Subject only to the requirements of public order and morals, the inhabitants of the City shall be ensured the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of conscience, religion and worship, language, education, speech and press, assembly and association, and petition.

    No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the grounds of race, religion, language or sex.

    All persons within the City shall be entitled to equal protection of the laws.

    The family law and personal status of the various persons and communities and their religious interests, including endowments, shall be respected.

    Except as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government, no measure shall be taken to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of religious or charitable bodies of all faiths or to discriminate against any representative or member of these bodies on the ground of his religion or nationality.

    The City shall ensure adequate primary and secondary education for the Arab and Jewish communities respectively, in their own languages and in accordance with their cultural traditions.

    The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the City may impose, shall not be denied or impaired. Foreign educational establishments shall continue their activity on the basis of their existing rights.

    No restriction shall be imposed on the free use by any inhabitant of the City of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, in religion, in the Press or in publications of any kind, or at public meetings.

    Holy Places Existing rights in respect of Holy Places and religious buildings or sites shall not be denied or impaired.

    Free access to the Holy Places and religious buildings or sites and the free exercise of worship shall be secured in conformity with existing rights and subject to the requirements of public order and decorum.

    Holy Places and religious buildings or sites shall be preserved. No act shall be permitted which may in any way impair their sacred character. If at any time it appears to the Governor that any particular Holy Place, religious building or site is in need of urgent repair, the Governor may call upon the community or communities concerned to carry out such repair. The Governor may carry it out himself at the expense of the community or communities concerned if no action is taken within a reasonable time.

    No taxation shall be levied in respect of any Holy Place, religious building or site which was exempt from taxation on the date of the creation of the City. No change in the incidence of such taxation shall be made which would either discriminate between the owners or occupiers of Holy Places, religious buildings or sites or would place such owners or occupiers in a position less favourable in relation to the general incidence of taxation than existed at the time of the adoption of the Assembly’s recommendations.

    Special powers of the Governor in respect of the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites in the City and in any part of Palestine.

    The protection of the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites located in the City of Jerusalem shall be a special concern of the Governor. With relation to such places, buildings and sites in Palestine outside the city, the Governor shall determine, on the ground of powers granted to him by the Constitution of both States, whether the provisions of the Constitution of the Arab and Jewish States in Palestine dealing therewith and the religious rights appertaining thereto are being properly applied and respected.

    The Governor shall also be empowered to make decisions on the basis of existing rights in cases of disputes which may arise between the different religious communities or the rites of a religious community in respect of the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites in any part of Palestine.

    In this task he may be assisted by a consultative council of representatives of different denominations acting in an advisory capacity.

    D. DURATION OF THE SPECIAL REGIME

    The Statute elaborated by the Trusteeship Council the aforementioned principles shall come into force not later than 1 October 1948. It shall remain in force in the first instance for a period of ten years, unless the Trusteeship Council finds it necessary to undertake a re-examination of these provisions at an earlier date. After the expiration of this period the whole scheme shall be subject to examination by the Trusteeship Council in the light of experience acquired with its functioning. The residents the City shall be then free to express by means of a referendum their wishes as to possible modifications of regime of the City.

    Part IV. Capitulations

    States whose nationals have in the past enjoyed in Palestine the privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the benefits of consular jurisdiction and protection, as formerly enjoyed by capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, are invited to renounce any right pertaining to them to the re-establishment of such privileges and immunities in the proposed Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem.

    Adopted at the 128th plenary meeting:

    In favour: 33

    Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R., Union of South Africa, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela.

    Against: 13

    Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

    Abstained: 10

    Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

     


    (1) See Official Records of the General Assembly, Second Session Supplement No. 11,Volumes l-lV. Return to Text

    * At its hundred and twenty-eighth plenary meeting on 29 November 1947 the General Assembly, in accordance with the terms of the above resolution, elected the following members of the United Nations Commission on Palestine: Bolivia, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Panama, and Philippines. Return to Text

    (2) This resolution was adopted without reference to a Committee. Return to Text

    (3) The following stipulation shall be added to the declaration concerning the Jewish State: “In the Jewish State adequate facilities shall be given to Arabic-speaking citizens for the use of their language, either orally or in writing, in the legislature, before the Courts and in the administration.” Return to Text

    (4) In the declaration concerning the Arab State, the words “by an Arab in the Jewish State” should be replaced by the words “by a Jew in the Arab State.” Return to Text

    (5) On the question of the internationalization of Jerusalem, see also General Assembly resolutions 185 (S-2) of 26 April 1948; 187 (S-2) of 6 May 1948, 303 (lV) of 9 December 1949, and resolutions of the Trusteeship Council (Section IV). Return to Text

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Noot 76/Israel raast en tiert!

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Noten 74 en 75/Israel raast en tiert!

[74]
WIKIPEDIA
JEWISH INSURGENCY IN MANDATORY PALESTINE
[75]
WIKIPEDIA
END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE FOR PALESTINE
”Twee jaar na het einde van de Tweede Wereldoorlog wierp Londen de handdoek in de ring en droeg Palestina over aan de nog maar pas gevormde Verenigde Naties.”
NPK
NEDERLANDS PALESTINA KOMITEE
KWESTIE PALESTINA

De ‘Kwestie Palestina’ verwijst naar de strijd van Palestijnen tegen het zionistische, koloniale project in Palestina, waarbij zionistisch-joodse kolonisten vanaf het eind van de 19e eeuw door middel van kolonisatie stelselmatig toewerken naar het omvormen van Palestina in een Joodse Staat. Deze omvorming betekent in de praktijk dat de autochtone Palestijnse bevolking wordt verdreven, gemarginaliseerd en dat haar samenleving wordt verwoest. Deze omvorming kent steeds weer nieuwe dimensies.

Het voorafgaande geeft aan dat de Kwestie Palestina niet dateert – zoals menigeen denkt – van 1967, het jaar waarin Israel de Westelijke Jordaanoever en de Strook van Gaza bezette, en evenmin van 1948, met de stichting van de Staat Israel en de massale verdrijving van Palestijnen uit Palestina’48 (Israel).

In de Kwestie Palestina rust op Europa een zware verantwoordelijkheid voor het ontstaan en het voortduren ervan. Aanvankelijk gold die verantwoordelijkheid vooral Groot-Brittannië. Dan hebben wij het over de periode van de Eerste Wereldoorlog, toen de machtsverhoudingen in het oostelijke deel van de Arabische Wereld (al-Mashriq) waartoe ook Palestina behoort, grondig zijn gewijzigd.

Tot de Eerste Wereldoorlog maakte de Mashriq deel uit van het Turks-Osmaanse Rijk. In de loop van de 19e eeuw was dit multinationale imperium sterk in verval geraakt. Dat heeft de deur opengezet voor politieke, militaire en economische penetratie door Westerse imperialistische mogendheden. Zo kreeg Groot-Brittannië aan het eind van de 19e eeuw Egypte – en daarmee het strategisch belangrijke Suez Kanaal – in handen. Formeel bleef het gebied evenwel deel uitmaken van het Turks-Osmaanse Rijk. Aanvankelijk was Groot-Brittannië er namelijk niet op uit om dit rijk te ontmantelen, aangezien het fungeerde als een buffer tussen de groeiende Britse belangen in de regio enerzijds, en het in zuidelijke richting expanderende tsaristische Rusland anderzijds.

Behalve over Egypte en het Suez-Kanaal was controle over de aangrenzende Mashriq voor Groot-Brittannië eveneens van groot strategisch belang. Dit bood immers een verbinding over land – tussen de Middellandse Zee en de Perzische Golf – met zijn belangrijkste kolonie, Brits-Indië.

Deze politiek om het Turks-Osmaanse Rijk – zij het verzwakt – in stand te houden, is losgelaten nadat de Turks-Osmaanse sultan zich in de Eerste Wereldoorlog aan de zijde van Duitsland/Oostenrijk-Hongarije schaarde tegenover Groot-Brittannië, Frankrijk en Rusland (in een later stadium gevolgd door de Verenigde Staten). Daarop veroverden Britse en Franse troepen de Mashriq op de Turken. Dat deden zij met steun van Arabische opstandelingen onder leiding van prins Feisal, de zoon van de Sharif van Mekka (Bewaker van de voor moslims Heilige Plaatsen Mekka en Medina), in ruil waarvoor de opstandelingen onafhankelijkheid toegezegd kregen. Maar nog vóór het einde van de Eerste Wereldoorlog, bleken Londen en Parijs op basis van een geheim akkoord het veroverde gebied onder elkaar verdeeld te hebben en werd de toezegging aan de Arabieren over onafhankelijkheid niet nagekomen.

Zo kwamen in 1920 op de restanten van het Arabische deel van het Turks-Osmaanse Rijk een serie nieuwe staatkundige entiteiten – mandaatgebieden ofwel koloniën – tot stand die onder Brits gezag (Irak, Trans-Jordanië en Palestina) en Frans gezag (Syrië en Libanon) vielen.

Tot ontsteltenis van de Arabieren bleken de Britten tevens ingegaan te zijn op de avances van de Zionistische Beweging – die vóór de Eerste Wereldoorlog van de Turks-Osmaanse Sultan en de Duitse Keizer nul op rekest had gekregen – en in te stemmen met ‘de stichting in Palestina van een nationaal tehuis voor het Joodse volk’ (tekst Balfour Declaration van 1917, vernoemd naar de toenmalige Britse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, Lord Arthur James Balfour). Dat ‘tehuis’ zou volgens de leiders van de Zionistische Beweging als een voorpost van het Westen in de regio en als een waakhond voor Britse belangen in de regio gaan fungeren. Aangezien de Zionistische Beweging in die jaren een aangelegenheid van Oost- en West-Europese joden was, moet dit argument geloofwaardig zijn geweest.

Wat de zionistische leiders echter verzwegen, was dat zij niet zozeer uit waren op ‘de stichting in Palestina van een nationaal tehuis voor het Joodse volk’, maar op het omvormen van Palestina in een Joodse Staat.

zionisme
Het politieke zionisme – te onderscheiden van het religieuze zionisme – kwam aan het eind van de 19e eeuw op als een reactie en antwoord op opgelaaid antisemitisme in Oost- en West-Europa. Theodor Herzl (1860-1904) wordt beschouwd als de grondlegger van het politieke zionisme (hierna zionisme).Door politieke zionisten (hierna zionisten) wordt antisemitisme gezien als een wezenskenmerk van niet-joodse samenlevingen. Joden konden van antisemitisme gevrijwaard blijven door uit die samenlevingen weg te trekken en elders in de wereld een staat voor joden te vestigen. Daarin verschilden zij hartgrondig van mening met joden die actief waren binnen liberale en socialistische/communistische emancipatiebewegingen, die antisemitisme als een facet van een breder fenomeen zagen – namelijk van discriminatie van, en racisme jegens etnische of religieuze minderheden – dat in de samenlevingen zelf bestreden moest worden. Religieuze joden wezen de vorming van een staat voor joden door mensenhand af, aangezien het hier wachten is op de komst van de Messias.

Het idee om elders in de wereld een gebied te koloniseren om daar een staat te vestigen, paste geheel in de geest van de tijd. Het waren immers de hoogtijdagen van het Europese imperialisme. Daarbij richtten de plannen van de zionisten zich op Palestina dat ‘een land zonder volk voor een volk zonder land’ zou zijn. Maar Palestina was niet leeg en werd sinds mensenheugenis bewoond (de Romeinen duidden het gebied aan met Palestina; veel later zijn de bewoners Palestijnen genoemd). In hun plannen was er in Palestina voor de Palestijnen echter geen plaats meer (een lange reeks uitspraken van historische leiders van de Zionistische Beweging bevestigt dit). Om de vestiging in Palestina van een staat voor joden door te drukken, hadden de zionisten de steun van de imperialistische grootmachten van de dag nodig: Duitsland, Groot-Brittannië, Frankrijk. Uiteindelijk bleek Groot-Brittannië dat het gebied gedurende de Eerste Wereldoorlog in handen had gekregen, bereid die steun te verlenen.

In joodse kring vond het zionisme aanvankelijk weinig weerklank. Door zowel religieuze als liberale en socialistische/communistische joden werd het als een seculiere, respectievelijk politieke dwaling afgewezen. De vervolging van joden in het nazi-Rijk, uitmondend in de Holocaust, en de ontreddering van vele joodse overlevenden na de nederlaag van nazi-Duitsland, hebben de zionisten, die inmiddels een stevige basis in het Britse Mandaatgebied Palestina hadden weten te verwerven, politiek de wind in de zeilen gegeven. De opdeling door de VN in 1948 van Palestina in een Joodse en een ‘Arabische’ Staat is daarvan een direct uitvloeisel geweest.

Voor de Palestijnen betekende de Britse instemming met de plannen van de Zionistische Beweging ten aanzien van Palestina een zware slag. Door in de preambule en in Artikel 2 van het Mandaatprotocol te stellen dat de Britse Mandataris verantwoordelijk zou zijn voor het implementeren van wat eerder in de Balfour Declaration aan de Zionistische Beweging was toegezegd, gaf ook de door Westerse staten (waaronder – op het verslagen Duitsland na – alle West-Europese staten) gedomineerde Volkerenbond zijn zegen aan het zionistische project in Palestina.

In de praktijk betekende de alliantie tussen Londen en de Zionistische Beweging, dat Groot-Brittannië de instroom van zionistische joden uit Oost- en West-Europa in het Mandaatgebied Palestina toestond. Met de financiële middelen van zowel het internationaal opererende Joods Nationaal Fonds als van vermogende zionistische joden in Europa en de Verenigde Staten kon in Palestina van grootgrondbezitters grond aangekocht worden, die vervolgens door joodse kolonisten werd bewerkt. Palestijnse pachters moesten daarbij het veld ruimen.

Maakten joodse kolonisten in 1919 met 66.000 personen al zo’n 10 procent van de bevolking uit – vestiging in Palestina was vanaf eind 19e eeuw in gang gezet – in 1929 was hun aantal ruim verdubbeld tot 156.000 (16 procent). Zeven jaar later was er opnieuw sprake van ruim een verdubbeling tot 370.000 (27 procent). De aankoop van grond hield met deze spectaculaire groei evenwel geen gelijke tred. Al met al zijn in deze periode de fundamenten gelegd voor een parallelle (naast de Palestijnse), exclusief joodse maatschappij, gebaseerd op segregatie.

verzet
Palestijnse leiders, hoofdzakelijk voortgekomen uit de stedelijke elite, die zich van meet af aan ten volle van de ernst van de zaak bewust waren, meenden lang dat zij langs de weg van overreding, in combinatie met druk in de vorm van non-coöperatie in het bestuur, de Britten ertoe konden bewegen hun opstelling ten aanzien van de activiteiten van de zionistische joden te wijzigen. Dat bleek een foute inschatting te zijn. Ook na de eerste bloedige confrontaties in de loop van de jaren twintig tussen zionistische joden en Palestijnen bleef het Britse beleid op hoofdpunten ongewijzigd. Geleidelijk aan groeide onder gewone Palestijnen dan ook het besef dat de Britten een even groot obstakel voor het verwezenlijken van de Arabische/Palestijnse aspiraties vormden als de zionistische joden. Beiden dienden bijgevolg bestreden te worden – en wel gewapenderhand. Op het platteland en in de sloppenwijken van de steden vormden zich guerrillagroepen van voornamelijk landloze boeren.

In een poging de zaak politiek te forceren is op 20 april 1936 door het Palestijnse leiderschap een algemene staking voor onbeperkte duur afgekondigd. Daaraan is breed gehoor gegeven. Uiteindelijk duurde de staking 176 dagen. Ook het gewapend verzet, dat zich inmiddels zowel tegen de joodse kolonisten als tegen de Britten richtte, nam die jaren in omvang toe.

De Britten hebben alles uit de kast gehaald om de opstand te breken: arrestatie, verbanning, executie en collectieve strafmaatregelen (waaronder het opblazen van woonhuizen). Ook werden doodseskaders ingezet – de zogeheten Special Night Squads – die leidinggevende Palestijnse nationalisten liquideerden. Zionistisch-joodse strijders vochten aan de zijde van de Britten mee.

In de loop van de opstand die tot 1939 zou duren – balans rond 5000 Palestijnse doden (van wie 108 geëxecuteerd), 262 Britten en 300 joodse kolonisten – zag Londen zich genoodzaakt extra troepen naar Palestina te sturen. Dat kwam slecht uit want de dreiging van een oorlog met nazi-Duitsland hing toen al in de lucht. In een poging het Palestijnse front enigszins te kalmeren, kondigden de Britten in 1939 aan de immigratie van joden drastisch aan banden te leggen en binnen tien jaar de vorming van de staat Palestina te realiseren. Daarin zou de macht tussen de Palestijnen en de zionistische joden verdeeld worden, overeenkomstig hun aandeel in de bevolking.

Dat leverde de Britten de woede en de vijandschap van zionistische joden op. Nadat de dreiging van nazi-Duitsland in het Midden-Oosten was afgewend, vielen joodse strijdgroepen ook Britse doelen aan. Zo kwamen de Britten tussen twee vuren te zitten. Twee jaar na het einde van de Tweede Wereldoorlog wierp Londen de handdoek in de ring en droeg Palestina over aan de nog maar pas gevormde Verenigde Naties.

VN-Verdelingsplan
De Verenigde Naties – waarbinnen Europese grootmachten als permanente leden van de Veiligheidsraad van meet af aan een centrale rol speelden – presenteerden in november 1947 een verdelingsplan, op basis waarvan het mandaatgebied Palestina zou worden opgedeeld in een te vormen Joodse en een ‘Arabische’ Staat. Hoewel de joodse kolonisten intussen in aantal sterk waren toegenomen (tot 650.000 personen) – versterkt met ontheemde overlevenden van de Holocaust die, mede omdat westerse staten hun grenzen voor hen gesloten hielden, in de richting van Palestina werden gedirigeerd – maakten zij in die dagen niet meer dan een derde van de totale bevolking uit. Toch kregen zij in het kader van het verdelingsplan 54 procent van het grondgebied van Palestina toegewezen (waarvan zij in de achterliggende zeventig jaar slechts 7 procent door aankoop in handen hadden weten te krijgen).

De Palestijnen weigerden van meet af aan met een verdeling van hun land in te stemmen. De meerderheid van de zionistische joden ging echter wel akkoord, omdat zij daarin een verwezenlijking van op zijn minst een deel van hun agenda zagen. Dat leverde een bitter geschil op tussen voor- en  tegenstanders. Laatstgenoemden worden aangeduid met revisionistische zionisten (of kortweg revisionisten). Zij maakten niet alleen aanspraak op het gehele grondgebied van Palestina, maar ook op dat van (Trans-) Jordanië, dat in de Brits/Franse plannen aanvankelijk eveneens deel uitmaakte van het te vormen Mandaatgebied Palestina.

Op 29 november 1947 is door de Algemene Vergadering van de VN bij meerderheid het zogeheten Verdelingsplan (Resolutie 181) aangenomen met 33 stemmen vóór, 13 tegen en 10 onthoudingen (1 lidstaat was bij de stemming afwezig). Van de Europese lidstaten stemden België, Denemarken, Frankrijk, Luxemburg, Nederland, Noorwegen, Polen en Zweden vóór; Griekenland stemde tegen; Groot-Brittannië onthield zich van stemming uit vrees voor problemen met moslim-onderdanen in Brits-Indië en elders. Het verslagen Duitsland en Italië waren nog niet in de VN opgenomen. Ook de Verenigde Staten en de Sovjet-Unie hadden vóór het Verdelingsplan gestemd.

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Noten 74 en 75/Israel raast en tiert!

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Noten 69 t/m 73/Israel raast en tiert!

[69]

WIKIPEDIA
THE HOLOCAUST
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

[70]
Tot ontsteltenis van de Arabieren bleken de Britten tevens ingegaan te zijn op de avances van de Zionistische Beweging – die vóór de Eerste Wereldoorlog van de Turks-Osmaanse Sultan en de Duitse Keizer nul op rekest had gekregen – en in te stemmen met ‘de stichting in Palestina van een nationaal tehuis voor het Joodse volk’ (tekst Balfour Declaration van 1917, vernoemd naar de toenmalige Britse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, Lord Arthur James Balfour). Dat ‘tehuis’ zou volgens de leiders van de Zionistische Beweging als een voorpost van het Westen in de regio en als een waakhond voor Britse belangen in de regio gaan fungeren. Aangezien de Zionistische Beweging in die jaren een aangelegenheid van Oost- en West-Europese joden was, moet dit argument geloofwaardig zijn geweest.
NPK
[PALESTINA KOMITEE]
KWESTIE PALESTINA
ZIE VOOR GEHELE TEKST, NOOT 68
Europa was ver voor de de oprichting van Israël in 1948 betrokken bij de kolonisatie van Palestina. Groot-Brittannië, dat destijds het mandaat had in Palestina, tekende in 1917 al de Balfour-declaratie. Daarin beloofde de koloniale grootmacht een toekomstige Joodse staat in het Midden-Oosten – specifiek Palestina – te ondersteunen. Voor Groot-Brittannië was Israël oorspronkelijk een makkelijke manier om controle te behouden over het Suezkanaal en om de joden bij wijze van een gunst te laten emigreren.

ONE WORLD

NOEM HET ”CONFLICT” TUSSEN ISRAEL EN PALESTINA WAT HET IS”: EEN BEZETTING

9 OCTOBER 2023

https://www.oneworld.nl/mensenrechten/noem-het-conflict-tussen-israel-en-palestina-wat-het-is-een-bezetting-2/

ZIE VOOR GEHELE ARTIKEL NOOT 68

[71]

WIKIPEDIA

WHITE PAPER OF 1939

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939

[72]

”The policy, first drafted in March 1939, was prepared by the British government unilaterally as a result of the failure of the Arab–Zionist London Conference.[5] The paper called for the establishment of a Jewish national home in an independent Palestinian state within 10 years, rejecting the Peel Commission’s idea of partitioning Palestine. It also limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 for five years and ruled that further immigration would then be determined by the Arab majority (section II). Jews were restricted from buying Arab land in all but 5% of the Mandate (section III).”

WIKIPEDIA

WHITE PAPER OF 1939

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939

[73]

”His Majesty’s Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. [ … ] His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

The objective of His Majesty’s Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. [..] The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.”

WIKIPEDIA

WHITE PAPER OF 1939/SECTION I. THE CONSTITUTION

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939#Section_I._The_Constitution

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA

WHITE PAPER OF 1939

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Noten 69 t/m 73/Israel raast en tiert!

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Noot 68/Israel raast en tiert!

[68]

ONE WORLD

NOEM HET ”CONFLICT” TUSSEN ISRAEL EN PALESTINA WAT HET IS”: EEN BEZETTING

9 OCTOBER 2023

https://www.oneworld.nl/mensenrechten/noem-het-conflict-tussen-israel-en-palestina-wat-het-is-een-bezetting-2/

Het lijkt haast een wetmatigheid: doe verslag van de Israëlische bezetting van Palestina en je wordt beschuldigd van antisemitisme en/of antizionisme. Ik begrijp dus best dat Nederlandse media proberen uit de politieke vuurlinie te blijven, door niet van de actualiteit af te wijken en een zo ‘neutraal’ mogelijke berichtgeving na te streven.

Geen conflict maar een bezetting

Als het over de bezetting van Palestina gaat, klinkt vaak het geluid dat die complex is, met veel lagen en dimensies. Dat is waar: het is onmogelijk om de volledige context in één artikel weer te geven. Ook voor mij is het moeilijk om hierover te schrijven: ik ben bang verkeerd begrepen te worden door vrienden en familie. En ook ik heb niet de illusie dat ik hier een volledig verhaal kan schrijven. Belangrijke elementen moet ik noodgedwongen achterwege laten. Ik laat de Palestijnse autoriteiten hier bijvoorbeeld buiten beschouwing. Maar ik wil het wel hebben over een aantal lagen van de situatie die Nederlandse media doorgaans weinig bespreken.

Dat begint al met de bewoordingen: ‘Frustraties in Jeruzalem bereiken gewelddadig hoogtepunt’, zoals NRC op 8 mei 2021 kopte. De avond ervoor ‘escaleerde opnieuw het geweld tussen Israëlische politie en Palestijnse demonstranten’, aldus het artikel. Die week begon inderdaad een korte maar hevige oorlog tussen Israël en de Palestijnse groepen Hamas en de Islamitische Jihad, die tot 21 mei zou duren. Maar het zijn formuleringen die je in berichtgeving over Israël-Palestina vaak tegenkomt. Ze suggereren dat het geweld geen daders kent. Geweld neemt schijnbaar uit zichzelf toe, net als de ‘spanningen’ en de ‘onrust’.

Door zulke verwoordingen lijken Palestijnse demonstranten even verantwoordelijk voor de geweldsuitbarstingen in de heilige stad als de Israëlische politie en ordetroepen. Het enige verschil lijkt te zijn dat de ene partij rubberen kogels afvuurt, terwijl de andere partij met stenen gooit. Zo schreef de Volksrant in diezelfde week dat er ‘rellen’ uitbraken ‘nadat Palestijnen na het avondgebed tegenover de Israëlische politie kwamen te staan’. Honderden Palestijnen raakten gewond ‘vanwege de rubberkogels en flitsgranaten die tegen hen zijn ingezet’. Degenen die die kogels afvuurden, Israëlische politieagenten, worden niet genoemd.

De landonteigening van Palestijnen wordt gepresenteerd als een conflict tussen twee gelijke partijen. Maar dat ‘conflict’ moeten we noemen wat het is: een bezetting. Er is geen Palestijnse politie in Jeruzalem; Israëlische politieagenten hebben alle vrijheid om gewelddadig op te treden in geannexeerd Oost-Jeruzalem, waar zij de dienst uitmaken. Palestijnse inwoners van Jeruzalem kunnen ondertussen amper de stad uit, krijgen nauwelijks middelen om een leven op te bouwen en hebben regelmatig te maken met de politie als bezettingsmacht.

Ter vergelijking: extreemrechtse Israëli’s kunnen door Palestijnse wijken marcheren terwijl ze ‘Dood aan de Arabieren’ scanderen, zonder dat de Israëlische politie hen tegenhoudt. Agenten lopen zelfs mee om ‘de orde te bewaken’.

Een koloniaal project

In 1895 wond Theodor Herzl, een van de grondleggers van het zionisme, er geen doekjes om in zijn pamflet De Joodse staat: het opbouwen van deze Joodse staat was volgens hem een koloniaal project, hoewel je je daar iets anders bij moet voorstellen dan het ‘klassieke’ Europese kolonialisme. Europese zionisten hoopten op een bestaan zonder discriminatie na de ‘terugkeer’ naar een verloren thuisland, zonder rekening te houden met de bevolking die er woonde. Ze kochten de grond op van Palestijnen en maakten het hen onmogelijk die terug te kopen.

Tijdens het vijfde zionistische congres in 1901, besloot men dat het Joods Nationaal Fonds, medeverantwoordelijk voor het opkopen van Palestijnse grond, deze grond nooit mocht doorverkopen. Bovendien mochten enkel Joden de grond huren om te bebouwen. Vandaag de dag past Israël een vergelijkbare strategie toe. Volgens het Israëlische recht mogen Joodse Israëli’s verloren grond terugeisen, terwijl Palestijnen via de Israëlische wet geen aanspraak kunnen doen op de grond die ze zijn verloren.

Het zionisme kent veel vormen en invullingen, maar in grote lijnen omvat het een nationalistische ideologie die een staat voor het Joodse volk in Palestina als oplossing ziet voor antisemitisme in diaspora. Vóór het ontstaan van het zionisme, eind negentiende eeuw, was er nog geen sprake van het Joodse volk in de etnische zin van het woord; joden1 waren een religieuze diaspora die meer met hun landgenoten gemeen hadden dan met joden duizenden kilometers verderop.

Het idee dat het Joodse volk een eenheid is en recht heeft op terugkeer naar het Heilige Land, zien we terug in Israëls natiestaatwet uit 2018. Daarin benadrukt het land een Joodse staat te zijn die het bouwen van nederzettingen voor Joden aanmoedigt en ondersteunt. Deze opzettelijke gelijkschakeling van een Joods volk en de staat Israël heeft tot gevolg dat Palestijnen met een Israëlisch paspoort, momenteel zo’n 20 procent van de bevolking, nooit gelijk zullen worden behandeld.

Doordat de staat zichzelf momenteel in etnische termen definieert, zit racisme verankerd in de Israëlische wet. In Gaza en op de Westelijke Jordaanoever voeren de Israëlische autoriteiten de segregatie tussen Joodse Israëli’s en Palestijnen zelfs zo ver door dat Human Rights Watch vorig jaar reden zag om Israël van apartheid te beschuldigen. In februari van dit jaar deed Amnesty International hetzelfde.

Israël is niet verantwoordelijk voor antisemitisme

Een ander gevolg van de gelijkschakeling van het volk en de staat Israël, is dat joden elders ter wereld zonder band met Israël betrokken raken in een kwestie waar ze niks mee te maken (willen) hebben. Het is geen geheim dat elders in de wereldantisemitisme oplaait zodra de verontwaardiging over de Israëlische bezetting toeneemt. Laat ik duidelijk zijn: de antisemiet is verantwoordelijk voor zijn/haar/hun antisemitisme; niet Israël. Maar deze staat die beweert antisemitisme te bestrijden, wakkert zo ironisch genoeg wel antisemitisme in diaspora aan, door het verschil tussen Israël en joden opzettelijk vaag te houden.

Dat zien we terug in de eeuwige discussie over wanneer iets antisemitisch is. De International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) hanteert een definitie van antisemitisme die algemeen geaccepteerd is, maar niettemin op kritiek kan rekenen. De IHRA stelt dat het antisemitisch is om Joden hun zelfbeschikkingsrecht te ontnemen door bijvoorbeeld te zeggen dat Israël een racistisch project is. De kritiek die veel personen en organisaties op deze definitie hebben, luidt dat deze het moeilijk maakt om de bezetting van Palestina te bekritiseren.

Doordat de IHRA-definitie breed te interpreteren valt, beschouwde de regering van Netanyahu – die ruim 15 jaar premier was – antizionisme óók als antisemitisme, met als gevolg dat joden elders ter wereld wederom met de staat Israël gelijk worden gesteld.

Vandaar dat 200 wetenschappers een alternatieve definitie ondertekenden die als aanvulling diende op de IHRA-definitie. Volgens hun Jerusalem Declaration of Antisemitism (JDA) is het bijvoorbeeld antisemitisch om het bestaansrecht van joden ín Israël te ontkennen; niet het bestaansrecht van Israël zelf. Zolang iemand pleit voor een oplossing die gelijkheid tussen joden en Palestijnen ‘tussen de rivier en de zee’ garandeert, is er volgens de JDA dus geen sprake van antisemitisme.

Strategische positie in het Midden-Oosten

In de Nederlandse media hoor je nauwelijks over de geopolitieke belangen die de EU, de VS en de Golfstaten in Israël hebben. De VS en EU zien in het land een ideologische evenknie, waar Israël op inspeelt door zich te profileren als een westerse staat. Deze houding komt deels voort uit de Koude Oorlog, waarin Israël haar socialistische veren van zich afschudde om steun te krijgen van de Verenigde Staten. De Sovjet-Unie steunde namelijk (socialistische) vijanden van Israël zoals Egypte en Syrië.

Europa was ver voor de de oprichting van Israël in 1948 betrokken bij de kolonisatie van Palestina. Groot-Brittannië, dat destijds het mandaat had in Palestina, tekende in 1917 al de Balfour-declaratie. Daarin beloofde de koloniale grootmacht een toekomstige Joodse staat in het Midden-Oosten – specifiek Palestina – te ondersteunen. Voor Groot-Brittannië was Israël oorspronkelijk een makkelijke manier om controle te behouden over het Suezkanaal en om de joden bij wijze van een gunst te laten emigreren.

Israël is vanaf het ontstaan omringd geweest door vijandige buurlanden. De enige manier waarop het zijn veiligheid kan garanderen is dus om zichzelf onmisbaar te maken in de regio. Dit doet het land via militaire steun en door nauwe economische banden aan te gaan. De normalisering van banden tussen Israël en Golfstaten als de Verenigde Arabische Emiraten, Bahrein en (onofficieel) ook Saudi-Arabië, komen hieruit voort.

Het is maar de vraag of de tactiek van Israël op de lange termijn werkt. Uit een enquête van een onderzoeksbureau uit Qatar blijkt dat 82 procent van de bewoners uit de Golfstaten zich nog steeds identificeert met de Palestijnse zaak. Maar vooralsnog hebben de regeringen van de Golfstaten, net als Nederland en andere westerse landen, te veel belangen in Israël als handelspartner én als bondgenoot om in te grijpen in de Israëlische bezetting van Palestina.

En zolang dat zo blijft, spreken Nederlandse media over Israël-Palestina als een conflict tussen twee kampen, in plaats van wat zich werkelijk afspeelt: een gewelddadige bezetting.

EINDE

SAMPOL.BE

75 JAAR NAKBA: ISRAEL IS GEBOUWD OP EEN GROOT ONRECHT
14 MEI 2023
Terwijl Israël haar 75e verjaardag met grote vreugde viert, herdenken Palestijnen het begin van een catastrofe die tot op vandaag voortduurt.

Palestijnen en Israëli’s herinneren en herdenken de gebeurtenissen van mei 1948, nu 75 jaar geleden, zeer verschillend. De eersten rouwen om de Nakba, Arabisch voor catastrofe. De anderen vieren met grote vreugde de oprichting van de staat Israël. Niet onbegrijpelijk, maar het niet erkennen van de historische feiten, het weigeren verantwoordelijkheid op te nemen voor het onrecht dat Palestijnen in 1948 werd aangedaan, legde de basis voor een Nakba die nooit is opgehouden en voor de vandaag in Israël gangbare mening dat het hele land hen toebehoort en de Palestijnen vervelende indringers zijn in plaats van de oorspronkelijke bevolking van het land dat Israël nog elke dag met geweld van hen afneemt.

PALESTINA ALS BRITS MANDAATGEBIED

Vóór 14 mei 1948, de dag, nu 75 jaar geleden dat de staat Israël haar onafhankelijkheid uitriep, was Palestina Brits mandaatgebied. Palestina, voorheen deel van het Ottomaanse Rijk, besloeg het gebied tussen de Jordaanrivier en de Middellandse zee. Het mandaatsysteem was na de Eerste Wereldoorlog in het leven geroepen door de Volkenbond, om voormalige kolonies van het Duitse en Ottomaanse rijk te verdelen onder de overwinnaars van de oorlog. Het werd voorgesteld als een tijdelijke maatregel om deze – onderontwikkelde – gebieden voor te bereiden op zelfbestuur.

In 1944 telde een Britse volkstelling in het gebied om en bij de 1,74 miljoen mensen: 1,1 miljoen Arabische moslims, 530.000 joden en 140.000 christenen.

In 1944 telde een Britse volkstelling in het gebied om en bij de 1,74 miljoen mensen: 1,1 miljoen Arabische moslims, 530.000 joden en 140.000 christenen.1 De Joodse bevolking was sinds de start van het mandaat in 1920 verzesvoudigd. Driekwart van die stijging was het gevolg van migratie. De autochtone Arabische bevolking voelde zich steeds meer bedreigd door de zionistische beweging die openlijk en met de steun van het Britse rijk, aanspoorde tot migratie naar, en de oprichting van, een Joods thuisland in Palestina. In de decennia voor de Tweede Wereldoorlog had dit al tot grote spanningen en uitbarstingen van geweld geleid. Mede daardoor werd tijdens de mandaat periode het Palestijnse nationale gevoel gevormd en aangewakkerd. In 1936 brak een Arabische opstand uit. De Britten, bijgestaan door Joodse milities, maakten er in 1939 brutaal een einde aan. De Palestijnse militaire en politiek elite was gedood, gewond of verdreven. Ze herstelde niet meer van de klap. In 1948, net wanneer ze het zo hard nodig had, was de Palestijnse samenleving zonder leiderschap en zonder militaire macht.

EEN LAND DAT WEL DEGELIJK EEN VOLK HAD

De bevolking van Palestina was sinds de verovering van Jeruzalem door Salah al-Din, de sultan van Egypte, in de 12e eeuw, overwegend islamitisch met gedurende al die eeuwen een kleine maar constante joodse en christelijke aanwezigheid. In 1948 bestond de Palestijnse samenleving uit 29 steden met Jeruzalem, Haifa en Jaffa als grote, gemixte steden waar gemiddeld 30% van de bevolking Joods was. Een derde van de Palestijns Arabische bevolking woonde in deze steden, die een rijk cultureel en sociaal leven kenden met theaters, cafés, sportclubs en cinema’s en zeven dagelijkse kranten. Twee derde van de Palestijnse bevolking leefde in honderden rurale dorpen die grotendeels autonoom werden bestuurd en zelfvoorzienend waren.

Van het populaire zionistische adagium – een land zonder volk, voor een volk zonder land2 – was nooit sprake geweest. Ook al werden de bewoners van het gebied tijdens het Turks Ottomaanse rijk beschouwd als Arabieren en bestond er niet zo iets als een Palestijnse staat, er was wel degelijk een eeuwenoude Arabische beschaving aanwezig.

DOELBEWUST VERDREVEN

Terwijl Israël de gebeurtenissen van mei 1948 al 75 jaar met grote vreugde viert, herdenken Palestijnen deze gebeurtenissen jaarlijks met grote droefheid. Zij gedenken wat toen gebeurde als een ramp: de Nakba, Arabisch voor de catastrofe. Minstens 750.000 mensen werden uit hun huizen, steden en dorpen verdreven of sloegen op de vlucht uit wat vandaag de staat Israël is. Naar schatting 450 dorpen werden vernietigd. De Palestijnse wijken in de grote gemengde steden werden etnisch gezuiverd. De beschaving die honderden jaren in Palestina had bestaan, werd grotendeels en brutaal vernietigd. De gruwel en het trauma dragen deze mensen en hun nakomelingen tot op vandaag mee.

Tijdens de Nakba werden minstens 750.000 mensen uit hun huizen, steden en dorpen verdreven of sloegen op de vlucht uit wat vandaag de staat Israël is.

De grote meerderheid van Israëlische Joden en pro-Israël groepen in de diaspora weigert vandaag enige verantwoordelijkheid op te nemen voor de gebeurtenissen van 1948. Ze legt de schuld voor de rampspoed bij de Palestijnen zelf en houdt aan een simplistisch narratief, dat nochtans sinds de jaren 1980, en het vrijgeven van steeds meer documenten uit de staatsarchieven, werd ontkracht door Israëlische historici.3

Dat verhaal gaat als volgt. Het zionistische leiderschap aanvaardde in 1947, in tegenstelling tot de Palestijnen, wél het verdelingsplan van de Verenigde Naties. Toen de staat haar onafhankelijkheid uitriep, werd de oorlog verklaard door de Palestijnen en Arabische buurlanden. Alles wat sinds dat moment gebeurde, was het aanvaardbaar gevolg van de defensieve oorlog die de jonge Israëlische staat voerde. Dit verhaal wordt verder versterkt door de mythe dat Palestijnen hun dorpen en steden uit eigen wil verlieten of daartoe werden opgeroepen door hun leiders. Dat meer dan de helft van vooroorlogse Arabische bevolking vrijwillig en zonder verzet voor Joodse kolonisten zou plaatsmaken, is echter weinig geloofwaardig. Zoals bij andere systemen van vestigingskolonialisme (denk aan de oorspronkelijke bevolkingen van de Verenigde Staten, Australië en Canada) kon enkel brutaal geweld, vervolging en uitroeiing het verzet breken.

Als de verdrijving van Palestijnen een aanvaardbaar gevolg zou zijn van een defensieve oorlog, gaat men ook voorbij aan de historische feiten dat reeds in de maanden vóór mei 1948, vele duizenden Palestijnen al op de vlucht sloegen voor het geweld, aangespoord door horrorverhalen over slachtpartijen door zionistische milities zoals in Deir Yassin. In dit dorpje dicht bij Jeruzalem werden op 9 april 1948 meer dan honderd Palestijnse mannen, vrouwen en kinderen vermoord. Bovendien toont onderzoek van onder meer de dagboeken en persoonlijke brieven van David Ben Gurion aan, dat het toenmalige leiderschap van de Yishuv, de Joodse gemeenschap in het mandaatgebied Palestina, al in 1938 de conclusie had getrokken dat een Joodse staat enkel zou kunnen opgericht worden mits de verdrijving van een aanzienlijk deel van de oorspronkelijke Palestijnse bevolking. Zonder die gedwongen verplaatsing zou het demografisch overwicht van Palestijnen een Joodse staat onmogelijk maken.

Het lijdt vandaag geen twijfel dat de Palestijnse burgerbevolking doelbewust en met brutaal geweld door de oprukkende Joodse milities werd verdreven of op de vlucht sloeg uit angst voor het escalerende geweld tussen Arabische en Joodse milities en dat van ruim vóór de aanvang van de oorlog. Ook Joodse burgers sloegen op de vlucht voor het geweld en wreedheden gepleegd door Arabische strijders.

RECHT OP TERUGKEER

Nadat in 1949 wapenstilstandsakkoorden werden afgesloten met Egypte, Libanon, Jordanië en Syrië omvatte de nieuwe staat Israël 78% van het mandaatgebied Palestina. Enkele maanden eerder, in december 1948, hadden de Verenigde Naties resolutie 194 goedgekeurd die het recht op terugkeer van alle Palestijnse vluchtelingen die dat wensten, verankerde.

Begin jaren 1950 was bijna 95% van het land waarop Israël werd gesticht eigendom geworden van de nieuwe Israëlische staat.

Israël bestendigde echter de catastrofe van de Palestijnen, door hen te verhinderen terug te keren en door hun eigendommen bij wet te confisqueren. De omvang van de landdiefstal was ongezien. In 1947, op het ogenblik van het Verdelingsplan van de Verenigde Naties, bezaten Joden ongeveer 7% van het land in het mandaatgebied Palestina. Begin jaren 1950 was bijna 95% van het land waarop Israël werd gesticht eigendom geworden van de nieuwe Israëlische staat.

EEN STAAT GEBOUWD OP EEN GROOT ONRECHT

Er zijn best wel wat goede redenen aan te halen waarom Israëli’s – en breder, Joden in de diaspora – het onrecht van de Nakba liever niet in de ogen kijken en waarom het recht op terugkeer van de Palestijnse vluchtelingen voor hen taboe is. Zelfs een aanzienlijk deel van het Israëlische vredeskamp, dat met hart en ziel strijdt tegen de bezettingspolitiek, verkiest te zwijgen als het over de gebeurtenissen van 1948-49 gaat.

Vooreerst zijn er natuurlijk ethische bezwaren op te werpen tegen de oprichting van een Joodse staat, als daarvoor honderdduizenden onschuldige mensen uit hun huizen, dorpen en steden moeten worden verjaagd. De staat Israël is gebouwd op een groot onrecht. In het bijzonder voor het Joodse volk, dat duizenden jaren slachtoffer is geweest en zichzelf maar moeilijk ziet in de rol van onderdrukker, is dat een bittere pil.

Getuige daarvan de recente heisa rond de op Netflix gestreamde fictie film, Farha, van de Jordaanse regisseur Darin Sallam. De film behandelt de Nakba vanuit Palestijns perspectief. Het toont het onrecht dat de Palestijnen werd aangedaan. Dat is op zich al uitzonderlijk. Maar de verontwaardiging in Israël draait om een scène waarin Joodse soldaten een gezin uitmoorden. Voor een natie die doordrongen is van de notie dat ze – het meest morele leger in de wereld – heeft, is dat moeilijk te slikken.

Erkenning van de immorele daden die het land sinds 1948 heeft gesteld, vereist een radicale omslag in het Israëlische denken – een realisatie dat wreedheden en mensenrechtenschendingen niet moreel aanvaardbaar worden omdat ze een antwoord bieden op de existentiële angst van het Joodse volk voor vervolging of gepleegd worden door zij die de Joodse staat verdedigen. Het blijven immorele daden ten aanzien van een ander volk.

DEMOGRAFIE ALS LEIDRAAD VOOR BELEID

Talloze argumenten zijn aangehaald waarom het recht op terugkeer vandaag praktisch onmogelijk is. Het belangrijkste is de potentiële demografische impact. Vandaag leven er 7 miljoen Israëlische Joden en 7 miljoen Arabische Palestijnen tussen de Jordaanrivier en de Middellandse Zee. Ruwweg 6 miljoen Palestijnen wonen buiten Israël en bezet Palestijns gebied. Aliyah, de migratie van Joden uit de diaspora naar Israël, staat al jaren op een laag pitje. Zelfs de oorlog in Oekraïne – een land met een aanzienlijke Joodse gemeenschap – kon daar weinig verandering in brengen. Het opnemen van miljoenen Palestijnen zou demografisch een einde maken aan de verlangde veiligheid van Israël als een Joods thuisland. De Israëlische vredesbeweging zag een terugkeer lang in termen van terugkeren naar een Palestijnse staat. Alleen heeft de Israëlische nederzettingenpolitiek van de afgelopen 30 jaar die leefbare Palestijnse staat, en dus de twee-statenoplossing, morsdood gemaakt.

Het opnemen van miljoenen Palestijnen zou demografisch een einde maken aan de verlangde veiligheid van Israël als een Joods thuisland.

Maar wordt de soep zo heet gegeten? Heel wat onderzoek en bevragingen lijken aan te geven dat de meerderheid van de Palestijnse vluchtelingen, na 75 jaar ballingschap, geen interesse heeft om in een Joodse staat te wonen. Zij verkiezen burger te worden van een Palestijnse staat of van het gastland waar ze vandaag verblijven. Wel houden zij, terecht, vast aan hun recht op compensatie voor geleden schade dat eveneens werd vastgelegd in VN Resolutie 194.

De dreiging van de financiële compensatie waar miljoenen nakomelingen van de Palestijnse vluchtelingen van 1948 volgens het internationaal recht recht op hebben, vormt de derde belangrijke reden waarom Israël weigert de Nakba en het Palestijnse leed te erkennen, er verantwoordelijkheid voor op te nemen en zich te verontschuldigen. Helaas zijn dat ook noodzakelijke voorwaarden om tot wederzijds begrip en uiteindelijk vrede te komen.

HERINNEREN OF VERGETEN?

Het algemene sentiment in Israël is dat Palestijnen zich maar eens moeten neerleggen bij het verleden, het vergeten en verder gaan. Ironisch dat een volk dat, zijn eigen aanwezigheid in het land rechtvaardigt door 2.000 jaar herinneren aan de beloofde terugkeer uit de ballingschap, een ander volk dat slechts 75 jaar eerder werd verdreven, van wie de herinneringen en wonden nog fris en persoonlijk zijn, aanspoort om te vergeten.

In 2011 werd de zogenaamde Nakba wet gestemd, die instellingen die de Nakba herinneren uitsluit van overheidsfinanciering. Palestijnse scholen in Israël zijn verplicht de hierboven beschreven Israëlische versie van de feiten te onderrichten aan hun leerlingen. Sindsdien is samen met de verrechtsing van de Israëlische samenleving ook de repressie op symbolen en uitingen van Palestijnse identiteit toegenomen. De nieuwe extremistische regering van premier Netanyahu verbiedt het tonen van de Palestijnse vlag in de publieke ruimte in Israël en in Oost-Jeruzalem. Het is ook verboden om de oprichting van de staat Israël te herinneren als een moment van rouw. Groot was de verontwaardiging van de Israëlische regering toen de Verenigde Naties aankondigde om vandaag (15 mei 2023) de 75ste verjaardag van de Nakba te herdenken met een ceremonie in New York. Dit is immers ook een erkenning van het leed aangedaan aan het Palestijnse volk bij de oprichting van de staat Israël.

Voor Palestijnen is de Nakba, die sinds 1998 officieel gevierd wordt op 15 mei, een dag van collectief herinneren. Het is ook een dag die Palestijnen, gefragmenteerd in de verschillende realiteiten waarin 75 jaar Israëlisch kolonisatiebeleid hen afsloot, in Gaza, in Jeruzalem, op de Westelijke Jordaanoever, in de vluchtelingenkampen in de buurlanden, in Israël en waar ook ter wereld, verenigt in een gezamenlijke strijd voor hun recht op zelfbeschikking in hun voorouderlijk thuisland. Geen wonder dat de herinnering aan de Nakba door Israël als een bedreiging wordt beschouwd.

DE NAKBA DUURT AL 75 JAAR

Erkenning van de Nakba, verantwoordelijkheid opnemen voor het leed dat Palestijnen werd aangedaan en het onrecht dat hen sindsdien onafgebroken wordt aangedaan, zou een belangrijke stap zijn richting verzoening. Helaas is de realiteit vandaag dat de Nakba nooit is opgehouden en dat een nieuwe grote golf van gedwongen verplaatsing waarschijnlijker is dan vrede.

Het zionisme is in oorsprong, en tot op vandaag, een project van vestigingskolonialisme.

Het zionisme is immers in oorsprong, en tot op vandaag, een project van vestigingskolonialisme: het vervangen van de oorspronkelijke bevolking door een Joodse bevolking. Daartoe moet niet alleen fysiek ruimte worden gemaakt, ook de Palestijnse identiteit, hun verbondenheid met het land en hun aanwezigheid in de publieke ruimte moeten worden uitgewist. Dat zie je vandaag het sterkst in de snelle verjoodsing van Oost-Jeruzalem, in het bijzonder in en rond de Oude stad.

MISDAAD VAN APARTHEID

Het verleden toont aan dat oorlog wordt aangegrepen om mensen op grote schaal te verdrijven. In de zesdaagse oorlog van 1967 werden nog eens meer dan 300.000 Palestijnen het land uitgejaagd richting Jordanië en Egypte, evenals bijna 100.000 Syrische Arabieren uit de bezette Golanhoogten. Maar ook in de tussenliggende periodes ging gedwongen verplaatsing door. In de jaren tussen 1967 en de Oslo-akkoorden van 1993, werden jaarlijks gemiddeld 9.000 mensen in permanente ballingschap gestuurd door hen de terugkeer naar de Gazastrook of de Westelijke Jordaanoever te verbieden. 14.000 Palestijnen en hun gezinnen verloren hun verblijfsrechten in Oost-Jeruzalem sinds 1967.

Het creëren van een mensonterende en onleefbare omgeving in gebieden die de Israëlische staat voor zichzelf wil, in het bijzonder de Jordaanvallei en Oost-Jeruzalem, door herhaalde vernielingen van huizen, van water en elektriciteitsvoorzieningen, olijfboomgaarden, scholen, … dwingt Palestijnen steeds meer samen op vandaag amper 10% van hun oorspronkelijk grondgebied. De acties van alsmaar gewelddadiger en baldadiger kolonisten jagen mensen verder op de vlucht. En dit alles zonder dat de internationale gemeenschap Israël ook maar een strobreed in de weg legt. Israël geniet complete straffeloosheid, ook nadat vooraanstaande Palestijnse, Israëlische en internationale mensenrechtenorganisaties één na één tot de conclusie kwamen dat het systeem dat Israël gebruikt om 7 miljoen mensen onder controle te houden, beantwoordt aan de juridische criteria van de misdaad van apartheid.

ALLE ALARMBELLEN GAAN AF, MAAR IEDEREEN KIJKT DE ANDERE KANT OP

De zeden in Israël zijn verhard. De extremisten en fanatici die vandaag de dienst uitmaken in de regering-Netanyahu zijn daar het logisch gevolg van. Zij bespreken vandaag openlijk de mogelijkheden rond de gedwongen verplaatsing van 7 miljoen Palestijnen. Ze zoeken naar een oplossing voor het Palestijnse probleem in hun midden. Ze vervloeken David Ben Gurion omdat hij de klus in 1948 niet heeft afgemaakt. In opiniepeilingen uitgevoerd bij het Joods-Israëlische publiek in 2015, 2016 en 2017 stelden tussen 32% en 58% van de bevraagden dat het wenselijk zou zijn om Palestijnen uit Israël en uit bezet Palestijns gebied te verdrijven.4 We kunnen aannemen dat de publieke steun voor gedwongen verplaatsing in de tussenliggende jaren niet is afgenomen.

De extremisten in de regering-Netanyahu bespreken vandaag openlijk de mogelijkheden rond de gedwongen verplaatsing van 7 miljoen Palestijnen.

Alle waarschuwingssignalen staan vandaag op rood. Israël zit in een diepe interne, politieke crisis en wordt geleid door een premier die zelf is overgeleverd aan fanatici die geloven dat ze handelen in opdracht van God. De uitzichtloosheid voor jonge mensen in bezet Palestijns gebied, nog versterkt door het absolute falen en gebrek aan legitimiteit van de Palestijnse Autoriteit, stookt het gewapend verzet op. Individuen en groepen als de Lion’s Den in Nablus en de Jenin Brigade opereren buiten de traditionele politieke facties om en beschikken over veel wapentuig. Het Israëlisch leger reageert genadeloos en houdt de cirkel van geweld in stand. Extremistische kolonisten poken dagelijks de spanningen verder op. Het dodental aan beide zijden was in jaren niet zo hoog. De extremisten in de regering steken niet onder stoelen of banken dat escalatie van het geweld, ook in Israël zelf trouwens, de ineenstorting van de Palestijnse Autoriteit en de daaruit volgende chaos en confrontatie met het Israëlische leger en politie, precies is waar ze op aansturen.

HOOG TIJD VOOR SANCTIES EN EEN EINDE AAN DE STRAFFELOOSHEID

De internationale gemeenschap – in het bijzonder de Verenigde Staten en de Europese Unie – kunnen niet langer zwak en zonder ruggengraat aan de zijlijn blijven staan. Ze doen er goed aan te stoppen met oreren over gedeelde waarden en normen met Israëlische overheden, die zich doorlopend schuldig maken aan schendingen van het internationaal recht en de mensenrechten, ongeacht of deze regeringen bestaan uit extreemrechtse of zogenaamd ‘gematigde’ politici. De internationale gemeenschap moet erkennen dat het nastreven van Joodse suprematie verankerd zit in de politiek die Israël voert. Dat het idee van Joodse suprematie wordt genormaliseerd en gevoed door de retoriek van het Israëlische politiek bestel, en dat zulke racistische ideologieën vandaag alarmerend populair zijn bij het Israëlische publiek.

Staten die beweren de verdedigers te zijn van internationale waarden als vrijheid, gelijkheid en het recht op zelfbeschikking, moeten Israëls voortdurende schendingen van het internationaal recht en de aanhoudende aanvallen op mensenrechtenorganisaties krachtig veroordelen. Ze zouden ondertussen toch moeten beseffen dat hun zwakke reactie op Israëls kolonisering van de Westelijke Jordaanoever en Oost-Jeruzalem vrede alleen maar verder weg heeft gebracht en dat de Nakba zich daar tot de dag van vandaag voltrekt. Een kordate internationale respons, waarbij Israël in lijn met het internationaal recht bestraft wordt, is hoogdringend. Anders is de kans zeer reëel dat we binnenkort getuigen zijn van een nieuwe oorlog die zal aangegrepen worden om miljoenen Palestijnen uit hun land te verdrijven.

EINDNOTEN

  1. A Survey of Palestine prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the Information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry. Vols. I, II and III 1946. (Printed by the Government Printer, Palestine.), pg. 142.
  2. Een uitspraak die vaak wordt toegeschreven aan de eerste zionisten, maar die ruim daarvoor (begin van de 19de eeuw) al circuleerde onder Britse evangelische christenen die ijverden voor het actief vervullen van de Bijbelse belofte over de terugkeer van de Messias. Dit zogenaamd – Christian zionism – zou ook Britse toppolitici gemotiveerd hebben in hun steun voor de Balfour Declaration.
  3. Zie onder meer: Morris, B., 1987. The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949. Cambridge University Press. & Pappé, I., 2006. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Oneworld Publications Limited, Oxford.
  4. Beirnart, P., 2023. Could Israel carry out another Nakba? Jewish Currents. 19.04.2023 https://jewishcurrents.org/could-israel-carry-out-another-Nakba
NPK
[PALESTINA KOMITEE]
KWESTIE PALESTINA

De ‘Kwestie Palestina’ verwijst naar de strijd van Palestijnen tegen het zionistische, koloniale project in Palestina, waarbij zionistisch-joodse kolonisten vanaf het eind van de 19e eeuw door middel van kolonisatie stelselmatig toewerken naar het omvormen van Palestina in een Joodse Staat. Deze omvorming betekent in de praktijk dat de autochtone Palestijnse bevolking wordt verdreven, gemarginaliseerd en dat haar samenleving wordt verwoest. Deze omvorming kent steeds weer nieuwe dimensies.

Het voorafgaande geeft aan dat de Kwestie Palestina niet dateert – zoals menigeen denkt – van 1967, het jaar waarin Israel de Westelijke Jordaanoever en de Strook van Gaza bezette, en evenmin van 1948, met de stichting van de Staat Israel en de massale verdrijving van Palestijnen uit Palestina’48 (Israel).

In de Kwestie Palestina rust op Europa een zware verantwoordelijkheid voor het ontstaan en het voortduren ervan. Aanvankelijk gold die verantwoordelijkheid vooral Groot-Brittannië. Dan hebben wij het over de periode van de Eerste Wereldoorlog, toen de machtsverhoudingen in het oostelijke deel van de Arabische Wereld (al-Mashriq) waartoe ook Palestina behoort, grondig zijn gewijzigd.

Tot de Eerste Wereldoorlog maakte de Mashriq deel uit van het Turks-Osmaanse Rijk. In de loop van de 19e eeuw was dit multinationale imperium sterk in verval geraakt. Dat heeft de deur opengezet voor politieke, militaire en economische penetratie door Westerse imperialistische mogendheden. Zo kreeg Groot-Brittannië aan het eind van de 19e eeuw Egypte – en daarmee het strategisch belangrijke Suez Kanaal – in handen. Formeel bleef het gebied evenwel deel uitmaken van het Turks-Osmaanse Rijk. Aanvankelijk was Groot-Brittannië er namelijk niet op uit om dit rijk te ontmantelen, aangezien het fungeerde als een buffer tussen de groeiende Britse belangen in de regio enerzijds, en het in zuidelijke richting expanderende tsaristische Rusland anderzijds.

Behalve over Egypte en het Suez-Kanaal was controle over de aangrenzende Mashriq voor Groot-Brittannië eveneens van groot strategisch belang. Dit bood immers een verbinding over land – tussen de Middellandse Zee en de Perzische Golf – met zijn belangrijkste kolonie, Brits-Indië.

Deze politiek om het Turks-Osmaanse Rijk – zij het verzwakt – in stand te houden, is losgelaten nadat de Turks-Osmaanse sultan zich in de Eerste Wereldoorlog aan de zijde van Duitsland/Oostenrijk-Hongarije schaarde tegenover Groot-Brittannië, Frankrijk en Rusland (in een later stadium gevolgd door de Verenigde Staten). Daarop veroverden Britse en Franse troepen de Mashriq op de Turken. Dat deden zij met steun van Arabische opstandelingen onder leiding van prins Feisal, de zoon van de Sharif van Mekka (Bewaker van de voor moslims Heilige Plaatsen Mekka en Medina), in ruil waarvoor de opstandelingen onafhankelijkheid toegezegd kregen. Maar nog vóór het einde van de Eerste Wereldoorlog, bleken Londen en Parijs op basis van een geheim akkoord het veroverde gebied onder elkaar verdeeld te hebben en werd de toezegging aan de Arabieren over onafhankelijkheid niet nagekomen.

Zo kwamen in 1920 op de restanten van het Arabische deel van het Turks-Osmaanse Rijk een serie nieuwe staatkundige entiteiten – mandaatgebieden ofwel koloniën – tot stand die onder Brits gezag (Irak, Trans-Jordanië en Palestina) en Frans gezag (Syrië en Libanon) vielen.

Tot ontsteltenis van de Arabieren bleken de Britten tevens ingegaan te zijn op de avances van de Zionistische Beweging – die vóór de Eerste Wereldoorlog van de Turks-Osmaanse Sultan en de Duitse Keizer nul op rekest had gekregen – en in te stemmen met ‘de stichting in Palestina van een nationaal tehuis voor het Joodse volk’ (tekst Balfour Declaration van 1917, vernoemd naar de toenmalige Britse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, Lord Arthur James Balfour). Dat ‘tehuis’ zou volgens de leiders van de Zionistische Beweging als een voorpost van het Westen in de regio en als een waakhond voor Britse belangen in de regio gaan fungeren. Aangezien de Zionistische Beweging in die jaren een aangelegenheid van Oost- en West-Europese joden was, moet dit argument geloofwaardig zijn geweest.

Wat de zionistische leiders echter verzwegen, was dat zij niet zozeer uit waren op ‘de stichting in Palestina van een nationaal tehuis voor het Joodse volk’, maar op het omvormen van Palestina in een Joodse Staat.

zionisme
Het politieke zionisme – te onderscheiden van het religieuze zionisme – kwam aan het eind van de 19e eeuw op als een reactie en antwoord op opgelaaid antisemitisme in Oost- en West-Europa. Theodor Herzl (1860-1904) wordt beschouwd als de grondlegger van het politieke zionisme (hierna zionisme).Door politieke zionisten (hierna zionisten) wordt antisemitisme gezien als een wezenskenmerk van niet-joodse samenlevingen. Joden konden van antisemitisme gevrijwaard blijven door uit die samenlevingen weg te trekken en elders in de wereld een staat voor joden te vestigen. Daarin verschilden zij hartgrondig van mening met joden die actief waren binnen liberale en socialistische/communistische emancipatiebewegingen, die antisemitisme als een facet van een breder fenomeen zagen – namelijk van discriminatie van, en racisme jegens etnische of religieuze minderheden – dat in de samenlevingen zelf bestreden moest worden. Religieuze joden wezen de vorming van een staat voor joden door mensenhand af, aangezien het hier wachten is op de komst van de Messias.

Het idee om elders in de wereld een gebied te koloniseren om daar een staat te vestigen, paste geheel in de geest van de tijd. Het waren immers de hoogtijdagen van het Europese imperialisme. Daarbij richtten de plannen van de zionisten zich op Palestina dat ‘een land zonder volk voor een volk zonder land’ zou zijn. Maar Palestina was niet leeg en werd sinds mensenheugenis bewoond (de Romeinen duidden het gebied aan met Palestina; veel later zijn de bewoners Palestijnen genoemd). In hun plannen was er in Palestina voor de Palestijnen echter geen plaats meer (een lange reeks uitspraken van historische leiders van de Zionistische Beweging bevestigt dit). Om de vestiging in Palestina van een staat voor joden door te drukken, hadden de zionisten de steun van de imperialistische grootmachten van de dag nodig: Duitsland, Groot-Brittannië, Frankrijk. Uiteindelijk bleek Groot-Brittannië dat het gebied gedurende de Eerste Wereldoorlog in handen had gekregen, bereid die steun te verlenen.

In joodse kring vond het zionisme aanvankelijk weinig weerklank. Door zowel religieuze als liberale en socialistische/communistische joden werd het als een seculiere, respectievelijk politieke dwaling afgewezen. De vervolging van joden in het nazi-Rijk, uitmondend in de Holocaust, en de ontreddering van vele joodse overlevenden na de nederlaag van nazi-Duitsland, hebben de zionisten, die inmiddels een stevige basis in het Britse Mandaatgebied Palestina hadden weten te verwerven, politiek de wind in de zeilen gegeven. De opdeling door de VN in 1948 van Palestina in een Joodse en een ‘Arabische’ Staat is daarvan een direct uitvloeisel geweest.

Voor de Palestijnen betekende de Britse instemming met de plannen van de Zionistische Beweging ten aanzien van Palestina een zware slag. Door in de preambule en in Artikel 2 van het Mandaatprotocol te stellen dat de Britse Mandataris verantwoordelijk zou zijn voor het implementeren van wat eerder in de Balfour Declaration aan de Zionistische Beweging was toegezegd, gaf ook de door Westerse staten (waaronder – op het verslagen Duitsland na – alle West-Europese staten) gedomineerde Volkerenbond zijn zegen aan het zionistische project in Palestina.

In de praktijk betekende de alliantie tussen Londen en de Zionistische Beweging, dat Groot-Brittannië de instroom van zionistische joden uit Oost- en West-Europa in het Mandaatgebied Palestina toestond. Met de financiële middelen van zowel het internationaal opererende Joods Nationaal Fonds als van vermogende zionistische joden in Europa en de Verenigde Staten kon in Palestina van grootgrondbezitters grond aangekocht worden, die vervolgens door joodse kolonisten werd bewerkt. Palestijnse pachters moesten daarbij het veld ruimen.

Maakten joodse kolonisten in 1919 met 66.000 personen al zo’n 10 procent van de bevolking uit – vestiging in Palestina was vanaf eind 19e eeuw in gang gezet – in 1929 was hun aantal ruim verdubbeld tot 156.000 (16 procent). Zeven jaar later was er opnieuw sprake van ruim een verdubbeling tot 370.000 (27 procent). De aankoop van grond hield met deze spectaculaire groei evenwel geen gelijke tred. Al met al zijn in deze periode de fundamenten gelegd voor een parallelle (naast de Palestijnse), exclusief joodse maatschappij, gebaseerd op segregatie.

verzet
Palestijnse leiders, hoofdzakelijk voortgekomen uit de stedelijke elite, die zich van meet af aan ten volle van de ernst van de zaak bewust waren, meenden lang dat zij langs de weg van overreding, in combinatie met druk in de vorm van non-coöperatie in het bestuur, de Britten ertoe konden bewegen hun opstelling ten aanzien van de activiteiten van de zionistische joden te wijzigen. Dat bleek een foute inschatting te zijn. Ook na de eerste bloedige confrontaties in de loop van de jaren twintig tussen zionistische joden en Palestijnen bleef het Britse beleid op hoofdpunten ongewijzigd. Geleidelijk aan groeide onder gewone Palestijnen dan ook het besef dat de Britten een even groot obstakel voor het verwezenlijken van de Arabische/Palestijnse aspiraties vormden als de zionistische joden. Beiden dienden bijgevolg bestreden te worden – en wel gewapenderhand. Op het platteland en in de sloppenwijken van de steden vormden zich guerrillagroepen van voornamelijk landloze boeren.

In een poging de zaak politiek te forceren is op 20 april 1936 door het Palestijnse leiderschap een algemene staking voor onbeperkte duur afgekondigd. Daaraan is breed gehoor gegeven. Uiteindelijk duurde de staking 176 dagen. Ook het gewapend verzet, dat zich inmiddels zowel tegen de joodse kolonisten als tegen de Britten richtte, nam die jaren in omvang toe.

De Britten hebben alles uit de kast gehaald om de opstand te breken: arrestatie, verbanning, executie en collectieve strafmaatregelen (waaronder het opblazen van woonhuizen). Ook werden doodseskaders ingezet – de zogeheten Special Night Squads – die leidinggevende Palestijnse nationalisten liquideerden. Zionistisch-joodse strijders vochten aan de zijde van de Britten mee.

In de loop van de opstand die tot 1939 zou duren – balans rond 5000 Palestijnse doden (van wie 108 geëxecuteerd), 262 Britten en 300 joodse kolonisten – zag Londen zich genoodzaakt extra troepen naar Palestina te sturen. Dat kwam slecht uit want de dreiging van een oorlog met nazi-Duitsland hing toen al in de lucht. In een poging het Palestijnse front enigszins te kalmeren, kondigden de Britten in 1939 aan de immigratie van joden drastisch aan banden te leggen en binnen tien jaar de vorming van de staat Palestina te realiseren. Daarin zou de macht tussen de Palestijnen en de zionistische joden verdeeld worden, overeenkomstig hun aandeel in de bevolking.

Dat leverde de Britten de woede en de vijandschap van zionistische joden op. Nadat de dreiging van nazi-Duitsland in het Midden-Oosten was afgewend, vielen joodse strijdgroepen ook Britse doelen aan. Zo kwamen de Britten tussen twee vuren te zitten. Twee jaar na het einde van de Tweede Wereldoorlog wierp Londen de handdoek in de ring en droeg Palestina over aan de nog maar pas gevormde Verenigde Naties.

VN-Verdelingsplan
De Verenigde Naties – waarbinnen Europese grootmachten als permanente leden van de Veiligheidsraad van meet af aan een centrale rol speelden – presenteerden in november 1947 een verdelingsplan, op basis waarvan het mandaatgebied Palestina zou worden opgedeeld in een te vormen Joodse en een ‘Arabische’ Staat. Hoewel de joodse kolonisten intussen in aantal sterk waren toegenomen (tot 650.000 personen) – versterkt met ontheemde overlevenden van de Holocaust die, mede omdat westerse staten hun grenzen voor hen gesloten hielden, in de richting van Palestina werden gedirigeerd – maakten zij in die dagen niet meer dan een derde van de totale bevolking uit. Toch kregen zij in het kader van het verdelingsplan 54 procent van het grondgebied van Palestina toegewezen (waarvan zij in de achterliggende zeventig jaar slechts 7 procent door aankoop in handen hadden weten te krijgen).

De Palestijnen weigerden van meet af aan met een verdeling van hun land in te stemmen. De meerderheid van de zionistische joden ging echter wel akkoord, omdat zij daarin een verwezenlijking van op zijn minst een deel van hun agenda zagen. Dat leverde een bitter geschil op tussen voor- en  tegenstanders. Laatstgenoemden worden aangeduid met revisionistische zionisten (of kortweg revisionisten). Zij maakten niet alleen aanspraak op het gehele grondgebied van Palestina, maar ook op dat van (Trans-) Jordanië, dat in de Brits/Franse plannen aanvankelijk eveneens deel uitmaakte van het te vormen Mandaatgebied Palestina.

Op 29 november 1947 is door de Algemene Vergadering van de VN bij meerderheid het zogeheten Verdelingsplan (Resolutie 181) aangenomen met 33 stemmen vóór, 13 tegen en 10 onthoudingen (1 lidstaat was bij de stemming afwezig). Van de Europese lidstaten stemden België, Denemarken, Frankrijk, Luxemburg, Nederland, Noorwegen, Polen en Zweden vóór; Griekenland stemde tegen; Groot-Brittannië onthield zich van stemming uit vrees voor problemen met moslim-onderdanen in Brits-Indië en elders. Het verslagen Duitsland en Italië waren nog niet in de VN opgenomen. Ook de Verenigde Staten en de Sovjet-Unie hadden vóór het Verdelingsplan gestemd.

EINDE

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Noot 68/Israel raast en tiert!

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Noot 67/Israel raast en tiert!

[67]

”De Britten hebben alles uit de kast gehaald om de opstand te breken: arrestatie, verbanning, executie en collectieve strafmaatregelen (waaronder het opblazen van woonhuizen). Ook werden doodseskaders ingezet – de zogeheten Special Night Squads – die leidinggevende Palestijnse nationalisten liquideerden. Zionistisch-joodse strijders vochten aan de zijde van de Britten mee.”
NPK
[PALESTINA KOMITEE]
KWESTIE PALESTINA
ZIE VOOR GEHELE ARTIKEL, NOOT 41
”Military law allowed swift prison sentences to be passed.[111] Thousands of Arabs were held in administrative detention, without trial, and without proper sanitation, in overcrowded prison camps.[111]

The British had already formalised the principle of collective punishment in Palestine in the 1924–1925 Collective Responsibility and Punishment Ordinances and updated these ordinances in 1936 with the Collective Fines Ordinance.[1] These collective fines (amounting to £1,000,000 over the revolt[112]) eventually became a heavy burden for poor Palestinian villagers, especially when the army also confiscated livestock, destroyed properties, imposed long curfews and established police posts, demolished houses and detained some or all of the Arab men in distant detention camps.[1]

Full martial law was not introduced but in a series of Orders in Council and Emergency Regulations, 1936–37 ‘statutory’ martial law, a stage between semi-military rule under civil powers and full martial law under military powers, and one in which the army and not the civil High Commissioner was pre-eminent was put in place.[1][113] Following the Arab capture of the Old City of Jerusalem in October 1938, the army effectively took over Jerusalem and then all of Palestine.[1]

The main form of collective punishment employed by the British forces was destruction of property. Sometimes entire villages were reduced to rubble, as happened to Mi’ar in October 1938; more often several prominent houses were blown up and others were trashed inside.[1][85] The biggest single act of destruction occurred in Jaffa on 16 June 1936, when large gelignite charges were used to cut long pathways through the old city, destroying 220–240 buildings and rendering up to 6,000 Arabs homeless.[1] Scathing criticism for this action from Palestine Chief Justice Sir Michael McDonnell was not well received by the administration and the judge was soon removed from the country.[114] Villages were also frequently punished by fines and confiscation of livestock.[1] The British even used sea mines from the battleship HMS Malaya to destroy houses.[1]

In addition to actions against property, a large amount of brutality by the British forces occurred, including beatings, torture and extrajudicial killings.[1] A surprisingly large number of prisoners were “shot while trying to escape”.[1] Several incidents involved serious atrocities, such as massacres at al-Bassa and Halhul.[1] Desmond Woods, an officer of the Royal Ulster Rifles, described the massacre at al-Bassa:

Now I will never forget this incident … We were at al-Malikiyya, the other frontier base and word came through about 6 o’clock in the morning that one of our patrols had been blown up and Millie Law [the dead officer] had been killed. Now Gerald Whitfeld [Lieutenant-Colonel G. H. P. Whitfeld, the battalion commander] had told these mukhtars that if any of this sort of thing happened he would take punitive measures against the nearest village to the scene of the mine. Well the nearest village to the scene of the mine was a place called al-Bassa and our Company C were ordered to take part in punitive measures. And I will never forget arriving at al-Bassa and seeing the Rolls-Royce armoured cars of the 11th Hussars peppering Bassa with machine gun fire and this went on for about 20 minutes and then we went in and I remembered we had lighted braziers and we set the houses on fire and we burnt the village to the ground … Monty had him [the battalion commander] up and he asked him all about it and Gerald Whitfeld explained to him. He said “Sir, I have warned the mukhtars in these villages that if this happened to any of my officers or men, I would take punitive measures against them and I did this and I would’ve lost control of the frontier if I hadn’t.” Monty said “All right but just go a wee bit easier in the future.”[1]

WIKIPEDIA

1936-1939 ARAV REVOLT IN PALESTINE/RESPONSE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine#Response

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA

1936-1939 ARAB REVOLT IN PALESTINE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine

”The Arabs rejected the proposal and the revolt was stepped up during 1937 and 1938. In the face of the continued uprising, the British declared martial law, dissolving the Arab High Committee, and arresting officials of the organisation behind the revolt, the Supreme Muslim Council.

Five thousand Palestinians were killed in the revolts of 1935 to 1939 and more than 15,000 were wounded.”

ALJAZEERA
THE HISTORY OF PALESTINIAN REVOLTS
9 DECEMBER 2023
ZIE VOOR GEHELE ARTIKEL, NOOT 63

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Noot 67/Israel raast en tiert!

Opgeslagen onder Divers