Nabeel Shaath

-Nabeel Shaath served as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the State of Palestine from 1994 until 2005.

 

Built on common experience, long-term interests and moral principles, Palestine’s relationship with both Cyprus and Greece goes back a long way. Short-term economic gains should not be allowed to damage these deep and precious friendships.

Over the last 70 years, the relationship of Cyprus and Palestine was that of close friendship and political alliance. Both were former British colonies and both suffered from British manipulations, leaving behind two divided homelands. The struggle of the Cypriots to liberate and unite their land found close allies in the Arab World, particularly in Egypt. President Nasser of Egypt and Archbishop Makarios of Cyprus stood side by side in the struggle against British occupation. For the Palestinians, these two leaders were natural allies in their struggle for freedom and independence. Egypt, Cyprus and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) joined the Non Aligned Movement (NAM).

I remember my first trip to Nicosia in 1965. It reminded me of my hometown of Jaffa. The fragrance of Jasmine and orange blossom, and the colourful flowers, brought back all the memories of the home I lost when Israel was created in 1948; the year that I and the majority of my people became refugees.

As Palestinians, we stood against the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus. I remember, in my capacity as Foreign minister of Palestine (1994-2005), my instructions were very clear: to stand by the legitimate government of Cyprus, and to stand against any recognition of a separatist state in the North of Cyprus, particularly within the Arab League, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), where we had some moral and political influence.

 

The friendship was mutual. Cyprus recognized the State of Palestine in 1988, and supported our struggle for independence and our pursuit of peace. Palestine supported Cyprus in its pursuit of independence, territorial integrity, and unity.

We Palestinians have traditionally had an equally strong relationship with Greece. Part of our ancestral origin can be traced back to the Greek island of Crete. We raise the Greek flag on all our Orthodox churches, to which most of our Christians belong. We will never forget the welcome party in Athens, in 1982, after 88 days of Israeli bombardment and siege of Beirut, killing thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese people. Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou led the party that met our historic leader, Yasser Arafat, on his arrival.

As Foreign Minister, I worked very hard to support Greece in the Arab and Muslim world, both economically and politically. The close bond shared between Andreas Papandreou and Yasser Arafat, and between me and his son George, reflected a long friendship between Palestine and Greece. And that relationship, like our relationship with Cyprus, was not limited to a particular political party. It was a friendship among peoples: Greeks, Cypriots, and Palestinians.

As Greece and Cyprus joined the EU, they became two of our closest allies within the EU, supporting our quest for a peaceful political solution, and standing by us when Israel violated its commitments, whether by continuing to expropriate land and water, destroying the Gaza Strip, or denying us the State we had accepted on 22% of our homeland. Our Greek and Cypriot allies stood by the principles and commitments that brought us together for 70 years.

Lately, and regrettably, these relationships have begun to change.

One understands the importance of economic and political interests in the formation and shifts of political alliances. Today, Cyprus, Greece and Israel are linked by certain issues, including natural gas, oil, geopolitical influences, and financial crises.

We understand. But, such connections are not unique to Greece and Cyprus. Several other countries such as Russia, China, India and the EU countries have developed important economic relations with Israel. Some of them were also historical allies to the Arab World and to Palestine. At one time we felt that their closeness to both Palestine and Israel may be an advantage in supporting the Peace Process between us.

However, short-term changes in economic interests and political positions do not change important facts, such as who is the occupier and who is the occupied in the Holy Land, and which of the two countries is being warned against becoming an apartheid state by even its closest allies. Nor should it change power assessments, such as who has extensive military and nuclear capabilities, or whose income is 40 times that of the other. And finally, one should not forget who has remained committed to the peace agreements, and who has violated those agreements. Changes in economic interests do not change international law, or the sanctity of justice and human rights.

China, France, Brazil, and Russia have common economic and political interests with Israel, but their position on the rights of the Palestinians, and on the necessity of ending the Israeli occupation, has not changed. In fact, as Israel continues to violate international law, UN resolutions, and signed agreements, these powers have become more ready to condemn Israeli actions against the Palestinians, and apply sanctions against Israel.

We were given assurances by the leaders of Cyprus and Greece that their closer relationship with Israel would not change their commitments to Palestine, nor would it adversely affect their historical relationship with Palestine or the Arab and Muslim world. The Prime Minister of Greece and the President of Cyprus both recently visited Palestine and Israel. Both of them made statements in Palestine reaffirming these historical positions. President Abbas was invited to attend the voting in the Greek Parliament which unanimously recommended that the Greek government should recognize the State of Palestine. The explanation was very clear: Parliament members of all the Greek parties, representing all of the Greek people, support Palestine, and the right of the Palestinians.

In the light of the above, it is very difficult to explain some of the recent words and actions of leaders of these two countries.

On the 12^th of January, 2016, Mr. Averof Neophytou, the Head of DICY the Cypriot Governing Center-Right Party, and Chairman of the European and Foreign Affairs Committee of the Cypriot House of Representatives visited Israel and was quoted as saying:

“Cyprus no longer sees Israel as an aggressive country imposing its will by force on the Palestinians, but rather as a small nation fighting for survival in the face of much greater odds.”

He told the Israeli newspaper, The Jerusalem Post, that over the last decade his country which had once, alongside Greece, been among the most critical of Israel in Europe, now had a “clearer picture” of Israel.

“It is a country of eight million fighting a struggle for survival and having to face hundreds of millions of Muslims and Arabs, part of who don’t even recognize the right of the existence of a Jewish state… So which side is strong, and which side is weak? Which side is fighting for survival?”

We were glad to see that the Cypriot Opposition party (AKEL) responded immediately:

“The President of DISY party must realize that it is one thing to seek to develop mutually beneficial relations of cooperation with all the countries in our neighborhood, including Israel, something moreover that was promoted correctly during the period of the previous government, and it’s quite another thing to distort history and reality…”

Although there was an immediate response within Cyprus to the Neophytou statement, the fact that such a statement was even made, and so far not retracted, is worrying.

What is even more worrying is the apparently total change in the position of Greece and Cyprus in terms of the voting patterns and lobbying activities of their representatives within the EU. On the 17^th of January this year, the Greek Foreign Minister almost succeeded in torpedoing the Conclusions of the latest meeting of EU Foreign Ministers, by insisting on the Israeli version in several key resolutions. Statements attributed to Greek leaders, announcing their refusal to implement the EU directive on the labeling of settlement products, were shocking, but they were corrected eventually. Greek statements supporting the Israeli claim that the whole of Jerusalem was the historical capital of the State of Israel and the Jewish people, completely ignoring Palestinian rights to Jerusalem, were even more shocking, and remain uncorrected.

The Palestinian people expect a correction and an explanation. We do not want to abandon our friendship with Greece or Cyprus, nor do we want to see a shift away from the strategic relationships that link these two neighboring countries to the Arab and Muslim world. I am sure the majority of the Greek and Cypriot people share my feelings about our relationship. We are loyal to this heritage, and we do not change our moral commitments and principles for a temporary shift in economic interests. We do not object to Greece or Cyprus pursuing their mutual economic interests with Israel, but we call on them to remain committed to their long-term friendship and commitment to our shared principles. In the long run, these principles are the cornerstones upon which peace, stability, security, and economic prosperity are built, not only in the Eastern Mediterranean, but in the whole world.

January 22, 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If a two-state solution fades away, Israel will consolidate apartheid across all of Palestine.

Op-Ed by Dr. Saeb Erekat, Secretary General of the Palestine Liberation Organization,  published in Wall Street Journal, on November 7^th, 2015.

 

 The only way to stop the deteriorating situation in Israel and occupied Palestine is to address the root causes. Israeli leaders, however, stubbornly reject this approach, instead choosing to blame, attack and incite against the people they oppress for refusing to submit to inhumane discriminatory treatment decade after decade.

Years of systematic violation of Palestinian rights, allowed by an unprecedented culture of impunity, have led to a situation whereby an unarmed, and very young, generation is willing to confront the region’s strongest military.

 This young Palestinian generation, the Oslo generation, was promised freedom when the agreement was signed on the White House lawn 22 years ago. This generation was raised with the hope that the brutal Israeli occupation would soon come to an end. But it did not. The Palestinian people continue to endure humiliation; they cannot travel freely, their studies and work are impeded by checkpoints, and they cannot even marry across the Green Line without severe restrictions on where they may live. At every turn, Israel continues to demand our submission to its occupation, oppression and apartheid policies.

 With U.S. involvement, the peace process was shaped—we thought—as a peaceful tool to take Palestinians from occupation to independence. Nevertheless, more than two decades after signing the Oslo Agreement, Palestinians today have seen the number of settlers living illegally in Palestine triple, Gaza has become an open-air prison, and East Jerusalem is besieged and off-limits to most Palestinians.

Despite 48 years of international statements on the illegality of Israel’s colonialist enterprise in occupied Palestine, no meaningful action has been taken to stop Israel. On the contrary, consecutive Israeli governments have continued violating international law with full impunity, while international trade with Israel continues to grow, including with Israeli settlements.

Today, the most extremist right-wing government in its history governs Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party retained its hold on power in a March election, after a campaign in which he said if he were elected there would be no Palestinian State and that “Arab voters are heading to the polling stations in droves,” referring in racist terms to his own Palestinian citizens. In 2013, Naftali Bennett, an Israeli army veteran and Mr. Netanyahu’s minister of education, said: “I’ve killed lots of Arabs in my life, and there’s no problem with that.” Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely has repeatedly said she opposes a Palestinian state and that occupation will continue.

 Recently the Israeli prime minister even went so far as to claim that the Nazi Holocaust was inspired by a Palestinian leader. Mr. Netanyahu last week retracted the outrageous accusation, but his original statement showed us the mind of someone who aspires to delegitimize the Palestinians and to deny their aspirations to live in freedom and dignity. He and several of his cabinet members have a history of using dangerous words that incite violence against Palestinians. In July Israeli terrorists set a Palestinian home on fire in the Duma village; the Dawabsheh family—18-month-old Ali, his father, Sa’ad, and mother, Riham—were burned alive. Only 4-year-old Ahmad survived.

 In his Sept. 30 speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas warned of the dangers of the current status quo. He also denounced Israel’s violation of commitments made in signed agreements and international law. President Abbas said he would back away from the Oslo deal if Israel continues to violate it. He did not back away from his commitment to achieve peace, to which he has devoted much of his life.

 Painfully, the Palestinian Oslo generation has reached its limit, disgusted with a peace process that did not lead to freedom, but to an apartheid reality accepted by too much of the world.

 As I watch this play out before me, and prepare to hand the reins of leadership to my children’s generation, I cannot help but wonder whether the Israeli people are capable of electing a leadership committed to a just peace. Where is their F.W. de Klerk? Israel seems prepared only to let the opportunity for a two-state peace slip away.

 If the possibility of a two-state solution does fade away—as is already happening courtesy of Mr. Netanyahu—Israel will consolidate apartheid across all of Palestine, pushing the achievement of Palestinian freedom, independence and equal rights beyond the horizon.

Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-palestinian-people-ask-where-is-israels-f-w-de-klerk-1446851996?cb=logged0.573951393166866

By: Gideon Levy
Haaretz, 07.06.2015

Orange or SodaStream, academic or artistic boycott, the penalties will grow worse the longer Israel persists in settling, exploiting and stealing Palestinian land.

What are you defending? What are you fighting for? Over what are Israelis entrenching themselves now, with the assaults of the nationalist politicians and the populist media fulminating against the world. Why are they patriotically covering up the orange flags of Orange with the blue-and-white national flag? Has anybody asked why? Why is the boycott starting to gnaw at Israel now, and is this all worth it?
As usual, there are questions that are not even asked. Soul-searching, after all, is a clear sign of weakness. And so an explanation has been invented that absolves us of responsibility: The boycott fell out of the sky, an unavoidable force majeure of Israel hatred, and the only way to fight it is to fight right back at them. Israel always has an abundance of fitting (and sometimes violent) Zionist responses, but it’s always about the outcome, never about the reasons. That’s how was with terror, that’s how it was with the position of the world that Zionist Union chairman MK Isaac Herzog, of all Israeli ultranationalists, rushed to label with the ridiculous name “terror of a new kind” (referring to the statements by Orange SA CEO Stephane Richard). Never give in. That’s fine, but why? We are fighting the boycott, but why did it break out?
Israel is now defending the preservation of the status quo. It is fighting against the whole world to preserve its advanced school of brutality and cruelty, in which it is educating generations of young people to act brutishly toward human beings, old people and children, to tyrannize them, to bark at them, to crush and humiliate them, only because they are Palestinians.
Israel is defending the continuation of apartheid in the occupied territories, in which two peoples live, one of them without any rights. It is defending its entire system of justification for this — a combination of Bible stories, messianism and victimhood, accompanied by lies. It is defending “united Jerusalem,” which is nothing but a territorial monster where separation also exists. It is fighting for its right to destroy the Gaza Strip for as long as it cares to do so, to maintain it as a ghetto and to be the warden of the biggest prison in the world.
The Israelis are fighting for their right to persist in settling, exploiting and stealing land; to continue breaking international law that prohibits settlement, to continue to thumb its nose at the whole world, which does not recognize any settlements. They are now defending their right to shoot children who throw stones and helpless fishermen pursuing the crumbs of a livelihood in the sea off the coast of Gaza, their right to continue snatching people from their beds in the middle of the night in the West Bank; they are fighting for the right to detain hundreds of people without trial, to hold political prisoners, to abuse them.
That is what they are protecting, that is what they are fighting for — for an area that most of them have not been to for years, and don’t care what happens there, for conduct that is shameful even to some of them. These are the sins and this is the punishment. Does anyone think that Israel can go on without being punished? Without being ostracized? And to tell the truth, doesn’t Israel deserve to be punished? Hasn’t the world been unbelievably tolerant so far?
Orange or SodaStream, academic boycott or artistic boycott, these are light punishments. The penalties will grow worse the longer Israel avoids drawing the necessary conclusions. As opposed to attempts by Israel and the Jewish establishment to divert the discussion, at its heart is not anti-Semitism. At its heart is the occupation. That is the source of the delegitimization.
The nation can fight against the position of the whole world. It can stand up for its rights (which are not its rights) and think that it is fighting for its survival. But do the Israelis know what they are defending now? What they are not willing to surrender? Is all this worth it to them? That discussion has not even begun here.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.659952

By: Hagai El-ad
The New York Times, 31.05.2015

Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is nearing the half-century mark, and Israel’s new right-wing government offers little hope of ending it. Nevertheless, the new government promises something else of value: clarity. And with that clarity, the opportunity to challenge the prolonged lie of the occupation’s “temporary” status. For if the occupation has become permanent in all but its name, what about the voting rights of Palestinians?

Two months ago, on election day in Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel’s Arab citizens were flocking to the polls “in droves”— a clear effort to cast the voting of one-fifth of Israel’s citizens as a danger to be counteracted. That undermined basic democratic principles, but it paled in contrast to the status of the Palestinian population living next door in territories under direct or indirect Israeli rule. They have no say at all in choosing the government of the occupying power that is in ultimate command of their fate.

If you look at all the land Israel controls between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, that area contains some 8.3 million Israelis and Palestinians of voting age. Roughly 30 percent — about 2.5 million — are Palestinians living outside Israel under varying degrees of Israeli control — in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. They have some ability to elect Palestinian bodies with limited functions. But they are powerless to choose Israeli officials, who make the weightiest decisions affecting them.

International humanitarian law does not grant a people living under temporary military occupation the right to vote for the institutions of the occupying power. But “temporary” is the operative word. Military occupations are meant to have an end. And common sense says half a century is not “temporary.”

Nevertheless, that is the basis for denying Palestinians their political rights: Their status is temporary, we are told, until a political agreement with Israel allows them to vote for sovereign Palestinian institutions. Now the chances of that happening are more clear. On the eve of elections, Mr. Netanyahu promised that there would be no Palestinian state while he is in office.

Does that mean nobody in the occupied territories has a meaningful vote? No. In fact, some people do: Israeli settlers.

in August 1970, the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, discussed amending the Knesset Election Law, which stipulated that Israelis — with few exceptions like diplomats on duty abroad — had to be inside Israel to vote. The amendment sought to expand the exception to include Israelis “residing in the territories held by the Israel Defense Force.” In other words, Israeli settlers could vote for the Knesset from outside Israel; their Palestinian neighbors could not participate from anywhere.

In a Knesset session discussing the amendment before it passed, one legislator and peace activist, Uri Avnery, expressed a widely held belief that peace initiatives would soon make the amendment obsolete. He expressed the hope that “it won’t be long — a year, a year and a half, two at most — before the thing called ‘the held territories’ is no more, and the I.D.F. pulls back into Israel’s borders.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/opinion/israels-charade-of-democracy.html?_r=0